After two years of rapid progress under Paul Revington, Team GB were knocked out at the quarter-final stage of the Paris Olympics.
Their campaign came to an end in anguish and acrimony as, despite creating a catalogue of chances, they drew 1-1 with ten-man India and lost the shootout 4-2.
For the first time Revington – who last month tendered his resignation as head coach – picks over what happened in Paris and explains the story behind the team’s performance.
Q: How do you reflect on Paris?
A: We were facing a lot of variables. We were managing injuries – players either coming out of injury or one or two that had little niggles. We were dancing a dance and keeping our fingers crossed the variables would be fine. It was a very competitive group, a strong squad, and a squad that was slightly impacted by one or two players’ reactions to non-selection. We started off well but ultimately in every game post-Spain, we were a goal behind and that wasn’t a situation we had found ourselves in too often.
You add all of these things up and the Netherlands game was a massive physical and emotional effort to come from two goals down and I think it took its toll on us. Statistically we were strong and I don’t think we played badly. People weren’t watching and going, ‘God, this is a catastrophe.’ But from an overall energy point of view, we probably lacked the spark that was required to cross the line. We didn’t play our best, we weren’t dreadful. We were okay.
Q: How much have you raked over the India game? What did you learn from it as a coach?
A: I have watched back various elements of it and the whole thing once. I still would have wanted the group to be bolder and more confident in their play around a packed Indian defence. There are small things, someone positioning four yards away from the gain line to be able to make a small, short, penetrative pass to someone inside the circle.
These are easy things to criticise from the side. When we were debriefing, we went back to our (World Cup) quarter-final against Germany and we played some many times around the German 23 when they were a man down, we were so cautious. 16 months later, we were so much more positive and in a position going, ‘Jesus, we’re wanting more.’ That’s just the nature of where the team is at and was at.

Q: How did you deal with the aftermath and the emotion of the result?
A: My natural tendency was to be more focused on the team and to make sure they weren’t wanting to hang themselves up from a ceiling because they felt they let everyone down.
In GB, everyone makes the Olympics into something so massive so the players’ reaction was definitely, ‘oh God, it’s the be all and end all.’ Yes it is, but it’s not. It’s another event and it’s one that they have to be able to get used to navigating and producing what they’re capable of, being comfortable that this is the way they play, knowing their ability and producing it. This is part of their journey.
Q: Are we guilty of creating a pressure-cooker around the Olympics in Britain?
A: I wouldn’t say guilty, but I would say the athletes have to learn that everyone around them will get into that mode. They’ve got to learn that they can’t afford to get sucked into that. Even though, as a coaching staff, we try to communicate that, it’s very difficult to make it sink in quickly.
The athletes have to learn. Within GB Hockey, the Olympics becomes a beast of its own. I partially knew that, I also partially underestimated just how big it becomes. I’ve been part of Olympic cycles before, but perhaps because we had done so well, suddenly the smell of medals and everything gets added, so I would definitely add that to a list of energy issues around Paris.
Q: The news that Danny Kerry would not take up the role of GB Hockey’s performance director broke on 22 July, five days before the opening game. Did this have a negative impact on the squad?
A: Look, I might be completely wrong here but I don’t think the squad was adversely affected. One or two individuals may have been, I don’t know. From a focus point of view, we were in a good place. When it was first announced, it came a little bit out of left field and I would say that there was a tricky time period. But the squad dealt with it incredibly well and I wouldn’t say it was a concern for myself or the coaching team.
Q: The Performance Director role remains vacant after that decision. Is this the end of your time at GB Hockey?
A: It could be. At the end of the day, from a decision-making point of view in terms of myself as a coach, that decision (to resign) was the primary one made. Have I done my bit in the two and a half years to maximise the growth of the squad? Yes. Am I excited for the next person who grabs the baton? Yes. If that means I have to sit in the stand or watch on TV and support GB from afar, the answer to that is also yes.
This is the first of a series of interviews with Paul Revington