The Rumour Mill

At the time of writing, we have not even reached the end of the UK high goal season, yet already speculation is rife concerning next season. Recently both the Cambioasos, Proto and of course, the legendary 10 goaler Adolfo, returned to the UK for what appeared to be a single match. This, combined with flying reports suggesting the Cambiaso duo is set to team up with the successful Park Place team, alongside there regular 10 goaler Hillario Ulloa, has resulted in the cynical of us (lets face it, thats most of us) suggesting that this one off appearance is mearly an attempt to find loopholes within the HPA handicapping system. Many have pointed out that, for the proposed Park Place team to meet the 22 goal handicapping criteria, Poroto needs to remain at his current handicap of 2 goals. Elsewhere in the world, however Proto’s rapid improvements has seen his handicap skyrocket. Therefore to maintain this handicap, Proto must play at least once within the UK, otherwise his UK handicap would have been eliminated and he would have been rated next year, judged on the highest of his handicaps abroad. By only playing once, and, you would expect not to his full potential, Proto can avoid the HPA increasing his handicap.

This is blatantly unfair, as now opposition teams are set to be faced with a hideously under handicapped team, made up of two of the worlds leading 10 goalers, and an up and coming hotshot, playing far and away above his handicap. A daunting task for anybody. People are all ready predicting they could completely dominate the 2020 season, ruining it for some, even before the prior season has ended. But this, under the current regulations at least, is entirely legal and therefore unpreventable. In fact, there is only one solution I can think of.

Do we need a global handicapping system?

So, first lets consider the pros. It is true that this issue regarding Proto and his wildly varying handicap is not a lone occurrence. A number of international players do have varying handicaps in different areas of the world, however very few seem to play the system in the same way that the cambiaso’s seem to so blatantly be doing. There is no doubt that a global handicapping system would be fairer, as we have all experienced the frustration of playing against blatantly under handicapped players. It may also have the ability to actually improve the standard of polo, across the different levels. If players are more closely regulated, teams will likely be more competitive and equal, therefore resulting in fairer, faster and more exciting games. This could attract both spectators and sponsors alike.

Presumably, this theoretical overseeing body would also control the regulation aspects of the game. Although fundamentally the same game across the world, small differences in the rules can be seen across the globe. An overseeing body could also help to iron out any of these slight differences and make the game easier to follow globally for both the players and committed fans.

As with everything though, there are downsides. First off, although the Cambiaso issue does occur occasionally, it is still fairly rare. Therefore is it really worth investing in such a large scale operation to fix such a small problem? Some would also go to the extent of saying that polo has always been and should remain to be, partly about finding the four best players off their handicap. With the current handicapping levels, there is always going to be a variation within a handicap, no matter how well people are categorised, meaning people are always going to seek out the players with the most ability off a given handicap. In reality this is just what the Park Place team are alleged to be preparing for, begging the question, at what point does this become an issue?

Furthermore, a overseeing body which spanned such a large area, and such a large number of people would likely relax the handicapping guidelines, especially at the low goal end of the scale, as the sheer amount of people that need reviewing could be far too much for a single organisation, mitigating any of the positive aspects as stated above.

So, maybe a global polo association isn’t the way to go. The scale of the operation, combined with the cultural differences, would likely make this an unworkable challenge, especially when the positives seem so niche and limited. However, more can, and should be done to bring the various governing bodies together. In fact, a closer relationship between foreign polo associations was stated in the HPA’s recent ‘vision for polo’ outline of the sport moving forwards. Perhaps a closer collaboration between the existing governing bodies could see handicaps and rules unanimously agreed on, while small differences and the defining features of each area can be kept the same. Moving closer together, rather then the feuds we have all seen between, especially the HPA and AAP, could see a brighter and more globalised future for all of polo.