Dana Johannsen: Fastnet proving an irrelevant format in need of a serious rethink

It is the second year in a row Robyn Broughton's 'Fastnet Ferns' have triumphed without really embracing the concept of Fastnet. Photo / Getty Images

Chalk it up as a win for New Zealand but a loss for the Fastnet concept.

Robyn Broughton's young team made a mockery of the new innovation by taking out the weekend's tournament without working the new set of rules into their game plan. It is the second year in a row the "Fastnet Ferns" have triumphed without really embracing the concept of Fastnet.

You can't knock the New Zealand team for this - if they can win by still playing traditional netball then fairplay to them.

But it does go to show the new set of rules do not go far enough.

If the international body is serious about developing an alternative form of the game, it needs rules that encourage a different style of play and allows for a different sort of player to be exposed. There are plenty of rule variations that could be introduced to achieve this.

Reducing the number of players on court would be a start. If you were to have five or six players on a team it would mean height wouldn't be such a big factor and it would provide an environment for a more utility-type player, who has not found their niche in the seven-a-side game, to excel.

How about allowing midcourters to take two-point shots as well?

And then there's the substitutions. Seeing as most sides prefer to keep their number one line-up on if it is going well, perhaps there is a need to introduce a rule where teams have to make a minimum number of interchanges.

But first the IFNA needs to revisit what it hoped to achieve from the introduction of the new form of the game in the first place.

It always seemed a curious decision given the international game had not really fully matured under the traditional rules. If the top six nations had the profile and level of commercialism New Zealand netball does, then you could argue the game had grown as much as it could under that model and it was time for new innovation.

This was the case with cricket. It had a mature product so it introduced Twenty20 to expose the game to a new audience.

Netball, however, was not ready.

While it was a questionable decision from the international body to try and follow the cricket model at a time when the sport had not reached its potential, they are now too far down the track to turn back now.

So IFNA needs to have some serious conversations about where it goes from here. If it is serious about creating a made-for-TV product, it needs to make major changes. Or, should the tournament simply be used as a vehicle for talent development?

Let's hope the next step will be more considered than the first, or Fastnet will fast be gone.