Type to search

One year is too much in Indian hockey, see how?

One year is too much in Indian hockey, see how?

Share

One year is too much in Indian hockey, see how?

Continuity is one aspect that will be conspicuous for its absence in Indian hockey. We are forced to look at this once again on the eve of Azlan Shah Cup commencing today. Nine players of last edition, despite most of them active and achieving, are not here; and also change in Chief coach, manager, trainer and what not.

Twelve summers ago, India played in the 20th edition of the Azlan Shah Cup. Harendra Singh was the coach. Now we have Michael Nobbs in his place.
Jugraj Singh was the assistant coach, he has fallen out of favour of late.

Indian team was led by Arjun Halappa, who also been condemned to oblivion, obviously for his support to WSH.

Adrian D’Souza was the main goalie, whose life has taken sudden turns and twists in the last one year.

Pillay brothers, Vikas and Vikram, were lending fresh air and experience, respectively, to the team; both are now out of favour.
Harendra’s team had Roshan Minz and Vikas Sharma, whom HI nowadays hate to love for their love of WSH.

Even otherwise they were in and out of the main team.

The most noticeable change is in the defence.

Diwarkar Ram, Dhananjay Mahadik and Rupinder Pal Singh manned the defence, now only the last survived to be here.

Mandeep Antil and Ravi Pal Singh too miss out this; again WSH playing a havoc.
In all, nine out of 18 players who were proud Indians last year, are not here now.
Plus, there are changes in Manager – Manoj Bhore replacing Balbir Singh – and some support staff.

Sandeep Singh and Sardar Singh are now in. Yuvraj Walmiki (he replaced injured Baljit Chandi) returns. Manpreet, Sana, Kothajit and Kuttappa are new set of faces.
SV Sunil, Bharat Chetri, Gurbaj Singh, Danish Mujtaba and Shivender Singh lend the continuity insofar as previous edition was concerned.

Over all there are too many changes, due to choice of the coaches whom seem to have sided with the authorities who have obviously given ‘due’ consideration to loyalty (read WSH) than merit.

K. Arumugam

K. Aarumugam

    1

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »