playing musical chairs? Less amateurish are the instinctive ways of Indian hockey administration. Even as Indian Hockey Federation president KPS Gill’s expulsion signalled a partial redemption of Indian hockey, the subsequently formed ad-hoc committee, in its short tenure, has already proved its incompetence and inadequacy .
Nothing is more perceptible than their lack of logic. For why should they have made a farce of MK Kaushik, a sublime winger and coach of Team India that snared gold in the 1998 Bangkok Asian Games? Not that he is incumbent to coach India’s senior team, but that his contract with the women’s side spans till the 2012 London Olympics. So, before naming him as the men’s coach, it was mandatory that the committee sought the Indian Women’s Hockey Federation’s consent.
The committee not traversing straightforwardly, the IWHF naturally rose up in arms. They were not only adamant in their stance of not discharging Kaushik, but also deemed the committee’s move as illegal. In the ensuing mini-tussle, IWHF emerged victorious as Kaushik joined the 40-day women’s preparatory camp for the 2010 Commonwealth Games. On the sidelines, rumours were rife that Air India coach Harender Singh, picked as the assistant coach with Ramandeep Singh and Romeo James, would take up the reigns.
But if the administrators are seriously driven to redeem Indian hockey , it is high time they embraced a more professional and systemised procedure of appointing coaches. Rather than driven by personal fancy, they should first advertise, specifying the prospective candidates’ requirements and outlining their responsibilities. Further, the applicants are interviewed and asked to make presentations, before arriving at the final decision. Most professional bodies, in all sports, follow such transparent methods.
Also pertinent is the time frame. During Gill’s tenure, an Indian coach’s span circled between two major tournaments or even less, though many of them incarnated twice and even thrice. Cornered by the brunt of defeats, he was either sacked or forced to resign. It had become a passé to penalise coaches for the team’s failures, while the administrators are glued to their chaise longue. The most unceremonious was perhaps Kaushik’s case, who was sacked shortly after India had bagged only their second Asian Games gold in Bangkok 1998. Only before six months did IHF sack Vasudevan Baskaran and his team comprising R Parameswaran and CR Kumar, as India emerged ninth in the World Cup in Utrecht.
With the frequent chip and chop of coaches, the players were naturally disquieted. The side was bereft of a settled look. Explains former Indian skipper Dilip Tirkey, who in his 13-year-career has played under a host of coaches. “It clearly unsettled us because every coach was different and so were his strategies and perspectives. So we had to change our style accordingly . At times it was frustrating,” he said.
The ad-hoc committee furnished MK Kaushik a contract till 2010, the year India will contest three vital tournaments (Commonwealth Games, Asian Games and the World Cup). His replacement will also have a similar term. But what if Gill, who has sought court, wins the case and is reinstated. That he will sack the coach and the support staff is beyond doubt. Team India will then have another coach and the scenario will be more chaotic.
Ideally, the coach should have at least four years at his disposal. Seconds former Indian skipper and coach Vasudevan Baskaran, “The minimum contract should be for four years and the maximum six. Two years is too little a time to achieve results. Even if he is unable to produce immediate results, he needs to be persisted with. That is the way it functions in most successful countries. Also, the coach should be offered the liberty to pick his support staff.” But when will the administrators imbibe the virtue of professionalism and transparency? The sooner, the better it is for Indian hockey .