K AUMUGAM
The Indian men’s hockey team announced for the Asian Champions Trophy in October has largely retained the squad that won gold at the Nagoya Asian Games, raising questions about the purpose of the tournament and India’s approach to preparing for the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics.
Except for three changes, the selectors have retained the Nagoya gold-winning squad, opting for continuity. The dropped are young Mohit the goalkeeper, midfielder Vivek Prasad and defender Sumit– rather than using the continental tournament to introduce fresh faces. While retaining a winning combination may appear to be the safest option, it also invites a fundamental question: what does India seek to achieve by winning the Asian Champions Trophy (ACT), and how much value does another title add to a team that has already demonstrated its strength in Asia?
The ACT is an important continental competition, but it is not the Olympics. For a team aspiring to challenge the world’s best at Los Angeles in 2028, the immediate priority should extend beyond collecting trophies. It should also involve identifying emerging talent, broadening the pool of international players and building adequate replacements for established performers.
The Asian Champions Trophy, along with competitions such as the Sultan Azlan Shah Cup and bilateral international series, has traditionally provided an ideal platform for testing new players. These tournaments offer valuable exposure to international hockey without the enormous pressure associated with major global championships. They allow selectors and coaches to assess how young players respond to different playing styles, tactical demands and match situations.
Such opportunities are particularly important in the Olympic cycle. Preparing a competitive squad requires more than finding the best possible combination among currently established players. It demands the identification and development of alternatives for every position, ensuring that injuries, loss of form or the retirement of senior players do not leave the team vulnerable.
India’s continued reliance on familiar faces may deliver immediate results, but it risks postponing difficult selection decisions. Young players cannot be expected to make an immediate impact at the highest level if they have not been given sufficient opportunities to gain international experience beforehand.
The selectors’ decision to favour continuity is understandable, especially after a successful Asian Games campaign. A winning team develops confidence, cohesion and tactical understanding, all of which are valuable assets. However, continuity should not become the default approach for every tournament, irrespective of its strategic importance.
There is a time-tested method in international sport: use bilateral series and secondary competitions to experiment, assess emerging talent and strengthen the reserve bench, while preserving the strongest possible combination for the most consequential events. India’s hockey establishment has benefited from this approach in the past, and there is little reason to abandon it now.
The challenge is to strike a balance between winning today and preparing for tomorrow. The ACT could have served as an opportunity to expose promising players to senior international hockey while allowing established members of the Nagoya squad some rest and recovery.
With the Los Angeles Olympics approaching in 2028, every international assignment should contribute to long-term squad development. Winning the ACT would undoubtedly add another trophy to India’s collection. But the more important achievement would be discovering players capable of strengthening the team over the next two years.
By choosing the convenient path of continuity, the selectors may have prioritised immediate results over a valuable opportunity to invest in India’s Olympic future.