One coach can’t turn it around
Indian hockey needs a uniform system and trained coaches starting from grassroots level
Paul van Ass’s tryst with Indian hockey has ended even before he could properly introduce himself (and his work). Just days after his first big assignment as the coach – the Hockey World League Semifinals – the Dutchman has been fired.
For the fans, following hockey in this country is like being stuck in a loop. Van Ass is the fourth foreign coach in five years to leave midway. His predecessors were either shown the door or they quit after a year or more. But Van Ass’ removal after just five months makes it a new record.
And it has got to be tough on the India players. Most of the players in the current group have played under two Australians – Michael Nobbs and Terry Walsh – and two Dutchmen – Van Ass and Roelant Oltmans.
In this case, with Oltmans taking over, the change wouldn’t be that great. Even though making frequent changes is an obvious hurdle in the growth of Indian hockey, it’s not the main problem.
No system
During training, Van Ass asked the players to pass and receive the ball without verbal communication, one of the players in the camp told The Tribune recently.
It is odd. Why does the coach of a national team felt the need to teach the players what is supposed to be taught at the basic level?
This is just one small example, but it raises a much larger issue – the lack of a uniform system in Indian hockey.
The skills required in modern hockey have completely changed from the time when India was on top. The introduction of a synthetic turf and the ever increasing pace of the game have rendered obsolete the skills that made us unbeatable on grass. Today, you need skills like one-touch passes, receiving on the move etc.
You can’t learn these in months or a few years. These skills need to be taught from the grass-roots level to be ingrained in a player.
In the top hockey playing nations, be it Australia or Germany, there is a uniform system – to teach the technical and tactical aspects of the game – in place from the grass-roots level to the top level. That means that by the time a player enters the national team, he doesn’t need to be taught something as basic as communicating discreetly.
That brings us to the need for a particular playing style. Skill training has to be done in match situations, not in isolation. But unless you know what style you want to play, the training is pointless.
In an ideal situation, every right back and right half, for example, in the country play in a certain style. They are taught the same skills and the same tactics. When the two meet in the national team, they will know exactly what to do in what situation; even if the right back is from Odisha and right half from Punjab.
Pointless training
But that doesn’t happen in India. There is no training system, except for what the foreign coaches teach the national teams. The Indian coaches are not qualified enough and the blame goes to the teaching institutes such as NIS who still teach archaic methods. The players at the lower levels are still being taught obsolete skills – dribbling is a great exercise to improve one’s feel but useless in today’s game. Most players are never taught how to tackle different situations in a game. So very often, when they face a situation they have never been trained for, they make mistakes.
No wonder, Van Ass felt that the players needed a lesson in the basics. But the basics can’t be learnt after a certain age. And what’s worse is that if a player picks up a bad habit during his developing stage, it cannot be unlearned.
This leads to frustration for the coaches. Van Ass’ predecessors faced the same problem. Right at the start of his term, Walsh had said that the players were making very basic mistakes, which cost the team dearly. Before him, Nobbs, Spaniard Jose Brasa and Australian great Ric Charlesworth also said that India needed to develop a proper system.
Why are coaches from different countries saying the same thing? This means that the argument about different styles hurting India is secondary. Even if India hires an Australian coach for a long term, the results won’t change much. He could improve one group of players to a certain level, but when a new batch comes in, he will have to again start from a scratch.
A better process would be to pick a style, for example Australian, and hire their coaches for the senior, junior and sub-junior teams. Then develop Indian coaches who could spread the foreigners’ teachings to the lowest levels across the country.
“India needs to bring in specialists for short periods and build up Indian coaches and specialists. Bring back the specialists again and review. Continue this until you have a fully working programme,” Nobbs recently said.
It is a long process, the one without which Indian hockey would not regain its lost glory.
It is distressing that the administrators, be it Hockey India or the Sports Authority of India, have ignored the suggestions of the foreign coaches for so many years now. Instead, they have gone for the short-cut solutions – bringing one high-profile coach after another.