How do we understand the battering of India at the Monchengladbach mega event? As a death knell for hockey, end of a tradition, flogging a dead horse, eye-opener or anything beyond? What should we do now? Should we indulge in our national pastime of whining, and getting infected with the sack-the-coach, sack-the-team syndrome. Or, are we going to blame a defender or a forward for all the ills, and rue about a misdirected pass or a late minute goal conceded. Or we will enter into protracted debate as to why an X or Y player was under-used or over-used? Else, just close the eyes and proclaim with usual flair, ‘Hockey is dead’
We can whip a player, axe a coach, and castigate the Federation. We are morally entitled to take head on all them for the Monchengladbach disaster.
Fine. The only hitch is we have done it all endlessly and tirelessly many times in the past. So much so that we have made the sport an all time favourite whipping boy. But no amount of them is going to solve the problem the sport faces today. Never go in for operation without proper diagnosis. Don’t repeat the vexed things that never produced any dividends in the past.
Plethora of reasons can be arraigned for the abject surrender, but to me three factors — out of sync with the times, lack of coaching approach and open death of a particular style of hockey – count.
In no other sporting discipline the rules are altered and removed so regularly and needlessly as in hockey. But this is an old news. The in-thing now is, interpretation and application of rules with different yardsticks in every tournament. The mundane affair of Tournament Director (TD)’s briefing before the tournaments has all of sudden becomes a serious thing among the coaches nowadays. The TD often picks up some provisions of rule for strict implementation while seek to dilute certain others. A new vision is sought to bear on every time. No wonder hockey is not a popular sport in any continent. Umpires, players and the paying public are constantly confused over continuous change in perception and perspectives, but who cares?
Tech brief for Monchengladbach World Cup by TD, Ken Read, is less stoppages even if meant allowing extreme levels of body play. The FIH wants free flow hockey even if leads to free for all! What counts for them is non-stop hockey to satisfy television needs. As a result, most uncommon things have become common most sights here. Players tumble inside the circle, shouldering and tripping is routine and overt pushing don’t invite cards at all. Goals are scored even as injured goalkeepers lying flat and writhing in pain. No time for niceties, as the play should not be stopped.
Indians did not get the pulse. Contrarily, instead of tackling with body as top teams indulged in, they used stick and gave away too many penalty corners and invited a record yellow cards, five out of 11 issued so far in the tournament. No wonder most of the goals India conceded in the dying moments were when played with a player less. Name of the game is body play, but we were too gentle to handle the situation.
What type of hockey does India play? In the first three matches, defenders, midfielders and forwards were in their zones, which helped us to control and dominate the proceedings. We did not get points and this has to do with poor penalty corner protection drills and panicky defence in dying moments. We gifted away matches like millionaires, but the system we adopted did work. For the remaining matches, our defenders were in the midfield and others seen crowded in the rival area. We were seemingly in a hurry to score, but in the process gave away much more elbow room for the rivals. More counter attacks resulted, plethora of penalty corners were generated against us. Had Korea utilized theirs the way Dutch did, we would have been drubbed instead of honourable 1-2 score.
The problem here is not just getting a player here or there. It’s beyond positional play. Statistics confirm that India had a better rate of ball possession, had more attacks than the rivals including the Dutch, circle penetration was double against everyone except England. Still, India generated less penalty corners, got no strokes and finished at the bottom of the table.
Why? Our kind of hockey has been overtaken by the style and system perfected so nicely by some Europe super powers.
The reality is very simple. A minimum of half a dozen players are involved in each of our attack, which often dies at the top of the circle. Because, our give and take approach, slow but steady with body swerve and wrist glide – beauty for some, irritation for many — provides ample time and space for physically superior rivals to group and regroup, anticipate and clear.
On the contrary, just a couple of players and still lesser moves are involved in their goals. A de