Juniors' failure, seniors' headache

Indervir Grewal

What began as a dream ended with nightmarish losses and a stark realisation — India is still some way from becoming a hockey superpower again.

The men’s Junior World Cup in Bhubaneswar, which ended in the first week of December, was India’s to lose, or so it was widely believed in the run-up to the tournament — as if it didn’t matter that the team had not played international hockey for over two years.

In 2016, India’s road to the title had been almost flawless — they had a perfect win record. The victory, celebrated widely, signalled a bright future. Five years later, players from that junior team proved to be the driving force behind the senior team’s historic bronze at the Tokyo Olympics, suggesting that India was on the right path back to the top. So when the World Cup arrived, the focus of the nation turned to the junior team. Expectations were high from the next generation to keep the light of India’s revival burning.

So close but very far

India’s campaign began with a surprise 4-5 loss to France. At that time, it seemed nothing more than a hiccup owing to India’s rustiness. Two big wins allayed any concerns before the 1-0 quarterfinal win over Belgium raised hopes of a second successive title. However, the 2-4 loss to Germany in the semifinals ended India’s title dream before the 1-3 defeat to France in the third-place playoff ended the last hopes of a medal finish.

India’s fourth place finish seems creditable, especially with Covid-19 hindering their preparation. However, the team’s overall performance didn’t raise much confidence about the future.

Due to the inclusion of many second-tier sides, the 16-team event was not the most competitive in nature — there were many one-sided results, with scorelines reading 17-1 and 18-2. On top of that, Australia, England and New Zealand did not participate due to Covid-19.

India’s pool included ‘minnows’ France, Canada and Poland. Despite their opening defeat, India were virtually certain of a knockout berth. It meant that India’s real challenge began in the quarterfinals, where they beat pre-tournament favourites Belgium.

However, it was not a performance to boast about. Belgium were the better side on all accounts but one — goal-scoring. India benefited from their opponent’s wastefulness and a little luck. Belgium had more meaningful possession. They had more shots and penalty-corners than India, who scored from their only penalty-corner. The win only hid India’s deficiencies and raised false hopes. Those deficiencies were highlighted in the subsequent matches as India were made to look like a second-tier side by their opponents.

No Plan B

India’s overly defensive approach in the quarterfinal could be explained by the fact that they took the lead fairly early (21st minute). However, their inability to dominate possession and play an attacking game even when they were trailing showcased their tactical and technical deficiencies. In their three losses, India had lesser possession, fewer shots on goal and fewer penalty-corners than their opponents.

India’s numbers, especially their possession percentage, can be explained by their game style – the team’s primary tactic was counterattack. In fact, it has become India’s de facto playing system, also employed by the senior team. This system requires a team effort in defence, with the forwards playing a crucial role by making interceptions and steals in the attacking third. Due to the lesser number of scoring chances, it also requires a high conversion rate, especially from penalty-corners.

While the senior team achieved historic success at the Olympics with the system, the junior team’s inability to implement it in the big event led to abject failure.

India’s defensive press was not only ineffective against Germany, who are masters in holding possession, but also struggled against Belgium and France. When their counterattacking game backfired, India had no Plan B. The side’s failure to convert the few open field chances they created hurt them greatly. India’s penalty-corner specialists — considered the team’s greatest asset — misfired in the big matches; to be fair, they did not get enough opportunities — India earned just five penalty-corners in their last three matches.

Uniformity missing

These were the key areas that proved to be the difference between the senior team’s success and the junior team’s failure, which also pointed to the lack of uniformity in the Indian training structure.

The shift to the counterattacking system came over four years ago. It took the senior team that long to hone the system by extensive training and competition experience. During that period, the core group mostly remained the same.

The problem with the junior team is that the new players coming into the set-up are not up to the international level. The youngsters coming into the junior national camp are thrown into a new system as there is still a lack of standardisation — in training methods and facilities, and playing style — from the India team set-up down to the grassroots level. While the Indian teams have started playing a more structured game, in line with modern hockey, the rest of India is still mostly stuck in the past eras. Attacking, free-flowing, skilful — these adjectives have defined Indian hockey since its heyday; and that attacking intent — fuelled by the glorification of Dhyan Chand’s legendary skills with the stick — is still ingrained in a young hockey player’s mind.

But there is very little space for individual glory in the modern game. It’s the age of total hockey and allrounders — defenders who can attack and, more importantly, attackers who can defend. It’s the little things — basic skills like passing and receiving — that lead a team to success rather than individual trickery. More than anything else, it was India’s team spirit that won them the Olympics bronze.

However, the modern Indian playing system goes completely against that attacking instinct of a young player. That is why the transition is rough and often time-consuming; and because the junior teams keep changing, the process is constantly disrupted. That also leads to a jerky transition to the senior team. Even at the senior level, the constant unlearning process, along with the strict modern training, is a necessity — otherwise the players inadvertently fall back to their old ways. The recent Asian Champions Trophy was a prime example. The team at the Dhaka event was missing many players from the Olympics campaign. However, all the replacements were players who had been in the core group for some time. The team did not have a long training camp in the run-up to the five-team event. The result was a disjointed performance — with plenty of basic mistakes in passing and receiving, and tactical mistakes like needlessly running with the ball — from a bunch of players lacking intensity and team spirit.

For the junior players, the going is much tougher, because of the lack of uniformity. Most juniors are not mature enough for the senior team and need years to get competitive at the top level. The current junior team players have the potential to become future stars at the senior level. For most of them, though, that journey will likely be much longer than a player from Belgium or Germany or even Argentina, who won the Junior World Cup title playing to perfection the style that had led their senior team to Olympics glory in 2016.

Outplayed in Junior World Cup

47.25% India’s possession in the 2-4 defeat to Germany in the semifinals.

43 India made 43 circle entries in the last two defeats against Germany and France, who made a combined 53 circle entries

4 India had a total of just 4 penalty-corners — which they didn’t convert — in these two losses, against 18 their opponents got

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.