Indervir Grewal

Chandigarh, January 29

It was the first minute of the fourth quarter. India, who had been trailing by one goal for almost three quarters, were looking to build an attack against a deep-defending Japan. They switched flanks from right to left before Ishika Chaudhary burst into a run along the sideline.

The 23-year-old, though, quickly ran out of space. Even with the option of a free player up the line, Ishika passed the ball inwards to a tightly-marked Neha just a few metres away. The senior midfielder was forced backwards but chose to pass the ball into an even crowded space to Lalremsiami waiting near the opposition circle. Despite being too close to two Japanese defenders, the Indian forward tried to force her way into the circle but failed. In her frustration, she pushed one of the Japan players to the ground and conceded a foul.

Strength to weakness

Lalremsiami’s action underlined the team’s struggle at finding the equaliser in the do-or-die game. It also highlighted arguably the biggest reason for India’s doomed campaign in the Olympics qualifying event at Ranchi — the team’s inability to play its attacking game.

In five games, India managed to create just a handful of chances from open play. They scored only four field goals, two of which came against minnows Italy.

After India’s opening loss to USA, coach Janneke Schopman said that the team did not play to its strengths. “We have to be a little bit smarter and understand where the space is. Our strength is not to hit long balls into the circle and we did that too often. I was just trying to tell them to play short because we have the skill,” she said after the 0-1 loss.

But India’s game never got going, and their best performance came against a lacklustre New Zealand, who missed the Paris Games bus as well.

Despite Schopman’s confidence in her team, India’s offensive play has always had major shortcomings. India’s game is one-dimensional — they prefer a directness in attack. Relying prominently on counterattacks, India are most dangerous when applying a high press. There is very little build-up play as they do not hold possession for long periods.

Another handicap is their inability to utilise the central channels, which requires an intricate passing game complemented by set-plays. To get the ball into the opponent’s defensive third, India mostly depend on long passes and individual runs, usually along the flanks.

Despite lacking complexity and variety, India’s greatest strength is their ability to create a flutter in the opposition defence. By throwing players forward, India create turnover opportunities; and then they use their numerical advantage to pick up loose balls from interceptions, deflections, missed passes or missed traps.

No understanding

The main factors for this style to work are maintaining high intensity levels and discipline in execution. But India were too inefficient to create any real pressure on the opposition defence. The players lacked sharpness and made too many technical errors. There were innumerable wayward passes and missed traps, which meant India could neither unlock set defences nor exploit their counterattacking opportunities.

“We created chances but did not have composure and confidence on the ball… we rushed a little bit, we were forcing,” Schopman said after the USA defeat.

The fact that the errors continued throughout the tournament meant the problem was deeper than having an off day. The team lacked cohesion — on too many occasions, the Indian players were either crowded together or spread out to play give and go hockey. The forwards’ off-the-ball running was poor, and when they did create space, the pass came at the wrong time. The basic errors added to the frustration and India fell back on haphazardly hitting long balls into the circle.

The notable reason for this lack of understanding is that many outgoing senior players have been replaced by youngsters, especially in the forwardline, during this transitional phase for the team. For a newcomer, the national camp is a culture shock, especially in terms of tactical maturity. These youngsters will no doubt improve with time, but whenever new players come in, India will be in danger of slipping again. The junior team’s clueless performance at the recent World Cup doesn’t augur well for the future.

The long-term solution for this problem is to have a uniform system of training from the India team set-up down to the grassroots, which will help develop tactically, technically and physically more mature players from a younger age. It will not only enable a smoother transition in the Indian team but also help the country achieve consistent success at the highest level.

Powered by WPeMatico