Vasudevan Baskaran enjoyed the fruits of hockey like no other. He also suffered its idiosyncrasies like a few others.
Sacked three times as India’s head coach after losses at major international tournaments and roped in as many times by the Indian hockey administration, Baskaran has worked with the system long enough to know its strengths and limitations.
Captain of the men’s gold medal-winning team at the 1980 Moscow Olympics, the 68-year-old says it’s time for a change in the players’ mindsets; they have to introspect and work things out. “How many Indian players can analyse their opponents,” he asks. “The coach is not the be-all and end-all.”
In an interview with The Hindu, he speaks about the decline of Indian hockey over the years and the beginnings of a revival, the fitness levels of players then and now, and the constant chopping and changing of coaches by the officialdom. Excerpts:
The men’s team was unstoppable from 1928 to 1956. Do you have a sense of what that time was like?
India dominated hockey pre- and post-independence. People think there was not much hockey in Europe then. I don’t think so. We didn’t play in Europe because it was expensive, there were logistical issues. In fact, even Pakistan we only toured in the late 1970s. The hockey promotion was left to the government. There used to be camps at Patiala in the ’70s. We had 33 players in the camps, three players for each position. There was stiff competition for every spot, and a laddered structure to attain it.
What led to Indian hockey’s decline?
In the 1980s and ’90s, there was no structure for development on astro turf. We were focused only on conducting the National championships. By structure, I also mean that in that period there was no Combined University team. During my time, Combined University was considered very important. Even now, I don’t think it’s given the importance it deserves. For me, schools and universities form the core of Indian sports.
Why did India take so long to adjust to artificial turf?
After winning the World Cup in 1975, we went to the ’76 Montreal Olympics where, for the first time, we were to play on astro turf. We had a month of training in Paris. We finished seventh.
K.P.S. Gill, former president of the Indian Hockey Federation, asked a question at the 1998 Utrecht World Cup: when Wimbledon is played on grass and the French Open on clay, why can’t we play hockey on grass? That question remains unanswered.
But I think the blame for [failing to adjust quickly to] astro turf should be laid at the door of Indian hockey. We saw the turf only at the 1982 Asiad in New Delhi. From 1976 to ’82, all the clubs in Europe acquired the turf whereas it took us a long time. A generation missed out. Over the last 6-7 years, things have changed for the better.
What were the fitness levels like then, compared to now?
Hockey players have always been into physical training although it was not scientifically done those days. We did everything but without the books. We never shied away from weight training. In the ’70s, V.J. Philips, B.P. Govinda and I would run 24km a week and play hockey.
Later, as a coach, I analysed what methods were right and wrong. We played too much hockey those days. The present team has two sessions in four days and one session on video analysis and group discussion.
Discussions then were over a cup of tea. It was not official. Chatting under a tree, they would say ‘Arre chai peeyenge, goal maarenge’ (We’ll drink tea, score goals).
What hasn’t changed?
The dribbling. Foreign teams were scared of India’s dribbling then too. Their (foreigners’) wrist did not move along with the stick except for a few. From Dhyan Chand, Roop Singh, Balbir Singh to [Randhir Singh] Gentle and Ajit Pal Singh to me, the dribbling I saw in the ’70s and ’80s was way better than the opponents’.
Coaches don’t seem to have secure four-year tenures in Indian hockey…
Have you seen a coach being with the team for four years? After winning the 1975 World Cup, Gurcharan Singh Bodhi was thrown out. Balkishen Singh was sacked after India won the 1980 Olympics. Why should a winning coach be thrown out?
A coach must be in charge of the team for four years and be given full freedom. Don’t issue coaches with an ultimatum. You sign a contract for four years and break it! It doesn’t happen in Europe. In difficult times, we have to call the coach, ask him for suggestions. That’s how you have to handle Harendra [Singh].
What about the players?
The players’ attitude should change. They should realise their mistakes. Players must study the opponents. How many Indian players can analyse their opponents? South Africa does that. Coaches must involve the players more. The coach is not the be-all and end-all. There is a big vacuum between the coach and the players.
In this undated photo, chief coach of Indian hockey team V. Baskaran (right) with hockey manager M.M. Somaiyya (second right) is engaged in discussion with some of the palyers during the half time of a practice match at National Stadium in New Delhi. | Photo Credit: The Hindu Archives
We don’t have a coaches’ panel even now. Now the calls for ‘ultimatum to Harendra Singh’ have started. That’s a bad thing. Which coach will work if you give him an ultimatum? There should be a clear transparent process in dealing with such situations. Harendra should be called for a meeting and his concerns must be met.
When did this concept of chopping and changing begin?
It all started under Gill, the IHF president from 1994 to 2008. Conventional constitutional meetings were not held. I think the reason for the constant changes was because nobody guided Gill in the right manner. In his time, I was sacked three times and brought back again in 2006. Stability and even selection suffered. It pushed Indian hockey back.
I must say that during Gill’s long tenure players were financially strong, a lot of junior players came through the ranks. But the negatives outweigh the positives. Even under the current regime, the chopping and changing continues.
What impact have the foreign coaches had?
Terry Walsh was a positive coach. [Roelant] Oltmans was more defensive. So was Jose Brasa. Ric Charlesworth was positive. The stints of foreign coaches benefited Indian hockey to a small extent, but the end result has more or less been the same.
How do you assess the current team?
They are not the world’s best collectively. I would say that only one third of the team is world-class. The players who are world-class are Rupinder Pal Singh, Harmanpreet Singh, Sreejesh, Mandeep Singh and S.V. Sunil. We struggle in midfield because there is no consistency.
Frankly speaking, Sardar Singh has not been at his best for the last two years and Manpreet Singh’s game is attractive, but not consistently good. That’s not enough to be a world champion. If you ask me, 16 players have to be 70% good if we have to perform consistently on the global stage.
Our penalty corner conversions are good not great. Under pressure in big matches, we are not able to convert as much as we want to. But at the same time, top teams fear our PCs. It is our match temperament that is suspect.
Are some of the recent results a cause for hope?
The silver in the 2016 and the 2018 Champions Trophy is a result of funds being distributed properly and the National camps being monitored. There is accountability now and there is a system in place. I hope this continues forever.
What’s next for the Indian team?
The debate on who should form the core group has to be decided. The best players should be selected; it must not be on past performances alone. We need a rethink for the World Cup to be held in November this year in Bhubaneswar. Players who repeat mistakes don’t deserve to be in the core group.