India and Pakistan forgot their own hockey lessons

Press, 7 August 1976, Page 18

India and Pakistan forgot their own hockey lessons

The Canterbury hockey coach, C. V. WALTER, analyses the failure of India and Pakistan at the Olympic (James.

As the euphoria generated by New Zealand's gold medal from the Olympic hockey tournament subsides. those who claim to be concerned with the game’s welfare could do worse than make an objective analysis of the cause of the failure of India and the partial failure of Pakistan, and their effect upon the future.

In the years before partition, India taught the world the true skills and the artistry which are inherent within the game. Some heeded the lessons and studied hard, others disagreed in varying measures, and the two schools of thought have contended ever since in every country.

However, the educational content of the Indian masters was also their educational form. It was confined almost sojely to practice. The pupils had example from which to learn, but not precept, and it was by example and with insufficient precept that successive Indian generations were obliged to develop. Herein was a weakness, because all human endeavour requires a unity of theory and practice if it is to succeed. The development of personal skill by the individual demands this unity, and the great skill of the Indians postulated a lucid, logical theory of team play and the correct tactical use of this skill. India and Pakistan in the post-war years have given insufficient attention to the theory of their own

game; they have been unarmed and vulnerable—to suggestion. Their teams have suffered in the past from crude, illegal, rough treatment in international competition on many occasions and from umpiring which has failed to eliminate it. They have often been the victims of jealousy, especially within Europe. Lacking the courage which the theory of conviction would have provided, they have sought to retaliate, and this was illadvised. Had the theory of Indian hockey been the firm base on which all its practice was built, the Indians and the Pakistanis would have possessed the courage to spurn retaliation and to overcome all opposition by their own unique skill. Gradually but perceptibly there appeared in their teams, backs who were substituting hard hitting and crude tackling methods for those of close stickwork, intelligent feeding and effective confrontation. There began to be a decline in the skill of the half-backs. Eventually, the great tradition became a flickering torch, borne solely by the best of the forwards. In their reducing

triumphs of the last decade, India and Pakistan have been carried along by the forwards only, a process which clearly foretold the eventual eclipse. The game of bluff and self-deception has produced some extraordinary opinions. It is not long since the German coach, Horst Wein, announced to the world the new testament of the European systems and the doom of the 5-3-2 deployment whose advocates he designated as old squares. Yet three of the four semi-finalists were 5-3-2 teams. In India, Prithipal Singh has been acclaimed as a great back, yet he was a prime example of the swashbuckling contradiction to Indian

tradition. Last year we looked upon Ajitpal Singh and we were asked to believe that he was the best centre-half in the world.

His verv uprightness of posture guaranteed a high error rate, and although captain of the team in Montreal he suffered the indignity of being dropped for one of the matches. Poor Ajitpal, victim of that lack of theory which means incorrect theory!

In 1974 in Christchurch the Pakistani forwards shed a lustrous light on the international tournament which they won in spite of the vast territorial gulf between the forwards and the half-backs, a tactical misdemeanour which no opponent exploited but which demanded eradication. Also these same forwards were required by their coach to operate in such rigid formation that their personal dribbling skill became their sole asset. Where, oh where, was that theory? All teams suffer at times stress and frustration. Their salvation is strict adherence to a correct theoretical base. Lacking it. they are the victims of bewilderment and panic. Lacking it. they include in their ranks players who should not be there. In such ways have India and Pakistan beaten themselves. Beyond the confines of India and Pakistan there have been many who have sought to emulate their authentic skills. Some have appeared in national teams, elevating their standards. But no country has yet produced a team which

has recaptured the former glory of India, whose decline will intensify the great debate and encourage theories hostile to the correct path of the game’s development. Nothing that has happened can alter the fact that hockey still needs the leadership of India and Pakistan, but that leadership will not eventuate until there is a realisation within their ranks that there is a reason for their departure from their former way of life. That realisation depends upon the outcome of the great debates within their own administrations. and the politics of their administrations do not generate optimism.

In January of this year a member of the 1976 Canterbury hockey team spent a week in India, watching an international tournament. He met and talked with Dhyan Chand and Rup Singh, two of the greatest players of all time.

Thev commented upon methods, systems, illegalities. rule changes and umpiring. There was but one way. they said, to overcome all problems and all obstacles to success, and that way was the way of skill.

Too few have heeded those voices. If they are heard in time, India and Pakistan might again merge with outstanding players in every position. If so, recovery will have been partially effected. The development of theory’ and its unity with practice will remain to be done.