Junior Indian hockey team selection - favouritism pervades?

Selecting the same favourite colts again and again—— are criteria the same for all?

If the probables/tryouts list is examined, it always shows the same players again and again, with just a few cosmetic changes. Talk swirls around the fact that we need a solid pool of players forming three teams, so that there can be adequate competition. Maybe we missed the definition of competition. Maybe competition really means the same players competing against each other! As rightly pointed out by Justice Chawla, CCI, Hockey India as a regulatory body has tremendous powers of control on all hockey players in India, being the sole decision-maker as to who should represent the country.

There are currently 30 junior players on the Hockey India probables roster, receiving a stipend of Rs.10,000/month (1.2 lakh/year). Isn’t it necessary to make sure that that a player is deserving of this? Does he not have to meet certain criteria? Does he not have to stand out amongst his peers? Has this probable been truly compared with the same criteria to some of the others that didn’t make the cut? Or is it done on a three-day arbitrary sham tryout just to justify a preordained selection? And how many of these favourites have been rewarded for reasons other than hockey ability?

Certain states seem to monopolize the India team roster – is that fair?

About 600 players played on the junior nationals tryout tournament. About 300 of those could be regarded as very weak from weak teams and so justifiably omitted. (It seems presumptuous to believe that all players from a weak team are weak, but for the sake of argument, let us accept it).

One team, Punjab, won the championship but did face close games in their campaign. Yet, the statistics show that out of 300 remaining players, they have a monopoly of players that made the final selection. In the current junior team that toured Holland, 10/18 (60%) were from Punjab. The runner-up team, Odisha, had 3/18 (16%), and the rest of the states combined for 24%.

Yet, Madhya Pradesh and Maharashtra did well too by reaching the semi-finals. It is inconceivable that they and the rest of the quarter-finalists had no good hockey players that met the required criteria. What is glaring is the omission of players from the military, who should be, with their rigorous fitness schedule and discipline as well as their service to the nation motto, natural fits for modern coaches who place such a premium on fitness. Bihar Regimental Centre, Danapur and MEG Boys Academy are two institutions that readily come to our mind as hotbeds for emerging“fit” talent.

Add to this the fact that the current favourites on the Hockey India probables list did not play this tryout competition. They were away in Holland on national duty. So there really was no true comparison.

A similar picture shows up when you consider the probables on the distinguished Rs.10,000/month list of Hockey India. Punjab has 15/30 [50%]] representation. If the senior team roster is examined it is a similar story. 6/12 [50%] junior players from Punjab are on the national senior team. Yet they keep failing on the national team level. Is it not time to find out reasons for these statistics? Are they truly the best in India or are they considered the best for reasons that do not pass the smell test? Is this favouring of players from a particular state justified on solid grounds?

Extended camps propagate ‘favourites’ mantra

An extended camp shields the “favourite player” from risky club competition that might undermine his favourite status. A disastrous campaign in the tryout national tournament may undermine a player’s status. So under the guise of preparation for a foreign tour, a comfort zone is created for this “favourite player”, a point which can be debated both ways, positive and negative. But more importantly, it creates a scenario where influence peddling can become of paramount importance, both for the player and the people selecting the player.

Funny situation – limited exposure for coordination with fellow juniors.

There are currently 13 junior players on the probables for the senior national team. In fact, most of the midfield playing on the senior national team is comprised of junior players. They have not had an opportunity for nearly 7 months to interact with other juniors. With the Asia Cup around the corner, their services are needed for this tournament. These 13 will definitely be amongst the premier players selected to play the JWC tournament this winter. They will have just two months to interact with their colleagues – not an insurmountable situation. But it does produces some discomfort.

Lessons and remedies

A true selection, on transparent criteria, is the need in the current hour.

The coach should select the team, not the selectors.

Team selection needs rigid criteria and all players need to be subjected to them.

Players outside the comfort zone of “favourites” need to be scouted and at least brought to the tryouts.

The reason for predominance of players from one state needs to be thoroughly examined and investigated, particularly in the light of the failures of the same at the national level. Extended camps need to be jettisoned in favour of two-week camps prior to tournaments and continuous preparation of probables. As regards fitness, team play and tactics, these need to be done at the club tournament/practice level.

The JWC is a tournament that will shape the future of a nation’s hockey generation for years to come. It needs to be given equal importance, on par with the senior team.