Indian hockey team coach Craig Fulton confident ahead of Paris 2024 Olympics: "If we use lessons from Australia, we'll be thanking our time there" 

Indian men's hockey team's coach Craig Fulton had his hands full when he took over from Graham Reid. Following their historic bronze medal win at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics, the Indian team suffered a severe decline in form.

It culminated in the team's embarrassing exit at the pre-quarterfinal stage in the 2023 World Cup, that too on the home soil.

Fulton came with an impressive resume. A former South Africa international, he had been the assistant coach of Belgium when that side won the 2018 World Cup and the gold at the Tokyo 2020 Olympics.

Craig Fulton's transformation of the Indian team

A former FIH Men's Coach of the Year, Fulton brought about a resurgence in the Indian team's fortunes. He also brought in a new playing style. Unlike Reid, who wanted his team to press high, Fulton has made a solid defense the basis of the Indian team's current strategy.

While the Indian team suffered a setback recently as they got whitewashed 5-0 in a test series against Australia, they are still looking much better than before. The defense seems to have improved vastly. However, only two field goals in five matches in Australia is a worrying sign.

In an exclusive interview with Sportskeeda, Craig Fulton discussed how he is managing the Indian team. He also delved on the strengths and weaknesses of the team and how he is dealing with the latter.

Here is the full interview of the coach of Indian men's hockey team.

Under your predecessor Graham Reid, the Indian team played, with success for some time, in a very aggressive style. They would be in a high press most of the time. You have brought in a more defense-centric approach with a greater focus on counter-attacks. Why do you think this is a good strategy for the Indian team?

I don’t think our strategy is just focussed on counter-attacks. I think it also has a big high-press element to it. But with the high press, that is natural to the Indian team, there has to be another way of approaching a game against certain opposition teams.

So, we are not playing high press for 60 minutes every game. Otherwise, it becomes very easy to undo because you just do the same thing over and over again and teams that see that long enough are able to work it out.

For me, that was one of the areas where I thought, if we added another level of defense or tactical defense, it could allow us to counter-attack effectively also.

Whereas with the high press style, though we are good at it, we have to learn to half-court press for certain times against European opposition. That is because the game has got very tactical and very low.

This means there are a lot of teams that will defend with 10 men in the last 25, just like Australia, just like some German teams. It’s just different from the last World Cup to now. Things have changed quite a bit since then.

It’s also about 'adapting'. I suppose that's the word I am trying to use to explain what we are doing - adapting - to what’s going on in the game. But we are also using those counter-attacking traits that the Indian team and players are blessed with. And just putting it into an easier way of getting organized.

This is because if you are in a high press and they get around your front-five or front-six players, there are 60 meters to play in with very few players and that’s quite a lot of space. If you get good teams with speed and skill against you in that situation, it is not easy to defend against.

The recent series in Australia wasn't a very successful outing for the Indian team in terms of the overall result. But it seemed like the defense really held up well.

Australia has been traditionally a bogey team for India in the last two-and-a-half decades. They seem to score heavily against India. So, you must be happy that the Indian team kept them at bay most of the time.

Yeah, I think it's a valid point. I think the main thing was that the first game didn't see us giving a good account of ourselves. We knew that.

The second, third, fourth, and fifth game were all close. Even though we used a squad of 27 to give everyone an opportunity to play and train, I thought we did well with a low defense. That was an improvement. It really was an improvement.

The two games we played in the Pro League were slightly different affairs. But we had in the second game a 2-2 draw. I think we had eight referrals and we won seven of them. But in Australia, we didn't have the referral system at all in any of the matches.

So, I think, knowing our players, who are very well informed about the rules and know what is an infringement and what isn't (the lack of referrals was a factor). We also had chances that we didn't take and penalty corners that we didn't convert. And then, if you let Australia have three or four more chances than they need, they'll obviously take those opportunities.

So, it was a good trip because we got tested around the defense, around our low defense.

We also had some really good counter-attacks, but we just didn't finish them off. And that's a focus area for us. To do that against a good team like Australia (isn't easy). So, yes, I think the boys have got a lot of confidence from that.

We are also practicing on that front and it's been highlighted that we need to improve outcomes in the final third. Also, we need to concede fewer penalty corners and fewer short corners.

That leads nicely into the next question. This is about the attacking play of the Indian team. This seems to be an area of worry as, in the five matches in Australia, only two field goals were scored.

Do you think the strikers are not doing enough as far as off the ball running is concerned and taking...

No, I don't think it's like that. I think it's just (a need of) more detail in the D. So, if you watch the games, you'll see Australia have adopted a low zone. So they basically put 10 players just outside the 25 and into the D in a zonal shape. And if you're sharp, you can get through it.

If you're not sharp and you give ball away, they have a counterattack. So, there's a lot more at stake going against a low zone when you want to have more opportunities and play freely.

Because any turnover that you give away, or any mis-pass or mis-trap or mis-anything in the final third you make, it becomes an attack for the opposition.

What's been a good thing about us is that we are able to win corners. But we also need to convert field goals. So, I think certain teams know that Indians need a little bit of space and time. And if they get it, they will shoot.

It's now for us to manage in situations where we don't have time and space. We have to figure out how do we manufacture outcomes from certain areas in the D, where there are three or four defenders around the striker? That's a lot of detail.

If you watch the games, you'll see that happening again and again. it's our challenge and we are working on ways of doing that.

The overhead passes have been used quite a lot by the Indian team in recent months. They have worked as well on some occasions. But do you think sometimes the players see that as an easy way out rather than running the ball through the midfield?

Or passing it... Yeah, we've had good conversations about that. And I think we like to manage around a third of our on-balls around aerials. If we go more than that, it's too easy for the opposition. We give away possession too easily.

So, in certain games, that was definitely the case. We just gave the ball away, and then, Australia know that we are good at the aerial game. So then they go man-to-man and suddenly we're giving possession away unnecessarily. But I think those are all areas that are easily fixable. It's not a massive problem because when we get it right, it brings us a lot of benefit.

For counter-attacks, one-time passes are quite crucial. And in that series, it seemed like the trapping wasn't the best from the Indian team. Was it something to do with the unfamiliarity with the turf or do you think it's a larger issue?

I don't know. I don't have the answers to why one guy traps the ball and another guy doesn't. I think at the same time, it's not helpful. But I know they're also not trying to do it on purpose.

So, there's just a balance of when we are in full competition phase, like in the Pro League or similar tournaments, the focus is heightened. Those are must-win situations. There are points at stake. It's a table. It's a competition. And for those situations, I think the team is a lot more focused. Not saying that they weren't focused in Australia, but the situation differs.

I'm not too worried about it because I've seen them in big tournaments where they nailed those. Let's look at the big picture on this. If we do well at the Olympics and use those lessons from Australia, we'll be thanking the time we had in Australia for helping us get better and perform where it counts.

You went into the first and the last game of the series in Australia without Hardik Singh. And it seems like the team is a bit over-dependent on him. Even in the World Cup before your time, once he got injured, the team seemed half of itself. So is that something you're worried about? That they are too dependent on one single player?

No, I think you have to also look at if like, if you lose a key player somewhere in the defense, the midfield, or the forward line. How would you cope with it in the rest of the tournament? And it can't be an excuse that you don't have this player and you now can't play or you can't compete.

So Hardik came in with a virus and wasn't 100 percent. And it was no use trying to play him when he wasn't 100 percent. He did, though, play game 2, 3, and 4.

Then, there was no point trying to get more out of him when he didn't have anything left. I wanted him to be fully recovered and it was also an opportunity to play without him, as in the first game. But we weren't good in the first game.

So, that's not an excuse, that we didn't play well because he didn't play. That's not what I'm saying. But it was good to hand over responsibility.

And in the fifth game, man, we could have got a result out of that game. Definitely, with the last quarter, we played really well. We probably should have had a penalty corner at the end of the game.

There were lots of little things that happened which could have brought us to a result. And that's okay. But I now have a clearer picture of the depth of the squad.

And if we can play our key players all the time, obviously we'll play them. And we'll go into the Pro League with competition in mind.

Traditionally, Indian players have been known for their brilliant skills at dribbling and dodging. And their superiority in one-on-one contests. But in this last series, it seemed like most Indian players were hesitant to take on one-on-one contests. So, is that something you want Indians to rediscover, be more confident in their abilities?

Well, did you look at the Pro League? What did you think of the Pro League performances in that regard?

I think they were a little bit better in that.

They were much better in that, much better. If you compare just Australia to that, then it's not fair. So you're talking about an Australian team that is very, very good at the moment.

They've got a chip on their shoulders because they haven't won gold (at Olympics) since 2004. So they are trying to do everything they possibly can. This is the perfect benchmark for us to play against - an Australian team which is very good.

They fielded their strongest team at the Pro League, we played against them and were 2-1 up with five minutes to go. So, that gives us a lot of confidence in what we're doing, what our process is. And we had good chances as well.

As far as individual and collective skill set is concerned, it's still there. It's just, I think, the boys' confidence was knocked after the first two games, even the third game.

We also had a rotation system in place in Australia. So, it wasn't the same group that could then get back in action and improve. It was a bilateral tour not a a tournament where have the same people who can go back onto the field and get better and better with each game.

In Australia, it was more of a squad effort than a well-set team. There was more of a long-term picture behind this. Of course, we wanted to get results. Of course, we were upset we didn't get them. But we were trying.

At the same time, it's also brought us closer to what we want, to select the right players and achieve the depth that we need to have. Because for Olympics, you can only have 16 players.This makes it totally different from the World Cups and the rest of the tournaments where 18 players are allowed in the squad.

So, yeah, we have to start getting our final combination in place now. Because otherwise, if we don't do that and go to the Pro League and start experimenting there, we don't have enough games going into the Paris Olympics.