New Delhi: Notwithstanding the romance of India’s pre-Independence Olympic golds in 1928, 1932 and 1936, nearly eight decades after freedom the country continues to grapple with a stubborn, visceral quandary in hockey: the coaching puzzle. It is a deeply technical problem, yet in our sporting culture it routinely becomes an intensely emotional affair — a cycle of abrupt hires and fires, short-term fixes and, crucially, a lack of long-term strategic vision.
Coaching churn becomes a distraction, not a solution
The recent turmoil around the women’s team — the exit of Harendra Singh and the reported return of Sjoerd Marijne for a third stint — is the latest symptom, not the root cause. The pattern runs deeper than any single change of guard. Over the years, Hockey India (HI) has too often opted for immediate, comfortable choices rather than casting a wide net to attract fresh ideas and global best practice. Appointments sometimes read like decisions based on “who we already know” rather than “who can deliver a sustained programme”.
The men’s team, after two consecutive Olympic bronze medals, appeared to be moving towards greater coaching stability under Craig Fulton and Graham Reid. Yet Reid too was unceremoniously let go after the 2023 World Cup debacle — another reminder that stability is fragile and contingent on short-term results rather than a long-term plan.
Short memory, short-term hires: the cost of complacency
There has been a troubling tendency to rehire familiar faces quickly. Harendra has a complex history: first as the women’s coach, then leading the men briefly in 2018, before going to coach the USA men’s team — a rare and bold move that few would contemplate. He returned to the India fold only to be reinstated with expectations that perhaps did not match the evolving demands of international hockey. The result was turmoil. Instead of using the moment to seek fresh talent worldwide, HI reportedly did not open a full-scale search; there was no public call for CVs, no attempt to bring new tactical perspectives on board.
In elite hockey nations — Belgium, Australia, the Netherlands, Germany and Spain — coach appointments are often the result of exhaustive searches, trials and structured interviews. The decision process is usually evidence-based, focusing on system building rather than short-term optics. India’s approach, by contrast, often looks like it relies on ‘thought’ and convenience rather than rigorous selection.
Why a director of hockey is vital
What India needs is direction, not guesswork. A director of hockey — in the mould of Ric Charlesworth or Terry Walsh, a role Roelant Oltmans performed effectively when Terry Walsh was India’s national men’s coach — would provide strategic continuity. Such a director would understand world hockey, maintain relationships with FIH and coaches worldwide, and oversee development pipelines from juniors to seniors. Former players with international exposure could fill this role, lending credibility and institutional memory without being mired in day-to-day politics.
The absence of such a strategic director leaves HI’s president and secretary too exposed to making tactical appointments, often influenced by short-term pressures. The governance structure should insulate coaching decisions from ad hoc interference and ensure that appointments serve a long-term plan aimed at world-level success, not merely continental trophies.
Lessons from the past and other sports
India has occasionally made the right call: KPS Gill’s decision to bring in Cedric D’Souza for the 1994 World Cup paid dividends with a fifth-place finish. But subsequent short-term fixes — such as discarding Rajinder Singh Sr after his successful junior and continental runs in favour of a last-minute Gerhard Rach before Athens 2004 — illustrate how reactive choices have often undone progress.
Contrast this with sporting structures in mature nations. Football managers in England and coaches in the NFL often enjoy longer tenures, allowing them to build systems. While India cannot realistically expect a Bill Belichick-style permanence, it can learn from the principle that consistency — coupled with sound talent identification — usually produces better, sustainable outcomes.
The long game: targets beyond regional trophies
Coaches must be hired with big targets in mind: world cups, Olympic medals and consistent top-tier finishes, not merely regional triumphs like the Asian Games or the Asia Cup. China’s recent investment in women’s hockey — bringing in elite coaching support and a comprehensive system — shows that long-term thinking can yield rapid improvements. If China can secure global expertise and a superlative support ecosystem, why can’t India, with its vast player base and passionate fan following, do the same?
Conclusion
India’s coaching conundrum is not merely about names on a contract. It is about instituting processes — transparent hiring, a capable director of hockey, insulated decision-making and a long-term roadmap that sets world-class targets. Short-term gains, stop-gap appointments and emotional decision-making will only repeat the same cycle: one step forward, three steps back. If HI is serious about returning India to sustained global prominence, it must move beyond tinkering and embrace structural reforms that prioritise continuity, expertise and vision over convenience.