Indian Football: Amid league structure debate, India’s loss to Tajikistan raises important questions

Igor Stimac’s tenure as Indian football team head coach has been well received so far. In terms of results, it has been a mixed bag as India lost and won a game each at the King’s Cup in Thailand last month. But the clear shift in the style of play – from safety-first approach under Stephen Constantine to a more flamboyant passing style under the Croatian – has sat well with most of the Indian football faithful.

“Before coming here I did my own analysis of Mr. Stephen’s (Constantine) good results with the team and the unhappiness in the media and the supporters about the style of play. We play football for supporters and we play football for you (media). We have to make you all happy in the way we play,” Stimac said addressing the needs of the fans ahead of the Intercontinental Cup in Ahmedabad on Saturday.

“Even if the result suffers we are going to play in a way that will make all happy for it is what matters to us in the end,” he stressed.

However, change in playing style is more than just a choice. It’s a process you adopt and keep faith in till you become comfortable with it. With a team like India that has little or no history of playing a possession-based game that most fans like their teams to play, the process is harder and longer. It comes at a cost and it’s measured in the currency of setbacks, mostly uncomfortable but also potentially temporary.

On Sunday, India paid the first installment of that cost when they went down 2-4 to Tajikistan in the Intercontinental Cup opener. Unlike defeat against Curacao, this loss wasn’t to a clearly superior team away from home. This defeat was at home against a team more or less equal in strength as compared to the Indian team. If you go by Fifa rankings, a team fairly inferior.

The defeat was made more prominent by the fact that India squandered a 2-0 half-time lead. They collapsed in the second half after a fine first-half showing to spoil Stimac’s home debut.

It’s still early days for the Indian team under the Croatian, but the defeat raised two kinds of concerns: firstly, systemic, player-related and secondly, fundamental.

A tale of two halves

Stimac made a few changes to his starting XI. Some were forced, some were experimental. 18-year-old Narender Gahlot started in the centre-back position alongside Adil Khan. Gehlot was drafted in, in place of Sandesh Jhingan who was nursing a hamstring concern. At left-back, Mandar Rao Desai, primarily a winger, played in place of Subhasish Bose.

In central midfield, another 18-year-old Amarjit Singh Kiyam played ahead of Vinit Rai who started in the 1-0 win over Thailand. Lallianzuala Chhangte started on the right flank.

In the first half, India played with great focus and tactical discipline. Anirudh Thapa and Amarjit shielded the defence well and blocked channels for the midfield runners to run into. When they managed to sneak into gaps between defenders, the two central midfielders were able to track their runs and avoid any danger.

Abdul Sahal, playing in the No 10 role, dropped deep to help India beat Tajikistan’s press. The Kerala Blasters man was instrumental in India carrying a threat on the break as most of their attacking moves went through him. He released Chhangte in space in the build-up to the penalty that led to India’s opening goal.

Barring a mistake from young Gahlot and a free header from a set-piece, India were largely untroubled at the back in the first half. A clinical Sunil Chhetri ensured India led 2-0 at the break despite having just 44% of the ball. Their gameplan was working well. India had managed to put all three shots they had in the first half on target, while Tajikistan who had six shots, only managed a single attempt on India’s goal.

“Our plan was going too well and I was afraid of how well everything was going. The players were well concentrated and we had prepared well. We knew their most dangerous players are in the middle, the three midfielders who have great passes and create spaces. It was really important that we followed those move and stop crosses,” Stimac said.

In the second half, everything changed. Tajikistan came out more determined to get back in the game and India became complacent. The same level of discipline was not maintained as one mistake after other wrecked their defensive organisation.

“We could not find much concentration in the second half to keep going on in the same way and that was the biggest problem. The gaps between the lines became obvious and everybody lost their positions too easily. You could see the game changed after individual mistakes – not after the team and collective mistakes.” the Croatian analysed.

Desai, not a natural left-back lost his player for the first goal before getting sucked into a clearance attempt that he failed at. Khan lost his marker for the fourth as India were all over the place at the back. The lack of familiarity among the Indian defenders and the absence of a leader in the back line was alarming.

The defeat was an important lesson for the youngsters in the team and also a reference point for the players to learn from in the future. The benefit of the doubt should be given to the players considering it’s a new system and players aren’t as well-acquainted with each other. Stimac won’t be too worried as this is exactly why he wanted from this tournament.

“I am not thinking about defending the title. It is more important to us to get together certain things in our performance that will help us in doing well in the (FIFA World Cup 2022) qualifiers,” the Indian coach had highlighted ahead of the tournament.

Lack of sustained intensity

Failure to sustain the intensity for the full ninety minutes has been a problem for the Indian team over the years. In the 2019 AFC Asian Cup, India were brilliant for certain periods but were not able to maintain the level throughout. It eventually cost the team a place in the knockout stage.

On Sunday, Tajikistan players outran the Indians on certain occasions in that second half and were far more comfortable on the ball throughout the game. Their press was relentless for ninety minutes and although India caused them problems once they beat it, those occasions were far and few between.

“We have many young players who are here for the first time. We had many 18-20-year-olds, but it’s not an excuse. Their (Tajikistan) average age today was 22.5. We need to be worried about that. They beat us with their U-23 side and they beat us well. We must think now what we did wrong in the younger ages and what we must improve and how we teach the players how to grow up,” Stimac said after the game.

It’s something he feels the coach and the players can’t fix on their own on the training pitch.

“It is a long process. It is about changing a few things about AIFF, ISL and I-League. It is about starting work with the new kids, it is about improving infrastructure. It is also about not giving long breaks in the calendar as much as it is about changing the number of games in a year. You cannot dream of becoming a strong force if you are playing 20 games a year. The number should a minimum of 50 for a player to realise his optimum,” the Croatian said highlighting the need for a longer football season.

Stimac’s words hold great significance especially at a time when India’s footballing structure is being heavily debated among the stakeholders. With several former players and the I-League clubs also demanding a unified league, All India Football Federation’s reported insistence on making the Indian Super League the senior-most league of Indian football at the expense of the I-League comes under greater question.

“There are certain differences, I know, but the development of football should be treated above all to help the national team do well,” says Stimac as he refers to the ongoing tussle in Indian football. Hopefully, someone in the higher echelons of the AIFF is listening.