India’s journey in the AFC Asian Cup 2023 proved to be a disappointment, evident in the team’s underwhelming performance reflected in the group table standings. Igor Stimac’s carefully curated squad faced another setback with a defeat against Syria, marking the conclusion of their disheartening campaign.
Throughout the tournament, the Indian football team struggled to find their footing, experiencing contrasting outcomes at the offensive and defensive fronts. The strikers failed to make an impact, resulting in a lack of goals, while the defense encountered challenges in preventing the opposition from scoring. In essence, India’s participation in the tournament, awaited for over a year, culminated in three matches played, zero goals scored, and six goals conceded.
While India had achieved a historic feat by qualifying for successive AFC Asian Cups, the memories of their second outing in the tournament are ones fans would prefer to erase swiftly. The team’s on-field performance has left the nation with numerous inquiries, and the prospects of finding positive answers in the immediate future appear grim.
Despite the anticipation surrounding the new strategies implemented by Croatian coach Igor Stimac, the team’s lackluster displays against Uzbekistan and Syria raised doubts about the effectiveness of these mechanisms. A possession-based style of football had been promised to Indian fans over the past four years, but when it came to the Asian dream, the team fell short of expectations.
This tournament review aims to delve into the team’s overall performance, identify top performers, scrutinize under-performers, and explore various aspects of India’s challenging journey in the AFC Asian Cup.
The Group Stage Matches
Upon reaching Qatar, India geared up to face the formidable Australia, ranked at World No. 25, in a match that heavily favored the opposition. The initial 45 minutes of the tournament showcased a commendable performance from the Indian national team. They successfully held their ground against Australia, a powerhouse in the continent. Led by Sunil Chhetri, the team not only defended well but also seized opportunities to launch counterattacks. Chhetri himself had a golden headed chance, and Suresh Singh Wangjam’s precise through-ball to Lallianzuala Chhangte created another promising opportunity. However, these moments proved to be the highlights as the second half witnessed two goals from the Australians, resulting in a defeat for India.
Anticipation among fans rose in the second game against Uzbekistan, seen as an opportunity for the team to assert its dominance, reminiscent of a successful encounter with Thailand five summers ago. The coach opted for an attacking XI, omitting a defensive midfielder from the lineup. Unfortunately, this strategic choice backfired. Uzbekistan dominated the first 45 minutes, securing a 3-0 lead. Although the second half ended in a stalemate, the damage had already been inflicted on the Indian team.
Errors were acknowledged and accepted. The playing XI against Syria displayed a more balanced composition. India initiated the game with an offensive approach, launching attacks both directly and from the wings. However, despite a chance and a few shots from outside the box, no notable actions on the pitch captured attention. In the 76th minute, Omar Khribin scored, breaking the deadlock and extinguishing any remaining hopes for the Indian team, which had arrived in the Middle East country amid significant fanfare.
Positives
The Fans
Undoubtedly, the most significant positive aspect of the tournament was the unwavering support from the fans. Rarely has the Indian team experienced such overwhelming backing on the global stage. The fans passionately cheered for their players at every touch, every attempt, every well-executed pass, and every clearance. According to a tweet, a staggering 115,000 Indian fans rallied behind the Blue Tigers in matches against Australia, Uzbekistan, and Syria. However, despite the tremendous support, the team returned with drooped shoulders.
Every other positive element seemed fleeting. Whether it was Suresh’s perfectly-weighted through-ball to connect with Chhangte, Rahul KP’s impactful runs in matches against Uzbekistan and Syria, Naorem Mahesh Singh’s attempts on target, or Subhasish Bose’s precise long balls to find Manvir in space – all these moments were too sporadic and scarce.
Negatives
1. Team Composition
One glaring negative was the team’s composition, particularly in the defensive lineup. India opted for right-footed defenders in Rahul Bheke, Pritam Kotal, Lalchungnunga, Sandesh Jhingan, and Nikhil Poojary. The absence of a reliable backup for the right-back position was evident when Rahul Bheke started instead of Nikhil Poojary in the Syria game. Notably, despite Ashish Rai’s impressive performances as one of the team’s best right-backs in the last two years, he was overlooked.
Another concerning aspect was the handling of midfielders in the squad. With Sahal Abdul Samad injured, India hesitated to utilize their best creative outlet, Brandon Fernandes. This decision is likely to be remembered as one of the biggest debacles in the history of Indian football. While Brandon had not been selected by Stephen Constantine for nearly five years, Igor Stimac included him in the squad but was reluctant to deploy the Goan midfielder, who is recognized as the team’s best passer.
2. Defensive Thinness
The defensive department also appeared thin, with Rahul Bheke showing signs of error-proneness throughout. Shifting him to right-back against Syria after initially excluding Nikhil Poojary raised questions. Moreover, when Jhingan got injured, Bheke was reinstated as the center-back. The inclusion of Pritam Kotal and Lalchungnunga in the squad for the Qatar matches seemed questionable, as they had limited playing time. Kotal, an experienced center-back, primarily played as a right-back, and Lalchungnunga, with significant potential, could have been given more opportunities if Stimac had shown more courage in his selections.
3. Team Identity
The sight of the Blue Tigers on the continental stage brought nostalgia to the fans. The team adhered to a style where center-backs played balls to find willing runners, and wingers and full-backs delivered crosses—a system that Stephen Constantine had often been targeted and criticized for. Despite experimenting with combinations, the results remained unchanged. Notably, Indian full-backs played pivotal roles in terms of build-up, placing significant responsibility on goalkeeper Gurpreet Singh Sandhu, who found himself called into action more frequently than the strikers.
Throughout the three games, India operated with an almost non-existent midfield, and the strikers struggled to win long balls consistently. It’s evident that the implemented system failed to yield positive outcomes.
Top Performers
1. Sandesh Jhingan
In a team that struggled to score a goal and conceded six times in nearly 300 minutes, identifying standout performers is challenging. However, senior defender Sandesh Jhingan displayed commendable performances against Australia and Syria, contributing significantly in most of the game against Uzbekistan as well. The FC Goa defender, though, should focus on improving his passing and seek more opportunities to play the ball forward.
2. Rahul KP
Kerala Blasters forward Rahul KP, despite limited opportunities, emerged as India’s most notable attacker. He consistently posed a threat to opposition defenses, displaying bravery on the ball—a quality not as evident in Manvir Singh. Rahul created a chance against Australia and came close to scoring against Uzbekistan. However, there is room for improvement in his link-up play.
3. Deepak Tangri
The standout performer of the team was Deepak Tangri, a defensive midfielder who executed his assigned role exceptionally well. Tangri disrupted numerous opposition moves, displayed tactical intelligence, and was sorely missed in the 3-0 defeat against Uzbekistan. Not hesitating to put his body on the line, Tangri also exhibited dominance in aerial duels. With enhanced passing ability, the 24-year-old has the potential to become a key asset for the team.
Underperformer
Manvir Singh
Manvir Singh’s performance in the tournament left much to be desired, as he struggled to make an impact in various positions. Whether deployed as a winger, inverted forward, or proper striker, he failed to excel in any of these roles. Not fitting the mold of a traditional right winger like Udanta Singh, an inverted forward like Liston Colaco or Nandhakumar, or a striker akin to a certain No. 11, Manvir’s role on the field remained uncertain.
Manvir’s ability to exploit space on the outside of the box, particularly towards the right half, seemed limited, especially when the pitch was stretched wide. When playing as an inverted forward, his runs often resulted in passes back to the left-back, contributing little to creating scoring opportunities. As a striker against Syria, he struggled to assert control over the ball or win long balls. In summary, this tournament marked one of the most disappointing phases in Manvir’s career.
Igor Stimac’s Evaluation
Despite years of promises and preparation, India’s performance on the biggest stage left much to be desired. Despite thorough preparation, the tactics employed in the last two games raised questions as the Blue Tigers appeared overly aggressive on the front foot, leaving space behind them. This, combined with individual mistakes, posed significant challenges for the Indian defenders and added undue pressure on goalkeeper Gurpreet Singh Sandhu.
The coach struggled to instill bravery in the players to execute ground passes, a fundamental requirement for possession football. While the full-backs and wingers widened the pitch by hugging the touchline, their efforts did not result in creating enough trouble for the opposition. Despite making runs, the team failed to convert them into meaningful opportunities.
In terms of player selection, the coach’s decisions were questionable. Opting for Lalengmawia as the defensive midfielder against Uzbekistan, even when Suresh Singh was available, raised eyebrows. Additionally, not choosing Lalchungnunga or Pritam Kotal to replace the injured Sandesh Jhingan against Syria, and instead relying on the tried and tested (yet unsuccessful) Rahul Bheke, was another questionable decision.
Coach Stimac has emphasized the need for his team to play at such stages to improve, but it’s crucial for him to understand that it’s his responsibility to guide the team to these stages and ensure their performance matches the expectations.
Lessons Learned & How India Can Improve
The primary lesson to be learned is the importance of playing the ball on the ground and executing quicker ball movement. The team should focus on finding and utilizing space on the pitch, especially when a teammate has successfully stretched a full-back. Improved crossing and better overall football implementation are crucial for future success. It’s emphasized that there’s no need for a ball-playing midfielder if the center-backs consistently resort to long-range shots.
In the limited chances he had, Apuia failed to make noteworthy contributions in carrying the ball forward. Subhasish Bose and Rahul Bheke often found themselves looking directly for Manvir and Chhetri, a system that has faced criticism in India. The team’s style of play over the past two years appeared to be overshadowed by a sense of fear on the continental stage. The critical question arises: did the team adequately prepare mentally for the scale of the challenge they faced?
As this chapter concludes, the future remains uncertain. Whether the pages of the book are burnt or rewritten depends on the team’s approach and improvements in the future.
