Why I don't see Indian hockey clinching a medal at Olympics

Less than a month away from the Rio Olympics, a resurgent Indian men's hockey team has been gradually raising hopes of a medal-winning return. The silver medal at last month's FIH Champions Trophy in London - India's best result at a major tournament in 36 years since winning gold at the 1980 Moscow Olympics - was widely celebrated in the country and players were showered with praise from all quarters.

It reaffirmed the considerable progress made by the team in the last 12 months under its Dutch coach Roelant Oltmans. Even prior to this, bronze at the 2015 Hockey World League (HWL) Final and silver at the 2016 Sultan Azlan Shah Cup had set the ball rolling in the right direction. India's success also reflected in the latest FIH world rankings in which it equalled a 13-year high after leapfrogging Belgium and Argentina to the fifth spot.

Also read - Silver at Champions Trophy: Good times here for Indian hockey

But here is the other, rather sombre, side of the story. Amidst all the brouhaha over London, especially after a magnificent performance in the final, which you can safely assume was viewed by a larger audience; it is easy to forget a couple of narrative-altering points.

First, most of the teams, including India, Australia and Germany, had rested their top players with a view towards keeping them fresh for Rio. On a man-to-man basis, this worked in India's favour if you consider that a Jamie Dwyer, Australia's five-time World Player of the Year, was certainly a bigger miss for the Kookaburras than a Sardar Singh, India's rested skipper, was for his team.

Second, India managed to beat only one higher-ranked nation - Great Britain - in five attempts, which also included losses to Belgium, Australia (twice if you count the final) and a draw against a young German side.

Surprise results involving other nations certainly played a vital role in India qualifying for the final. The team's other victory was a hard-fought 2-1 win over tournament minnows South Korea - the only nation in London not to have qualified for the Olympics.

Also read: Are India's hockey heads hell-bent on killing the sport?

Even during the recently concluded six-nation tournament in Spain, India could only beat Ireland, the team which has qualified for its first ever Olympics. Oltmans had said prior to the event that matches against formidable opponents Germany and Argentina will set the momentum for Rio.

A 0-4 drubbing by the Germans and a 3-3 draw against the South Americans were hardly encouraging results. Another defeat to eighth-ranked New Zealand and a draw versus 11th-ranked Spain rounded off a rather underwhelming week-long showing.

Also read: Sad! Indian juniors beat Pakistan in hockey and we didn't even cheer

So, should the country realistically expect a medal at Rio? On current form, the answer is no. Such a feat will require a phenomenal upturn in form along with a fair share of luck to fall on India's side.

Even a cold, hard look at numbers suggests that India had overachieved in London. In another major tournament, the same level of performance would not translate into a medal.

India ranked fourth or worse on all major offensive parameters and third or worse on all the defensive ones. While the team conceded only 11 times, the third-best tally in the tournament, it was offset by a dearth of goals at the other end. India scored a mere ten goals, the third-lowest, with only Korea and hosts Great Britain scoring fewer (nine each). Germany, meanwhile, topped the chart with 19.

Soft concessions of penalty corners has been India's Achilles heel in recent years. The Champions Trophy proved to be no better. Oltmans' team conceded a massive 39 penalty corners, the most, along with Great Britain, and twice did so within a mere 90 seconds of push back - putting the team immediately on the back foot. It's a figure that was more than twice of Belgium's tally (17) and nearly double of Australia's 20. Even Korea, which defended deeper than India in matches, showed more discipline, in conceding only 26.

For a team that often relies on counter-attacks and readily concedes possession to opponents, this is a problem that needs to be addressed on priority. Only the heroics of goalkeeper PR Sreejesh, especially in the final, and some astute, as well as desperate, defending from set pieces prevented India from conceding a barrage of goals.

The team let in goals from penalty corners at a rate of only 13 per cent, the third-best after Australia and Great Britain's ten per cent each, which saved its blushes. However, this isn't a method you can rely on to achieve success in the long run.

At the other end of the pitch too penalty corners were a bane. India earned the least number (20), again equal with Great Britain, and scored only three times, the lowest. This conversation rate of 15 per cent was the second-lowest after Australia's 13 per cent.

Since the Kookaburras offset this figure by earning the most - 40 penalty corners, twice of India's tally - Oltmans' side were essentially the worst among the six nations. Specialist VR Raghunath was extremely wasteful while young gun Harmanpreet Singh wasn't offered too many chances at taking one.

India also averaged 15.3 circle entries and 6.3 shots per match while allowing its opponents 19.8 circle entries and 8.7 shots per match, respectively. In all these four aspects, the team was only superior to Korea which further highlights how India's last line of defence rose to the occasion in the tournament. Moreover, in terms of translating circle entries into shots on goal, India was the worst team in the tournament.

The team has certainly excelled on many fronts. Attacks have been utterly thrilling to watch. Individuals have stepped up. Youngsters have settled in. Defending as a team has improved. Team spirit is soaring. A new-found mental resilience has been on show. And fitness levels have been on par with the best in hockey.

Consistency, though, has betrayed a team that has shown its true potential only in patches. For Indian hockey, a medal at Rio, even during its most successful period in decades, will likely be a touch too far.