Adam saga: AIFF has not learnt from history

So far, the build-up to the 2017 Under-17 World Cup in India, unlike the 2010 Delhi Commonwealth Games had not been scarred by controversy. Renovation work is going on in full swing at the stadiums in the six cities where World Cup matches will be played. Practice pitches and other logistics are being sorted out.

However the imbroglio over the departure of national team coach Nicolai Adam has stirred a hornet’s nest. The cause and manner of his departure has led to more questions being raised than answered.

In 2015, when Adam came to India to train the U-17 probables, he was hailed as the best age-group coach in the world.

In September-October 2016, despite India losing several matches in the Asian U-16 championships and Brics tournament in Goa, nobody doubted Adam’s ability. His commitment was evident as he did not return home to attend his father’s funeral last year during the Asian U-16 championships.

The view of most discerning critics was that the team had good potential, was playing modern football, relying on speed and building from the back.

The only apparent weaknesses were absence of a consistent striker and at times lack of organisation in defence. So what suddenly went wrong in the space of two months?

The All India Football Federation had to show-cause Adam because of a letter signed by the entire U-17 World Cup squad, complaining of physical and racial abuse by the coach and his assistant Etibar Nizami Ibrahimov.

Adam chose about 90 per cent of the players in the squad. So it is not logical that the coach and his assistant suddenly became hostile to them. So there remain several ambiguities. Did the boys over-react to harsh words or did they simply rebel against a coach who was a hard taskmaster?

If Adam was a ruthless and abusive coach, then the three Indians in the support staff should have intervened and either talked to the coach or reported it to the AIFF.

If the matter was so serious and Adam’s behaviour was objectionable from the onset they are also to blame for letting it simmer by their nearly two years’ silence.

These are some of the uncomfortable explanations that the union sports ministry has sought. The government is justified in asking questions as it bore 30% of Adam’s salary, which was 12,000 euros per month inclusive of taxes.

India has a tradition of giving too much freedom to foreign coaches. The Adams imbroglio is a case of history repeating itself.

In 1995, Rustam Akhramov of Uzbekistan was appointed national coach. He watched the Santosh Trophy and chose an ageing Kuljeet Singh as striker ahead of the brilliant I.M. Vijayan for the forthcoming Nehru Cup and later the Saarc championships in Colombo.

In the opening Nehru Cup match, India lost 0-5 to Thailand and in the Saarc Cup, went down to hosts Sri Lanka 0-1 in the final. Akhramov a year later restored Vijayan to the team but lost his temper after disastrous outings in World Cup qualifiers in Qatar in 1996. He apparently abused and kicked some players and had to leave. Unfortunately, the AIFF did not learn the lessons of history.