Craig Fulton World Cup Analysis: Where Was India’s Plan B?

Craig Fulton's coaching has come under criticism from fans on India's World Cup performance

Just a month before the World Cup, India had finished the European leg of the Pro League with results that suggested Craig Fulton’s system was working. They beat the Netherlands and Germany, drew against England and remained competitive against some of the strongest teams in the world. India were not dominating these teams, but they rarely looked out of place against them.

The approach behind those results was familiar. Since Fulton took charge, India had repeatedly spoken about defence-to-counter, and even before the opening World Cup game against Wales, that remained the stated approach. Then the World Cup arrived and India looked like a different team, struggling to reproduce the hockey that had made them competitive only weeks earlier.

That contrast makes Fulton’s World Cup difficult to judge simply through the results. India had spent years developing one clear way of competing with stronger teams. Once England changed the tournament and India needed something different against the Netherlands and Argentina, the question became much more specific: what did Fulton’s India have beyond defence-to-counter?

Defence-to-Counter Had Already Proved It Could Work

A poor World Cup makes it easy to look backwards and decide the entire system was flawed. The results leading into the tournament make that difficult to support. India’s defence-to-counter approach had already taken them through the Paris Olympics, where they won bronze, and it remained effective enough to keep them competitive through the Pro League.

During the European leg shortly before the World Cup, India beat the Netherlands and Germany and drew against England. Even in defeats, they generally stayed in games against top opposition. Fulton was not arriving at the World Cup searching for an identity because India already had one, and there was evidence that it could work against the level of opposition they were about to face.

The system therefore should not be the starting point for criticism. The more important issue is what happened when match circumstances reduced its effectiveness and India needed to play differently.

England Changed What India Needed

The 4-2 defeat against England changed India’s tournament. India still qualified for the next phase after beating Pakistan, but the World Cup format meant the England result travelled with them, leaving India already chasing the teams above them.

That changed what India needed from the next two matches. Against the Netherlands, staying compact and waiting patiently for transition opportunities was becoming less useful because India needed a result. After the 3-1 defeat, the requirement against Argentina became even more aggressive, with India needing goals as well as a favourable result elsewhere.

Craig Fulton therefore cannot simply be criticised for moving away from defence-to-counter in those matches. Tournament circumstances had reduced his options. The more relevant coaching question is whether India had developed another way of playing before they suddenly needed it.

Was There Actually a Plan B?

This is where Fulton’s comments after the Argentina defeat become interesting. Since he became India coach, one message around the team had remained remarkably consistent: defence-to-counter. It had been part of India’s identity through the Olympic cycle, through the Pro League and even immediately before the World Cup opener against Wales.

After Argentina, however, Craig Fulton spoke about India not playing the fast attacking hockey he wanted. That comment stood out because an attacking style had rarely been presented as a distinct part of India’s identity under him. Hearing it after elimination raised a basic question about when this version of India had actually been developed.

There is a difference between asking a team to attack because it needs goals and having another playing model that has been developed and repeatedly tested in competitive matches. From what was visible over the previous year, India’s clearest identity remained defence-to-counter. They could regain possession, attack space quickly and hurt teams before they reorganised.

What was much harder to identify was how India intended to consistently break down an organised defence when those spaces disappeared. There had been attacking performances, but scoring goals is not automatically evidence of a separate attacking system. India needed to show they could control games, sustain attacks and create against teams that were already organised behind the ball.

None of this proves Craig Fulton and his staff had ignored those situations in training. From outside the camp, there is no way of knowing how much work went into different attacking structures or specific match scenarios. The evidence available from competitive matches, however, gave few clues that an alternative had developed to the same level as defence-to-counter.

England exposed the need for something different. The Netherlands increased that requirement, and by the time India faced Argentina, there was almost no choice but to chase the match. What appeared on the field never looked as established as the system India had spent years developing.

The Midfield Problem Was Still There

The uncertainty around Plan B also connects with a problem that existed before the World Cup: India’s midfield. Defence-to-counter reduced some of the demands on that area because India did not always need to build patiently through midfield. Once possession was recovered, the ball could be moved quickly into the space ahead.

When opponents reorganised and denied those transition opportunities, the midfield had to perform a different job. India needed to progress the ball through pressure, retain useful possession higher up the pitch and keep enough positional balance behind the attack to deal with turnovers.

Against the Netherlands, one sequence captured the danger. Harmanpreet Singh had brought India back to 2-1 before Manpreet Singh was dispossessed in midfield and the Dutch immediately attacked the space that appeared. Thijs van Dam restored the two-goal advantage four minutes later, wiping away much of the momentum India had just created.

The wider concern was the amount of space India could leave through the middle when players committed forward. Jarmanpreet Singh regularly provided support higher up the pitch, while India were often operating with three midfielders. Once possession changed, those players could be left covering large recovery distances.

Fitness alone does not fully explain that problem because even elite midfielders cannot repeatedly cover huge recovery distances at maximum intensity for an entire match. Positioning and structure have to reduce how often those recovery runs are required, especially when the wide defenders are already supporting the attack.

A 3-1-3-3 could have been one option, with a dedicated holding midfielder protecting the space ahead of the defence while allowing Hardik Singh to operate centrally or slightly higher. It is not the only possible solution, and there is no suggestion that changing formation alone would have fixed India’s problems. It does illustrate the larger issue: if India were going to commit more players forward, the structure behind those attacks also needed to change.

This is where the midfield problem connects directly with Plan B. Playing more attacking hockey involves more than sending additional players forward. The positioning around them has to allow India to attack without leaving the centre exposed whenever possession changes.

Where Craig Fulton’s World Cup Really Went Wrong

Craig Fulton deserves credit for creating a system that made India competitive with the best teams. The results before the World Cup matter because they show that defence-to-counter had not become obsolete. It was still producing performances against many of the same opponents India would meet at the tournament.

The World Cup tested something else. England put India behind in the competition, the format increased the cost of that defeat, and the Netherlands and Argentina then forced India into matches where waiting for transition opportunities was no longer enough. India suddenly needed another way to influence games.

For almost three years, Plan A had been clear. India knew how they wanted to defend, where their transition opportunities would come from and how they could compete without controlling every phase of possession. What remains much harder to establish is whether another approach had reached anything close to the same level of development.

Fulton’s comments after Argentina suggest he expected a faster attacking version of India to appear. The World Cup did not provide much evidence that India could produce that version consistently against elite opposition, while the old midfield problems became more visible once they tried to commit additional numbers forward.

Fulton did not get it wrong by building defence-to-counter. The question he has to answer is why, after almost three years with the team, India arrived at the World Cup with such a clearly established first approach and so little visible evidence of what came next.

For more World Cup analysis, match reports and tactical breakdowns, visit the Give Me Hockey World Cup 2026 Hub. If you read Give Me Hockey through Substack, forwarding the bulletin to another hockey fan is one of the easiest ways to help the coverage reach more readers.