A generation of Indian coaches once helped shape Malaysian athletics. Their absence from the new national coaching line-up has stirred debate, but the reasons may lie less in race than in age, economics and a thinning coaching system.
Malaysia Athletics’ decision to reshape its coaching structure for the 2026–2027 cycle has raised an uncomfortable question in some quarters: where are the Indian coaches in the new national set-up?
The reaction has ranged from disappointment to anger. A few voices have even drifted toward the language of grievance and race.
Before that narrative settles in, it is worth pausing to ask a simpler question. Is the absence of Indian coaches the result of discrimination, or does it reflect deeper realities within Malaysian athletics?
A closer look suggests the answer is more complicated than the loudest claims.
The restructuring follows a sobering run of results. Out of 47 gold medals on offer at the last SEA Games, Malaysia secured five gold, five silver and six bronze medals.
The longer trend looks even more troubling. Across the last four editions of the Games since 2019, Malaysian athletics has managed only five gold medals.
For a sport that once delivered regular regional success, those numbers have forced administrators to rethink the system.
Under the new structure, head coaches will oversee sprints, jumps, throws, middle distance and long distance, following interviews and assessments by an independent panel.
There are plans to bring in several foreign coaches to strengthen the programme, and to introduce a “train the trainer” scheme to transfer knowledge and build future coaching capacity.
The debate, however, centres not on the structure but on who is missing from it.
For decades, Indian coaches formed a visible and respected part of Malaysian athletics.
Many guided athletes who carried the Jalur Gemilang proudly at regional and continental competitions.
Their work helped shape the sport’s foundations and their contribution deserves recognition.
But every generation eventually steps aside.
Most of those coaches today are in their late sixties or seventies. Their experience remains valuable, yet modern elite coaching places demands that can be difficult to sustain deep into later life.
A changing profession
Athletics coaching has changed dramatically over the past two decades. The modern coach does far more than run track sessions with a stopwatch.
Elite training programmes now sit inside a wider network that includes sports science, biomechanics, nutrition, injury management and data analysis.
Coaches design detailed training cycles, monitor workloads and coordinate closely with physiotherapists and performance specialists.
Internationally, coach education reflects this shift. World Athletics run structured certification programmes that train coaches in physiology, biomechanics and modern training methodology before they work with elite athletes.
Daily training has also become more demanding. Many top athletes train twice a day and follow tightly managed recovery schedules.
Coaches plan sessions months in advance and monitor progress constantly.
The role now requires stamina, technical knowledge and long hours on the track. Even younger coaches often find the workload intense.
Experience still matters
Yet none of this means older coaches have nothing left to offer.
In many successful athletics systems, experienced coaches shift into mentoring or advisory roles while younger coaches handle the daily grind of training.
That arrangement allows federations to keep valuable knowledge within the system.
There are strong examples abroad. Legendary Kiwi coach Arch Jelley remained active in the sport well into his later years and received life membership from Athletics New Zealand at the remarkable age of 102.
Italian distance-running expert Renato Canova continues to influence elite programmes around the world. His role today focuses largely on planning, consultation and technical guidance rather than daily track supervision.
These examples show that age does not erase expertise. What often changes is the role a coach plays.
The missing generation
The deeper issue in Malaysia may lie elsewhere.
The local coaching landscape reveals a noticeable gap in the middle.
There are relatively few Indian athletics coaches today in their forties or fifties who have the experience and certification needed for national appointments.
That gap points to a pipeline problem.
Coaching has rarely attracted large numbers of young Malaysians as a long-term profession. Pay remains modest and job security can be uncertain.
Recognition also tends to flow more easily to athletes than to the coaches who train them.
Officials from the national sports council have acknowledged the need to raise salary levels to make coaching a viable career.
Without that incentive, many talented individuals choose more stable professions.
When fewer young people enter coaching, the pool naturally shrinks. Over time, that shortage appears at the national level.
National coaching appointments also demand a long record of development work.
Federations typically look for coaches with recognised certification, years of experience guiding athletes and proven results at state or national competitions.
Candidates must also show they can operate within a structured high-performance programme and collaborate with sports scientists and administrators.
In other words, national coaches usually emerge from a long developmental ladder. If the ladder weakens, representation at the top becomes uneven.
Seen from this angle, the absence of Indian coaches in the national set-up may say less about discrimination and more about the fragility of the broader coaching pipeline.
That reality does not mean the issue should be ignored.
MA’s planned “train the trainer” initiative could help rebuild the system if it is implemented with commitment.
Foreign specialists can pass on knowledge while younger Malaysian coaches gain experience in modern training methods.
At the same time, the sport must offer a clearer and more attractive trail for aspiring coaches.
Talented individuals from all communities should see coaching as a profession worth pursuing and sustaining.
Perception also matters. In many countries, athletics federations publish detailed criteria for national coaching appointments, outlining certification levels, experience requirements and performance benchmarks.
Such transparency helps remove doubt about how decisions are made. For MA, clearly communicating that pathway may be just as important as building it.
The goal should not be to satisfy ethnic arithmetic. The aim should be to build the strongest possible coaching make-up for Malaysian athletics.
If that framework grows stronger, representation will follow naturally.
Malaysian athletics owes much to the generation of coaches who built its earlier successes. Their work helped lay the foundations for the sport’s proud moments.
The challenge now is to ensure the next generation of coaches — from every community — receives the training, support and professional pathway needed to carry that legacy forward. - FMT
The views expressed are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.