Probably, many (if not all) could not help but pay attention to the characteristic tendentiousness and focus in the comments of the players of the Ukrainian national team (as well as its current coach) after yesterday's match lost to England (0:2) in the Euro 2024 qualifying.
Ruslan RotanNo negative emotions, no disappointment with the game, the result, the lack of goals scored and even accurate shots on the opponent's goal - none of this can be traced in the post-match statements of the representatives of the Ukrainian team. Moreover, there is a certain mixture of unbridled optimism and satisfaction with how the team played, what potential it has and what wonderful heights await it ahead. Give me just time.
I will not cite all these post-match statements here, they are not only on our website, they are now full of media space. But I will give short excerpts from these statements.
Rotan: "We have a very good team"
Malinovsky: "We have a very good team"
Zinchenko: "We have a great team"
Do you know what that reminds me of? This is what is in the short video below, which contains a fragment from one movie:
That is, we are talking about the fact that the negative result and the negative effectiveness of the game a-a-absolutely did not affect the players, their mood. “Everything is fine, beautiful marquise” ©.
And I asked myself - why is that? After all, this is nonsense! The team comes out to play for two things. It has always been and always will be in football and any sport in general.
The first is for the sake of, first of all, actually playing. And, therefore, in the end, the team will either be satisfied with the effectiveness of this very game, or be upset by the lack of this efficiency.
The second thing the team comes out to play for is the result. And, therefore, in the end, the team will either be satisfied with the result, or be upset by its absence.
All. Nothing else exists and cannot be. But, apparently, the Ukrainian national team has something else for which it enters the field, and that is why the mood of the team players is not disappointed with either the negative result or the zero effectiveness of the game in the match with England.
And I thought - what could it be for the sake of which the team enters the field, and what turns out to be more important than the game and the result? And immediately (immediately!) as if this sweet and such a modern word - "structure" sounded next to me!
This word burst into Ukrainian football not on the eve of the England-Ukraine match, but much earlier. It shocked me the most during the press conference of the former head coach of the Ukrainian national team Andriy Shevchenko, at which he summed up the results of the 2018 World Cup qualifying round.
Then the Ukrainian team lost the fight in the group of Iceland and Croatia without a chance: in four matches with their direct competitors, the “blue-yellows” lost three times and drew once. We didn’t have any chances against these opponents, just as we had no chances yesterday in the match with England: only one goal was scored in four matches.
It would seem, what special results could be summed up in that situation? The result was not achieved (they did not qualify for the World Championship), the game in matches with direct competitors was also not pleasing with its effectiveness. There is nothing to talk about, the topic is closed with quite clear, simple and understandable results for everyone. But here the journalists were attacked not only by the word "structure", which, as it turned out, the Ukrainian national team adhered to in their game throughout the entire qualifying round, but also by the statistics that confirmed this.
And these statistics were so detailed, so multifaceted that they occupied a huge sheet of paper that Shevchenko held in his hands during a press conference and repeatedly referred to certain data from there over and over again.
And the general message voiced at the press conference was that the main positive for all of us is the same "structure" and the fact that the Ukrainian national team withstood it in every match of the qualifying round.
“What is our life? A game!" - this is bad manners. Now like this: “What is our game? Structure!".
And in the same period of time, Ruslan Rotan, heading the youth team of Ukraine, directly and clearly stated that his team is entirely focused on the national team and .... right! - will play according to the same "structure".
"Structure" that we must love. A “structure” that is such a modern component of football so modern that it outweighs both the result and the effectiveness of the game combined in terms of its importance. Zero shots on goal? Yes, but the "structure" is maintained!
I remember that after Shevchenko’s press conference, some journalists literally eagerly aimed at the sheet that the coach was holding in his hands - a sheet with “structure” and its statistics. And I looked at my colleagues and did not understand what was wrong with me - why is this not at all interesting to me? I even imagined the situation as if I had this sheet. AND? What would I do? How could I love it - this sheet, these values on paper, this "structure"? Nail this leaf to the wall with a nail, look at it and somehow try to enjoy it (hussars, be silent!)?
But why should I even begin to want to love the "structure" if I loved and still love football - the game and the result.
It really looks like some kind of perversion, by God. I will give the simplest example below, which, I am sure, will be clear to everyone, and it will be clear when statistics really come to the fore.
Here is my site for which I am responsible. His only main indicators (like the effectiveness of the game and the result in football) are really statistics. How many people came to the site, how many pages of the site they viewed. This is precisely the result and effectiveness of my game, my football. If there is trouble with these indicators, then NO related data, no other statistics can compensate for this! It's clear, damn it! How clear is the day!
I can build tons of secondary, in-depth statistics, I can create such a beautiful “structure” based on these data that even ten sheets in my hands are not enough. But it will all be deep down to one place if there is a problem with the number of people who came to the site!
And the worst thing is that this "structure", or rather its value and significance, is driven not into the heads of fans and journalists, but into the heads of the team's players.
Therefore, over and over again we are faced with this:
Alexander Pikhalyonok: “Rotan's coaching style? Everything is very modern”
And after the rubbish of the lost match with England without goals and even shots on goal, we read this:
Alexander Karavaev: “Everyone was delighted with what Rotan offered us, what kind of training process”
The players fell in love with the "structure", with the "modernity" of what is presented to them, with the fundamentality and primacy of this. And this gives the corresponding effect: they take the field not for the result and the game, but for “maintaining the structure”. They have solid chips and lines in their heads, and not the ball and the opponent's goal. Therefore, Malinovsky does not hit the goal when there are all the prerequisites for this and no interference from opponents - because he is now part of the "structure", and his task in this situation is to draw a line. So he draws, but does not hit.
So the post-match statements of the players of the Ukrainian national team after the defeat from England, and their mood, is a completely logical result. Sad, as for me, but completely logical and understandable. They went out to play "structure", and therefore they are now assessing how well they managed to cope with this particular task. And the defeat, zero goals and strikes - all this fades into the background.
Alexander Popov
