Renowned football expert Oleksandr Sopko reflected on the topic of the next dismissal of Shakhtar Donetsk's head coach.
Alexander Sopko- This is an extreme situation for Shakhtar. In recent decades, Shakhtar has been a stable club - with a skilled squad, titles, a moral and psychological atmosphere, a stable exchange rate, and finances. In general, there was self-confidence. That is, there was a warm bath in which everyone bathed.
But the war, and all the subsequent changes, had a negative impact on Ukrainian football in general, and especially on the leading clubs. Those teams that were at the bottom, they had survived before and continued to do so. At Shakhtar, these changes have become more noticeable. There was a departure of qualified players. But the team continued to play according to the old scheme, and there was no progress or development, especially in terms of coaching and play.
When young players came to Shakhtar, mostly from the club's academy, plus some from other Ukrainian teams, it was a dramatic change of generations. "Shakhtar were replenished with capable, but not mature players. They were not football guards, they had not yet formed their character. They overestimated their ups and did not keep their cool when they failed. Their unformed psychology hardly allowed them to overcome difficulties.
There were no middle-generation leaders at Shakhtar. Except for Zubkov and Matvienko. But they never became full-fledged leaders because of their individual qualities. Therefore, the club had to rely on those who had passed their peak - Stepanenko, Rakitskiy, Chygrynskiy. And this is wrong.
This summer, Shakhtar said goodbye to Jovicevic. It was really necessary. Playing football to just get results is, of course, good, but there was no development. At the same time, Patrick van Leeuwen proved himself well at Zorya. And when Shakhtar invited him, they hoped that he would give the team a new impetus.
However, there were two reasons why van Leeuwen did not work out at Shakhtar. When a coach works with young players, he needs to communicate with them more, to be a teacher. The Dutch specialist did not have this opportunity because he did not know the language. Many of the players did not understand his requirements. There were also many who did not want to change. Van Leeuwen demanded an increase in the intensity of training - in everything, they had to run more, work harder. But these guys were from the academy, they were used to something else. They were used to football with ball control and so on, they were used to the same warm bath they grew up in, when everything is good, when you have everything. Why burp, die in training and listen to this coach? That's how a conflict arose because of a misunderstanding.
When this conflict began to affect the game, the relationship with the fans and the management, it was decided to sacrifice the coach. It was the peak... But it was necessary to restore mutual understanding in the team, in the club. I have always said that it is very important that the club is the priority. Therefore, Patrick Van Leeuwen's resignation is a logical step. Changes are overdue. It happens when you make a mistake with a coach.
At Zorya, Van Leeuwen really did well. I think this was because he had other performers at his disposal, players who were ready to work hard, who had a great desire to shine, to prove themselves and to break out of there. That's why they listened carefully to Patrick van Leeuwen, and Zorya had the right result," the expert said.
