Well-known Ukrainian coach and authoritative expert Oleh Fedorchuk analyzed in detail the match of the 2nd round of the League of Nations Czech Republic - Ukraine (3:2).
Oleg Fedorchuk"I feel as if Rebrov still does not understand the capabilities of his players. I see inconsistency in his actions"
- After the previous match against Albania, the players and the head coach talked a lot about the need to draw conclusions from the defeat. Today we are losing again, so the question is: "Have any conclusions been drawn?".
- If we talk about the team's attitude, the conclusions were drawn. As for the game... You see, in sports, the psychological aspect can help an athlete, but not significantly.
For example, a jumper has a record of two meters, and here he pulled himself together and jumped two meters and two centimeters. But that's the maximum, you can't make significant progress with emotions alone. Emotions cannot replace full-fledged functional training, partner sensitivity, and technical elements.
It's the same as with an exam: if you constantly worry and think about what ticket you will get, it will only hurt you. And today, the national team veterans - Yarmolenko and Stepanenko - were very emotionally charged, but made childish mistakes, just like the rest of the players.
It was noticeable how difficult it was for Yarmolenko, especially in the episode when he made a bad roll and that was it - he would not have time to do anything else in this episode because he was not physically ready.
- Who else had a bad match? Will any of the players of the Ukrainian national team be able to add this match to their assets, even despite the defeat?
- Our flankers were very passive as well. In general, if we talk about the defense line, then except for Zabarny, it was too static. The players generally dropped too low, Zabarnyi repeatedly shouted to them that they needed to go forward because he had to advance the ball and he demonstrated that he could do it.
Only with the release of Sudakov and Tsygankov did mobility appear, complete with aggravation. In the center, Zinchenko and Shaparenko played, but we lacked a player who would have made sharp shots from deep. The team seemed to make a lot of passes, but they did not bring our team closer to scoring a goal. It was not very clear how the team was going to win. In fact, in the first half, the game was over.
- And this is despite the fact that the Czech Republic is far from being at its best.
- The Czechs did not invent anything, but played simply. But playing simply is the most difficult thing in football. The Czech Republic was sharper in the first half, we were sharper in the second. They are not stronger than us, but in this match they acted absolutely correctly. There was more simplicity and rationality in the Czechs' actions.
At the end of the game, we almost had the initiative, and it seemed that we would push on. And then this penalty kick... I think if it wasn't for it, we could have at least won a draw. We had a good streak, we had several dangerous moments in a row.
- Was there a penalty kick? How would you generally assess the refereeing in this game?
- In my opinion, there was a penalty. You can have different opinions about modern instructions, but they are there. And there can be no serious complaints about the chief referee ( Scotsman John Bitton - ed. ), somewhere he judged even more in our direction. He couldn't help but award that 11-meter penalty, because he and VAR were called to watch, prompted. There was also a moment when Mudryk could have been given a red card for dangerous play. He could have seriously injured the Czech.
- Okay, the referees are not to blame. So what was the reason for the defeat?
- In this match, we had a very, very difficult time entering the penalty area, but what annoys me the most is that the national team was preparing for Euro 2024, played three matches in the tournament, and there is no connection between the players at all.
Football is a collective game, the most important thing is understanding each other, and what are we doing? It feels like Rebrov still doesn't understand the capabilities of his own players.
- As if Serhiy Stanislavovych wants to play like Guardiola's Manchester City, not realizing that his team has players of a slightly different quality.
- Yes! And I would also note the following moment. A game has passed - Rebrov changes 30-40% of the lineup. This is a lot. Look, Kabaev played well in the previous match against other players, but he didn't even come out against the Czech Republic. Pikhalenok played well against the Albanians, and then he was only released at the end. I think it's strange. It is noticeable that Malinowski is not ready yet, but the coaching staff allows him to play...
It was hard for Yarmolenko and Stepanenko, they were not ready for such intense matches. Although, of course, they cannot be blamed for their desire to win.
- We know the capabilities of the players of the national team of Ukraine, they show themselves well in clubs, but what happens to them in the national team? Rebrov has also established himself as a quality club coach, but the national team is still struggling. What is the problem with this team: the players or the coaching staff?
- You see, Rebrov and Dynamo did not have everything going smoothly. At the end of his tenure, conflicts with the players began, which eventually led to his resignation. Rebrov was unable to get along with Shovkovsky and Husyev, the living legends of Dynamo.
"I didn't follow his Ferencvaros very closely, but it's not the level and not the team to brag about his merits. He didn't have the pressure he has now, he wasn't expected to do what he did.
Coming back to the national team, it should be understood that the players are chosen by the coaching staff, not vice versa. You cannot blame the player for being chosen by the head coach. At the club level, players from the previous coach may remain. The national team does not. You invite them, so think about how to use them.
- But in terms of personnel, the same fans demand drastic changes, don't you agree?
- Rebrov has a strange coaching position. He had one lineup for the Romanians, another for the Slovaks, and a third for the Belgians. He is still searching, although more than a year has passed since he took over the team. After every bad game, he changes not just a few players, but a whole bunch of them. On the one hand, he trusts the experienced, and on the other hand, he puts his faith in the young... And this is a conservative approach, so the same players are always shuffled. There is no consistency in Rebrov's actions.
On the one hand, Serhiy Stanislavovych is stubborn, and on the other hand, he is pressured by the need to get results here and now. It seems to me that Rebrov wants to appear confident, but his actions are definitely not.
"Mativenko should be a leader, but instead of him, the younger Zabarnyi takes on this role"
Anatoliy Trubin - 6.5
- There can be no special complaints against him, but there was a certain fussiness in his actions. I noticed that he was nervous, not very confident. It seems that Trubin burned out a little bit.
Vitaly Nikolenko - 6.5
- He played as well as he could at this point. I don't know how physically ready he is. Once again, our wing backs were very modest in attack. If Tymchyk was still helping a tired Yarmolenko, Mykolenko was sitting under Mudryk, insuring him. Vitaliy didn't fail today, but he didn't show everything he was capable of either.
Mykola Matvienko - 6.0
- As for Matvienko's performance, he, like all Shakhtar players this season, is not functionally ready for the new campaign. Mykola should be a leader, but 22-year-old Zabarnyi takes on these responsibilities!
Ilya Zabarnyi - 7.0
- I like Zabarnyi for the second game in a row. He is progressing and gradually removing his shortcomings. In general, Ilya acts very modernly, he takes over the game, drags the ball, there are even some moments with dribbling.
It is very interesting to watch him. And we shouldn't forget that Zabarnyi is only 22, and the defender is only getting better with age. In general, in this match, Zabarnyi was one of the most prominent players in the attack.
Oleksandr Tymchyk - 6.0
- This is not the same Tymchyk who was one of the best in our team at the Euros. Against the Czech Republic, he played mostly on defense. He had a serious physical burden, as Yarmolenko in his current condition did not help him much in defense. Although Andriy didn't do much in his best years either. In general, Tymchyk played this match modestly, I would even say too modestly.
Taras Stepanenko - 6.0
- Brazhko gave up, and Stepanenko hadn't played much before - that's what we have... In the Czech Republic, Taras played the role of a destroyer, his task was to take the ball away and pass it to his neighbor. Anatoliy Tymoshchuk, the traitor, acted in the same manner.
I could understand if we played with a pure destroyer against the French or the Spaniards, but against the Czech Republic... It's too much. Again, Stepanenko had a desire to win, no doubt, he gave his best, but Shakhtar have had some problems with physical fitness this season, which is why the national team is suffering.
Mykola Shaparenko - 6.5
- Nerves, a resultant mistake. In general, that episode with the first conceded goal is kindergarten. I would even say that this is not the level of the lower leagues, where the UPL is.
But then Shaparenko made a filigree pass to Vanat. It was noticeable that Mykola aimed this ball directly at Vanat. It was an important assist for Shaparenko, although sometimes he cannot find a place on the field in the national team.
Oleksandr Zinchenko - 6.5
- Zinchenko was emotional, took over the game, but did not aggravate it. He contributed to our first goal, but this is not the same Zinchenko who played at Manchester City or in his first season at Arsenal. I will not throw a stone in his garden, as he has little playing practice at the club, so we have what we have.
Mykhailo Mudryk - 6.5
- In the first half he completely failed, and in the second half he played well for 20 minutes. It's his on/off switching that annoys me, because Mudryk plays very unevenly. For the first 15-20 minutes of the second half, Mykhailo was doing well, and it seemed like he would score a little more. But no, Mudryk then disappeared from the radar again.
Andriy Yarmolenko - 6.5
- He is the leader of the team, but his condition after the injury leaves much to be desired. As he says, not without humor: "Eyes burning, but no opportunity". Yarmolenko sharpened the game today, but he had some inaccuracies and deficiencies. Andriy plays well on the spot, but in an intense match with a high pace of play it is very difficult for him.
And yes, Yarmolenko is the leader of the team in terms of character, attitude, patriotism, but not in terms of play... For example, in the English national team, the leader in terms of play is 23-year-old Jude Bellingham, not one of the veterans.
Vladyslav Vanat - 7.0
- He played well and scored his debut goal. At the Euros, he was marinated, allowed to play for 10 minutes. I was waiting for him to appear against the Czech Republic, as we had to impose a fight. Vanat did a lot of running work that gave the Czech national team defenders cramps - this is his merit.
Vlad did a lot of useful work, he broke away, but the team needs to play more on him, our midfielders are far from the forward. And although Vanat got lost somewhere in the second half, he played a very good match overall, he could have even scored a double.
I hope that this goal will give him confidence, because at Dynamo he had a small crisis, not everything worked out. But with the Czech Republic, Vanat proved once again that he has potential. However, I will continue to say that our offense lacks Dovbyk. Still, for our country, Artem is a very serious fighting unit and a striker of a completely different type than the rest of the players.
"Sudakov and Tsygankov stepped up their game, but why did they give Pikhalenko so little time?"
- Whom would you mention among the players who came off the bench?
- Sudakov came out very confidently. I liked the Sudakov-Gypsy combination. By the way, while Shaparenko in the episode with the first goal scored passed directly to Vanat, Viktor sent the ball into the area, not to a specific player. Tsygankov always sharpens up, no matter what form he is in. I would give Viktor a 6.5, he has improved the game significantly.
Sudakov, on the other hand, played a very powerful match, I would give him a 7.0. He reminded me of last year, when he both assisted and scored. That Sudakov was worth 50 million. Today he played confidently, made no mistakes in making decisions on the field, and immediately caught the pace of the game.
I would not evaluate the others, but I have a question: "Why was Pikhalenko given so little time?". I have the impression that he has moments in every game - it shows that he feels the game. Players who have these moments are always appreciated. Realization is a technical aspect.
In my opinion, Malinowski did not get into the game at all. He acted very emotionally, but nothing worked out for him. He looks pale against Pikhalenko. It was hard for Yaremchuk to enter this game at all, Roman played on emotions, on feelings, and his physical form needs to be improved.
"Rebrov has the best team in recent years, but only in terms of the squad. Staying in Division B is already a success for us"
- If we compare this team of Rebrov with the teams of Andriy Shevchenko and Oleksandr Petrakov, which one is the best and which one is the worst?
- This is a difficult question. I think the answer to it can be found if we recall the fact that the backbone of the national team from Shevchenko to Rebrov has not changed much. Almost the same players are playing.
If we look at the lineup, Rebrov has the best team, but there are a lot of questions about stability and the "diet" in the game. It's not enough to gather great players, you also need to find an approach to them, find the best tactics and scheme. France had a better team than the Spaniards, but they didn't win the Euros. The Austrian national team looked more powerful than Germany, although the names were the opposite.
Therefore, we are talking about the coach's ability to find the scheme and tactical structure that will allow the players to open up. This is what speaks about the level of the coaching staff.
- Previously, we had players of a more modest level, but the national team performed better. Now there are more personalities, but all together, they do not produce results at the level of their talent. Why?
- I believe that our benchmark, whom we should look up to in our approach, is the Georgian national team. They have three or four players of a very good level, but the coach there (Frenchman Willy Sagnol - ed.) has chosen a scheme where everyone benefits the team. The whole team works to win and does it effectively, because they get results.
We have a star player, but no result. We don't have a team as such at the moment. Listen, if the fans don't understand, the experts don't understand, and I think the players don't fully understand how to play, then something must be wrong. Maybe it should be recognized? I think that if Rebrov understands how he wants to see the national team play, it is definitely not noticeable on the field.
- We can state that the start in the League of Nations has failed. Is staying in Division B already a success?
- Yes, of course it is. We need to be realistic and realize that it will be very difficult for us in the future. Firstly, we are in a crisis, and secondly, we don't play at home. It is not easy for footballers to play away all the time. A lot depends on how our players will enter the European Cups and how they will endure the workload. There are many factors that do not add to optimism. I think if we stay in this division, it will be a success.
Vladyslav Liutostanskyi
