The former head coach of Kolos Kovalivka, Yaroslav Vishnyak shared his impressions from yesterday's Nations League match Georgia — Ukraine (1:1) and assessed the actions of each of the Ukrainian team players.
Yaroslav Vishnyak— Mr. Yaroslav, what impressions did this game leave you? Why did we see such different two halves from the Ukrainian national team?
— It was clearly noticeable that the Ukrainian national team wanted to play for the result. There was also the factor of the difficult pitch, as well as the tournament situation in the group. Yes, we managed to score a quick goal, but after that the team started playing to preserve that score.
In the second half, the Georgian team managed to step up their activity, putting pressure on our goal. At the same time, Ukraine played according to the score, not creating enough danger, and only at the end of the second half did the team have a chance to win. But, unfortunately, it was squandered.
— So can we say that this match was similar to the last game between Ukraine and Georgia, where we also scored a goal and started playing to maintain the lead?
— Yes, these matches are similar. To be honest, the Georgians showed that they do not yield to the Ukrainian national team in individual qualities, regardless of the valuations placed on our players. Kvartaghliya, for example, is a very powerful player, a team leader fighting for the championship in Serie A. I would say that the Georgian national team's attack in this match showed better performance than ours.
— Which team was closer to victory, or can this game still be considered a draw?
— I think Georgia and Ukraine played more or less at the same level. Overall, it seems that our team cannot close out matches while playing as the first team. And when playing from defense... Let's put it this way: a number of national team players are not used to playing as the second team, doing a lot of dirty work.
The main problem of the Ukrainian national team is the lack of coherence in their play. Thus, it turns out that the team remains unable to defeat the opponent from a position of strength, by possessing the ball and initiative, and at the same time cannot achieve results when playing defensively, where it's necessary to run, take the ball, and endure — which used to be characteristic of our national team.
Player Ratings
Anatoliy Trubin — 7.5
— A confident game, in the second half he had more work than in the first. Overall, Trubin played reliably, didn’t make mistakes and looked convincing. I think he is one of the two best players of the match.
Vitaliy Mykolenko — 7.0
— If it weren't for the conceded goal, we would have viewed our defense play in a different light. Therefore, it's hard to say that any of the defenders played better or worse. Speaking specifically about Mykolenko, he did not have episodes where he made glaring mistakes, although he also lacked sharpness in attack.
Mykola Matviienko — 7.0
— Matviienko did his duties, looking quite convincing. I reiterate, if not for the conceded goal, there would have been no claims against the defenders of the Ukrainian team at all.
Ilya Zabarnyi — 7.0
— Zabarnyi has accustomed us to his stable and reliable play. This is what we saw in the match against Georgia. Overall, our team was mostly defending, giving the ball to the Georgians. Therefore, the defenders of the Ukrainian national team had considerable pressure, but they coped with it.
Yukhym Konoplia — 7.0
— In the first half, Konoplia contained Kvartaghliya, one of the best players in Serie A, who constantly acted to create danger. However, in the second half, Yukhym seemed to ‘become full’, so Khvicha outplayed him significantly more often. Thus, Yukhym's rating would have been higher if he had acted skillfully against Kvartaghliya throughout the entire match, not just one half.
Volodymyr Brazhko — 6.5
— Brazhko played to his level. He also had to perform a lot of dirty work, playing mostly without the ball, constantly moving. Volodymyr, until he was substituted, was handling his tasks.
Heorhiy Sudakov — 6.0
— Sudakov did not follow the player who struck the first shot on Trubin's goal at the moment of the conceded goal. Such episodes, which usually do not attract much attention, turned out to be key in this match.
Mykola Shaparenko — 6.5
— In the match against Georgia, even our attacking players, known for their play in creating threats, had to work more on defense. Therefore, of course, this scenario is not the most pleasant for Shaparenko, who loves to start and drive attacks. However, we can say that Mykola handled his duties and fulfilled everything required of him in this position under such circumstances.
Mykhailo Mudryk — 7.5
— The sharpest player of the Ukrainian national team in this match. It is evident that Mykhailo is progressing. Almost all the danger to the Georgian goal came from him. At the same time, Mudryk also tried to work on defense. Unfortunately, he did not score a goal, although he had an excellent opportunity for it. This is probably the only unpleasant moment in his performance.
Oleksandr Zubkov — 6.0
— There were moments where Zubkov could have played more effectively in attack, managing the ball better. Again, we return to the topic of playing for the result, which forced attacking players to spend a lot of time playing defensively. Perhaps because Oleksandr expended a lot of energy on defensive duties, he was somewhat lacking in attack.
Artem Dovbyk — 6.0
— Artem looked detached from the team. All our players with good attacking potential were focused on playing defense, thus not supplying the forward with the ball very often. Dovbyk had a great chance to score, but he squandered it by shooting over. There was a lack of quality in his actions — this applies to both the execution of moments and duels, where he could have retained the ball for his team. It is generally hard to expect anything when a forward does not score in such episodes.
Vladislav Lyutyi
