Oleksandr Sopko: "Pushych's resignation? There are more than enough reasons for this"

Former football player of Donetsk "Shakhtar" Oleksandr Sopko shared his opinion on the crisis in "Shakhtar".

— What is happening with "Shakhtar"? I based my assessment of what is happening not even on the results. The result is an illustration of the game, it’s a test. It is not always fair, but most often it reflects the game that the team demonstrates. And if we talk about the game, it has long boiled over not only for me but for all "Shakhtar" fans, and the game of "Shakhtar" in recent years, especially this year, is no longer perceived.

In my opinion, the problem didn’t arise today or yesterday; it’s been a long time since it started, many years ago, when it was declared that we needed technical, beautiful, tasty football. In this paradigm, all processes were built. There was a search for coaches who were supposed to show only technical football, saying we don't need simple, intensive football with speeds, like a box-to-box style. It was asserted that we needed calm, technical football that would exhaust the opponent, and the opponent would surrender by himself while we would swallow him like a python would a rabbit.

This type of football has been practiced in recent years. And the biggest mistake occurred after the club president declared this. It was perceived as a command for action. And behind this command, it is easy to hide, saying that if the president wants it this way, then we will act accordingly. No one took the courage to propose something of their own, their own vision of football, their philosophy; no one dared to argue with the president. The result was some kind—we played in European cups, even sold players for crazy prices, but time was wasted, and we did not manage to adapt to modern rails.

Football is not the Mona Lisa, which is painted and can be admired for centuries. Football is a living process, it's a sport. The opponent also wants to win, looks for moves, opportunities, new approaches, and stopping at one’s own understanding of technical and tasty football, without developing it—is a one-way ticket to a dead end. The club has reached or is approaching that dead end, in my opinion. A lot has been lost from what modern football is built upon or has not been acquired.

With Pushych's arrival, I thought that finally a coach had appeared who had worked a lot in the Netherlands, knows Dutch football, its demands—intensity, good physical condition, speeds, and one-on-one play. I thought that Pushych would introduce these elements into "Shakhtar's" game and make it different. He would mainly solve three main tasks that "Shakhtar" needs.

The first: this is team pressing—both high and in the midfield area. I emphasize the word "team," meaning not two, three, four, or five players pressing, but precisely—team pressing, high. This is when all defenders are in the opponent’s half of the pitch and do not fear quick counterattacks. Why did "Shakhtar" need this? When there is a lot of play near the opponent's penalty area, if the ball is lost, one must immediately try to regain it, and one does not have to run long to one’s own goal to regain possession, etc. High pressing is as much a part of the attack as regular positional play. That is, having quickly regained the ball from the opponent near their penalty area, one can immediately organize their own attack, which, by the way, is what opponents do against "Shakhtar" in European cups.

I hoped that this element would be improved and taken to a higher quality level. But unfortunately, there were only rare flashes when a few players tried to press with freshness. Yes, at times "Shakhtar" managed this. But most often there was no team pressing. While the attackers worked actively upfront, I often saw a picture where two or three "Shakhtar" defenders plus the goalkeeper were standing behind the center circle, lurking for each other, waiting for a long pass to intercept. They do not support their midfielders, and in turn, the midfielders do not support the forwards, creating compact pressing is not working. In this respect, Pushych did nothing.

The second: this is individual defensive play, one-on-one. This problem might not even be something that Pushych should cure; this problem has existed since the youth teams. Teaching a player to defend actively, without fear, correctly, without fouling—this should be done from a young age. Unfortunately, the current "Shakhtar" players do not possess the courage and confidence necessary to play one-on-one.

On the contrary, there is a feeling that players somewhat passively, and sometimes cowardly, go for the intercept. There is practically no anticipatory play. No one reads the game to play the ball cleanly, but anticipates the opponent. Everyone hides behind "collective actions," behind "collective containment," behind compact defense, where one can hide, not stick out, not take responsibility, and not go into a fight alone. Everyone prefers to hide and not let themselves be outplayed. They think, if I don’t lose the duel, then I won’t be scolded much. However, without duels, without fights, it is impossible to build team play. I had the least complaints against Pushych in this regard, but he could have demanded more from the players during the time he has worked with the team, which has already been a year.

The third moment. What Pushych should have resolved is the match intensity, teaching players to make the game more dynamic, faster, to increase speeds not only with the ball but even more so—without it, to create arythmia. When it is necessary—to increase pressure, speeds, or conversely—to calm the game down, to slow it, taking a pause. In this aspect, Pushych resolved the task halfway. That is, the team learned to take pauses, to rest, but did not learn to speed up the game, making it intense. In this component, "Shakhtar" differs from "Dynamo." However, to know everything, to categorize it all, one must be in the process, to see training, to know what the team is doing, and what requirements it sets for itself. Then one can assess everything more fairly.

But what disappoints me the most in this situation... When I carefully listen to the comments of coaches before and after the match, I always understand that the coach should not voice everything. I understand that for pedagogical purposes, the coach must support the players, that he has club ethics. But if the coach talks black when everyone sees white in all his statements, if he says: I like my game... While all the fans assert that everything is bad, but he responds: I like it.

Then I have a question: does he consider everyone to be fools, believing that no one understands football in this country, or does he really not understand the problems that exist? This scares me even more than the unresolved three problems I mentioned. A coach who constantly dodges questions, does not respond objectively, and cannot acknowledge what everyone sees, I think, has dubious qualifications.

Pushych's resignation? There are more than enough reasons for this. 3-4 place in the Ukrainian championship, and one victory over a consciously weak team—"Young Boys" in the Champions League, absolutely does not improve the impression from other matches—in terms of the quality of play. One can speak a lot about the match not won against PSV, but 35 shots on your goal, and assert after that, that the game was super—that is exactly to call black white. Moreover, the match against "Bayern" showed that it was enough for the opponent to exert a little pressure, and "Shakhtar" all falls apart at the seams. To defend one's reputation and qualifications by saying that 4 points were scored in the Champions League is impossible and wrong. There are many questions—regarding the starting lineup, regarding substitutions, and regarding the management of the game. If all this can be called technical and tasty football, then I don’t know what unsavory, bland, and sleepy football is...

Oleg Semenchenko