The former press attaché of the Ukrainian national team Oleksandr Hlyvynskyi expressed his opinion about the legendary forward of Dynamo and now president of UAF Andriy Shevchenko, and whether the head of UAF can dismiss the head coach of the Ukrainian national team Serhiy Rebrov.
Oleksandr Hlyvynskyi— You had the opportunity to observe Andriy Shevchenko when he was a player, then the coach of the national team, and now — a bureaucrat, president of the Ukrainian Football Association. How has he changed?
— He changed according to his status. I remember him as a player of the U-19 national team. It was 1994, in Lviv we played against the Netherlands in the playoff. Shevchenko scored a goal at the Ukraine stadium. I asked the administrator to bring out Andriy from the dressing room for an interview.
This was my first interview with Shevchenko. By the way, for the Netherlands, Clarence Seedorf scored two goals then, a future partner of Shevchenko in Milan. Patrick Kluivert also played. It ended 2:2.
Shevchenko said that in the return match he would fight for victory. Even then, at 18, he was quite confident in himself. Then he became a leader of the national team. A lot changed for him after moving to Milan: his worldview and his vision of many things.
— When Shevchenko received European recognition by winning the Ballon d'Or in 2004, did he become less open to communication?
— Such recognition has an effect. Shevchenko has always been careful in his contacts and communication with the press. There have been candid interviews, of course. However, overall, it seems to me that he is too cautious in his statements.
It is hard to say whether there was any decisive change in him specifically after he won the Ballon d'Or. He brought it to Kyiv, to the monument to Valeriy Lobanovskyi near the Dynamo stadium. He honored his mentor. This is an important moment.
With Shevchenko, it always took a long time to arrange interviews. And he always said that he does not give many interviews. Although I managed to invite him for a conversation both before his move to Milan and when he was in Milan, and when he returned.
Probably, when Andriy Mykolayovych was working as the national team coach, he gave many interviews. For this, we were represented by Mykola Vasylykov.
— In the national team, did it matter that Shevchenko was an idol for many players, whose games they grew up watching?
— Yes, many in the national team dreamed of being like Shevchenko since childhood. For them, it was an interesting moment, additional motivation.
— And what was he like when he became the national team coach?
— It was a challenge for him. He has this quality — to be a leader. That's true. It is important for him to feel like the master of the situation. He acted like a real boss in the national team. It was definitely not easy for the staff and workers. He is demanding and keeps his distance. I wouldn’t call him always a fair leader. But every coach has his own style.
With footballers, he behaved differently. He was quite demanding in training and in the game. But he found ways to encourage them, sought personal contact with the players. He somehow mixed demands during training and games with moments of friendly psychological support in everyday life. He knows how to do this, unlike every coach.
— I thought that after the success with the national team, Andriy Mykolayovych should stay in coaching. Don’t you think so?
— I don’t know if he wants to return to coaching. Being a functionary is something else. He has interesting qualities as a coach. He assembled a good team of assistants in 2016, a good team. This is very important.
First of all — Andrea Maldera, who was responsible for analytics and tactics. A very strong specialist. Shevchenko often discussed things with him. Maldera's role in the successes of that team, which moved to Euro 2020 from the first place in the qualifying group and reached the quarter-finals, is very important.
It seems to me that coaching is just right for Shevchenko. But now he is a functionary. It is clear that he is a big star in our football. And his candidacy did not raise any questions. But he still needs to show himself as a functionary. Now he has many challenges. For a player and coach, the work of a functionary is very challenging. This difficult path has just begun.
A month ago there was a press conference, where it was unusual that various members of his team reported for a whole hour. And then he himself answered questions. I think he has a lot to work on. The head of UAF needs to communicate a lot with the media, and this was just one press conference for the whole year. There should be more communication, a need to communicate and respond to sharp questions from journalists.
— Was it Shevchenko who decided in July last year that you would not work with the national team?
— I felt that Shevchenko wanted to change me in this position. And that was it. I asked, “Why?”. He said he believed new people should come. In response, I was surprised, as we come from the same generation, practically.
I had no questions towards him taking over UAF. I was ready to continue my work. However, if that is the leader’s view, what can I say... I know that this was his desire. It's his decision. Okay.
— Do you think the reason was that new people were needed?
— I don’t know. I worked the same way as before; there were no new requests towards me. By July 2024, I will have already worked for a year with the new coach — Serhiy Rebrov. Maybe they wanted a more loyal person. Still, I worked with the national team for 14 years, and most of the players on the team joined after me. Only Andriy Yarmolenko came earlier. Perhaps they wanted more loyalty from new people. Or maybe someone advised them. I had no intention of arguing.
While I worked for a year with Rebrov, and prior to that with Shevchenko as a coach and even earlier, as a player, I always tried to convey that players and coaches must be accountable to both fans and media. I constantly talked about this. I cannot say that everything always succeeded. I don't know if this is the reason.
The national team cannot be closed off. This is a team for the whole people and the entire nation. It is much more than a club. Although even a club must be open before its fans. There cannot be a closed regime. People have the right to know. We captured life inside the team in a way that gave a sense of presence.
— And how is it now with this in the national team?
— As far as I know from colleagues, it has become a bit more difficult to communicate with the team now. It is more challenging to get permission for interviews. Footballers always fear that something will be distorted. It is safer for them to communicate something to fans through their own social networks, to develop them.
— Don’t you think that clubs and footballers are increasingly trying to do without journalists?
— It should not be forgotten that it was journalists who developed football to a popularity that sparked mass interest. Society has easily forgotten this. Journalists wrote and shot World Cups long ago when those tournaments were nowhere near as popular. Journalists invented the Ballon d'Or. The idea of the Champions League belongs to journalists. Everybody has forgotten this already.
Yes, journalists can always ask something awkward. But one should not be afraid of candid questions. Although it is very hard to convey. You should take examples from global athletes, they communicate more.
The problem is that we do not have many journalists now, initially due to COVID, and now due to the war, who can travel abroad to communicate directly. Many media obtain information from foreign sources. They act somewhat “in a hick manner”. The media consider sending journalists for two or three thousand dollars to international competitions non-market expenses.
We are here like hicks. And the channels are run by big businessmen; it is their business. Here this hick mentality plus a commercial approach — to gather as much money on advertising and not pay for exclusive materials — is what irritates me.
— There were enough voices saying that Shevchenko’s role in the national team from 2016 to 2021 was not decisive. All the main work was done by his assistants. Is this true?
— Shevchenko was a good manager. A manager in English football, for example, is also the head coach. He put together a good team. Shevchenko and Maldera often were on the field simultaneously. Andrea worked a lot on building the tactics. Andrii was involved in this. Maldera's experience, skills, and understanding played a key role in this. Shevchenko was the leader of this great coaching staff, in which the Italian was a very important player.
Another assistant — Mauro Tassotti — is also very experienced. But he only spoke Italian. The only player who knew that language was Malynovskyi.
Shevchenko, Maldera, and Tassotti divided the roles among themselves. They often talked amongst themselves and discussed strategy and tactics a lot behind closed doors. They had a good synergy. Assistants in the coaching staff are very important. They must consider many important things. But the decisions and responsibility were with the head coach. The team did play brilliantly under them.
— You left the national team on July 11 last year. And just two weeks later, the Ukrainian Olympic football team went to the Olympics for the first time. Although far from an optimal squad. Could Shevchenko, as the president of UAF, influence to ensure that the team in Paris had a stronger selection of players?
— I think he could. And I believe that it was his task. After all, he has authority in football. The coach of the Olympic team, Ruslan Rotan, initially spoke about this issue. Then he simply focused on those boys who were there. And he did the right thing. Otherwise, he would have demoralized this squad if he kept saying that we could have had a stronger team.
But I definitely believe that Shevchenko could have influenced Dynamo more to provide a bit more players. And also Shakhtar. Heorhii Sudakov could have played. And Nazar Voloshyn could have also. The national team lacked players. Ultimately, Dynamo and Shakhtar decided to send an equal number of players.
There could have been Brazhko, Voloshyn, Vyvcharenko, Vanat from Dynamo. From Shakhtar — Sudakov, Bondarenko. Zorya did not release Batagov, then released him. Zorya also thought about its preparation for the season... A glaring fact: Oleksii Sych was trying to show himself in the game against Luton to sell to that club. Many wrote about this. He also arrived late.
This attitude towards the Olympic team was on a residual principle. Shevchenko's authority could have allowed him to talk to Chelsea about Mudryk. And with Benfica about Trubin. The Lisboans released goalkeeper Leo Kokubo to the Japanese national team, but they did not release Trubin.
— Why did our clubs treat this issue this way?
— It is clear that this is all complicated; clubs are preparing for the season. But in what is the value of Shevchenko as a functionary? It is that he is a star of football. Such issues can be resolved by his authority. He comes in — and everyone knows who has come. There was not the necessary help for the Olympic team.
For example, look, Hakimi from PSG came to play for Morocco. Our team eventually won 2:1 against Morocco. But we lost 1:2 to Iraq, where most players were from the national team. Very different approaches.
— With a different lineup, would the team have had a chance for a significant place?
— This was our football team's first appearance in the Olympics. Morocco won bronze. For medals, we needed to get out of the group and win the quarter-final. And that would have been great. We played well, but we could have had a significantly stronger team. This is definitely a shortfall of UAF. Rotan was left to fend for himself.
In 2023, both Sudakov and Mudryk went to the youth Euro — and reached the semi-finals. And at the Olympics, it was either a second or a one-and-a-half squad. I spoke with Mudryk, Trubin, Sudakov, and Brazhko. They all wanted to go to the Games. Each player, let’s say, is “suffocated” by club obligations.
Playing for the national team is playing for the honor of the country. But for some reason, this did not extend to the Olympic team. I asked about this at Shevchenko's press conference. He said that “we will not influence or interfere, clubs will decide for themselves”. Well, such things are not done in the national team...
— Do you like how the team plays under Serhiy Rebrov, who took charge in the summer of 2023?
— I liked how the team showed character in the Euro 2024 qualifiers. I saw his coaching approach. He worked out tactics, tried to bring his style into the game design. In principle, this partially yields results.
I liked it when we made these comebacks in the qualifiers — with North Macedonia in June 2023, when we were losing 0:2 but won 3:2. There was also a victory in October of the same year in Malta 3:1 when we were the first to concede. Such willful victories in March 2024 against Bosnia (2:1) and Iceland (2:1). His work did yield results. However, for some reason, we lagged in the first halves.
What we did last year in the Nations League I did not like at all. Did we have a game pattern at the beginning of the tournament? The fact that we won the end against Albania 2:1 saved the situation somewhat. We managed to score two quick goals. But we mostly did not let the opponent play rather than being creative about what we could have been. Given that our players could show spectacular, interesting and meaningful football. We tried to maintain ball control, but from this control, there were very few moments. Every time it was a tightrope walk. We minimally beat the Georgians and drew with them away. And beat the Albanians thanks to two quick goals on the 5th and 10th minutes.
But, in fact, there is no game pattern. I do not consider this team the most talented, as some referred to it before Euro 2024. There were more talented teams. But the team could show brighter football. So far, it is not visible.
— You were part of the team and were in the team’s dressing room. What was the atmosphere like after the opening defeat at Euro 2024 from the Romanians 0:3?
— There was absolute devastation. A very painful defeat. Everyone sat glumly, heads down... Andriy Yarmolenko wanted to talk to the team. He asked me to call Illia Zabarnyi, who was already giving an interview in the mix zone. The guys gathered and began to speak among themselves. Then Andriy said they decided they had to accept this responsibility, that they needed to fight like men, unite and get through this moment. And in the next game, they won against the Slovaks 2:1. But unfortunately, we could not beat the Belgians. Although we created enough moments. This defeat from the Romanians stopped the team at the group stage. It was a setback.
—Andriy Lunin made mistakes in two episodes that led to the conceded goals. Were there any personal grievances towards him?
— It is not customary to shift blame onto one person. The goalkeeper is in the last position; there is no one to back him up. No, I did not hear any grievances towards Andriy from anyone.
—How did the national team feel after the draw in the third match against Belgium?
— Regret predominated. The game against the Belgians was good. But, unfortunately, the realization... This is the highest level of mastery — to convert moments. There were plenty.
Now, in March, there will be two rematch matches in the Nations League against the Belgians. There will be a clash in the playoffs, and there will be a chance to prove that the confident game against them was not accidental. Belgium has a very strong team. At that time, they had a crisis, but now they have a new coach.
I remember speaking with Trubin after that match against Belgium, and he said there was a feeling of unspoken words. But that happens: just one loss — and it is impossible to catch up.
—Was there a probability that after the unsuccessful Euro 2024, Serhiy Rebrov would be dismissed from the national team? Did the fact that Rebrov and Shevchenko are old friends play a role?
— I think there was no such probability, precisely because Shevchenko heads UAF. He supported Rebrov from the beginning. Maybe you remember the footage when the national team was seen off to the Euro at the station; Shevchenko hugged Rebrov in a friendly way. He has always supported him and still supports him, and I did not see the probability of Serhii Stanislavovych being dismissed after a failed Euro. On the contrary, it was believed that Rebrov would work until the 2026 World Cup, and at the World Cup, if he leads the national team there.
I think if the national team had been relegated to Group C in the Nations League, the issue would have become sharper. But it seems to me that Shevchenko would still have defended him. So, Group B remained; maybe it will even fight for Group A. Although even if we lose to the Belgians, the focus will still be on the World Cup. Let's see the results.
So far, Rebrov's successes — are the wins in the clashes against Bosnia and Iceland. The Nations League is indistinct. We only managed to survive at the end. Nothing impressive has been achieved. Everything will depend on the qualifying campaign for the World Cup. Rebrov has reliable backing in Shevchenko.
—Is it good for the team that there is such synergy between the president of UAF and the head coach?
— It is good for the national team when the coach feels the support of the president. Because if the relationship is strained, it will always backfire somehow. There is always a need for organizing gatherings, household moments, organizing friendly matches. Although there are fewer of them now due to the Nations League. Synergy will certainly not hurt here. Plus, the feeling of stability always helps the coach. When it feels like a Damocles sword is hanging over you, that every loss could lead to dismissal, itdoesn’t add anything good.
The main dream for Rebrov is to qualify for the World Cup. But if there are consecutive losses, this will destabilize the team.
Anton Terekhov
