Former head coach and midfielder of "Dynamo" Oleksandr Khatskevych commented on the defeat of the Ukrainian national team in the second match of the playoff round of the Nations League against Belgium.
Oleksandr Khatskevych— Oleksandr Mykolayovych, the result speaks for itself, but what was the Ukrainian national team’s game like?
— It’s very difficult to comment on the game itself, and the result is, damn... In general, the result reflects the course of the entire match. I understand that football is hard work, but it was extremely difficult for the Ukrainian national team. Without pressing, without counter-pressing, in fact, without attacking...
The plan was only to maintain the advantage gained in the first match against Belgium. But to enter the game and not demonstrate any counterplay, ball control at all — it’s surprising. There are no words that can be found in this situation.
— Ukraine entered the second match against Belgium with a formation of five defenders, but can’t such a scheme also demonstrate high-quality counterattacking football? Did Rebrov only plan to defend throughout the game?
— If there had been any signs of any game in transition from defense to attack, it would have been noticeable right away. But who in the team played on the flanks? Sudakov and Hutsuliak are not very fast players, although they work well with the ball. To speak further, Vanat found it very difficult to latch onto the ball in such a game. The two defensive midfielders — Yarmolyuk and Kaliuzhny — were focused only on defense. Zinchenko does not stand out for his speed to operate down the entire flank in such a scheme. Mykolenko also rarely ventured forward into attack.
So, it seems that the plan was precisely to play to maintain the result obtained in the first match. There was no build-up. How did they come out from the back? Only through long passes. And who was this pass to go to if the attacking players lose in battles and are not tailored for such football?
— At the same time, there can be no complaints about the players’ dedication. For 70 minutes, they fought and fought, withstanding the pressure from the Belgians.
— The guys tried, they made an effort, but without an attack and pressing it’s hard to expect a positive result. It’s a pity that there are no football people in the coaching staff of Serhiy Rebrov who could suggest something to him. These belated substitutions with Yaremchuk and Yarmolenko coming on in the last minutes of the game… But this is only my opinion, as they say: "Everyone thinks they’re a strategist, seeing a battle from the sidelines".
— Did the first conceded goal become a turning point? It seemed that after that, given how the game was going, a second goal was inevitable…
— A mirror situation from the first game. In the match in Murcia, the Belgian team also fell apart after the first conceded goal, was disoriented, whereas Ukraine played with confidence. The same happened with the Ukrainian team in the second match.
Andriy Lunin — 6.5. Andriy had several saves, in some moments he was lucky. However, if we say that one of the best players on the team is the goalkeeper who conceded three times, it speaks volumes.
Vitaliy Mykolenko — 6.5. Under pressure, he made many sideways and backward passes. Mykolenko lacked attacking play, just like the other players. Perhaps, Vitaliy is not very comfortable playing in this position under such a scheme. Overall, best game of his both in defense and attack.
Mykola Matviyenko — 6.0. Everything seemed fine until the first conceded goal. I can say that each of the central defenders of the Ukrainian national team is responsible for the goals conceded from the Belgians. There wasn't enough stability throughout the match.
Oleksandr Svatok — 6.0. Until the 70th minute, I really liked how Svatok was playing. But the heavy flight from Texas, fatigue after constant pressure from the attacking Belgian players, in particular Lukaku, resulted in Oleksandr not being able to keep up with Romelu at the end of the match.
Ilya Zabarnyi — 6.0. Ilya has always stood out for his reliability and calmness in playing with and against the ball, but today he had, to put it mildly, not his best match. How many [failed] long balls did Zabarnyi make, how many unnecessary losses of the ball? He did not resemble himself.
Oleksandr Zinchenko — 7.0. Right lateral is not Zinchenko's position. He would be more useful in transition play in the center of the field. Although in the second match against Belgium, he tried to control the ball. Not everything worked out, but there were at least attempts.
Ivan Kaliuzhny — 6.5. Until the 70th minute, Kaliuzhny and Yarmolyuk complemented each other. Vanya and Yegor controlled the picking zone, sometimes trying to play on the ball. Yes, there was little constructiveness, but again, they at least tried.
Yegor Yarmolyuk — 6.5. What can I say? The guy is 21 years old, he tried hard. There are probably fewer complaints about his defensive play with Kaliuzhny. But in terms of creativity and attacking play, Yarmolyuk and Vanya found it very difficult.
Heorhiy Sudakov — 6.0. I thought some conclusions would be drawn after the first match when it became clear that left midfielder is not his position. Even in that game, it was noticeable how Sudakov shined when he was switched to his usual position in the center of the field. In my opinion, Heorhiy is generally uncomfortable playing there; it’s not his position. Sudakov’s best characteristics are negated when he plays on the attacking flank, his effectiveness significantly decreases.
Oleksiy Hutsuliak — 6.0. Hutsuliak is a player focused on creativity who loves to create moments or finish them. However, in this game, he needed to play much more defensively, which he did. Again, in such a game, Oleksiy had no opportunity to show his best qualities.
Vladyslav Vanat — 6.0. It’s hard to say anything about Vlad, because he played without the ball at all. Vanat is a striker who plays well in the penalty area, makes quick decisions, and is a dynamic player. This is not his match at all.
— If the Ukrainian national team entered to fight and overall didn’t demonstrate any hints of counterattacking play, why did Rebrov choose Vanat? It seems that Dovbyk would have fit perfectly under such a tactic, although Yaremchuk might be better at engaging in duels and playing in support than Vladyslav.
— I repeat, perhaps Serhiy Stanislavovych lacks football people in his circle. I only have this explanation. Who can impose the thought on Rebrov that under such a game, Vanat should have been used? Perhaps they hoped that Vlad would somehow slip away from his opponent after a long ball and use his speed. However, we saw that this did not work at all.
— Do you have any flashbacks from the confrontation between Ukraine and France in the World Cup 2014 qualifiers when in the first match Mykhailo Fomenko's team achieved a brilliant victory — 2:0, but in the away match lost 0:3?
— Oh, you know... As long as the Ukrainian national team plays, they keep saying that the second matches are extremely difficult for them. This match against the Belgians only confirms this regularity.
— In general, there are very contradictory feelings from Rebrov's team's performance in the Nations League. On one hand, after a poor start, the team still managed to stay in League B. On the other hand, how can one talk about fulfilling the task of the tournament when there were 20 minutes of game time left to enter the elite? How do you assess the performance of the Ukrainian national team in this Nations League season?
— Serhiy Stanislavovych himself said that the team accomplished the tasks that were set for them in the group stage — they kept their registration. Now we are pondering the lost chance to move to League A, although at the previous stage Ukraine was threatened with relegation to League C until the last moment. So yes, the feelings from this campaign are indeed very contradictory. Let’s believe Rebrov that the main task his team accomplished. Perhaps, the time has not yet come for Ukraine to return to League A.
Vladyslav Lyustonsky
