The famous former coach, now football expert Alexander Sevidov, shared his thoughts on the performance of the Ukrainian U-21 national team at Euro-2025.
Alexander SevidovI would like to know who will take responsibility for appointing such a "priceless cadre" as the Spaniard Unai Melgosa to the position of head coach of U-21? Why is preference given to foreigners everywhere?
— These processes are inexplicable. It is unclear how such people as Melgosa appear in Ukrainian football. As an assistant coach, I can agree, but to be the head coach… What has he achieved, where has he worked, what successes in his career? He hasn't worked anywhere before coming to Ukraine. Now coming to us as a foreigner is like hitting the jackpot.
What can be said about our team's performance at Euro-2025? By potential, the team is good and should have reached at least the quarter-finals. But there is no result.
— All blame and responsibility lie entirely with the head coach. With such a selection of players — and to mess everything up. The skill of a coach to change something during the game, when things are not going the way they should — this is an art and intuition. The game pattern of the team has not changed in any situation. The team is losing, why not play with two forwards, increase the pressure upfront? And what do we see? A substitution of one striker for another and we finish the match with one forward without scoring a goal.
Even in the winning match against the Finns, there was some unfinished business in the game. Everything seems to be going well, we control the ball, passing game is successful, but something is lacking at the end, the final stroke in the overall picture. And this final stroke should be made by the coach, on whom much depends. And the logical question is: who is responsible for the result? There is always a rule in football — the team wins, and the coach loses.
The decisive match against the Netherlands, where it was necessary not to think about a draw, although it would have satisfied us, but to go out and give all our strength and win. But, alas, we didn't have enough strength for the decisive match. The team looked tired, unable to press, to escalate. And here again questions arise for the coaching staff.
— Even with a not outstanding game, the Netherlands beat us. Besides the two goals, the opponent had a chance to score three or four more.
The game could have ended already in the 61st minute when the score was 3:0. But we were lucky that the referee took away a clear goal from the Dutch.
— Apparently, he decided to keep the intrigue until the end of the game. (Laughs) After the second conceded goal, our team wilted, while the opponent, on the contrary, began to play freely. Until the second goal, the game was tense and we were not inferior to the opponent in anything. The only thing they did better than us is in one-touch play, which gives an advantage to do everything faster and bring the player to a striking position. The Dutch play simply — passed and opened up. In this way, they created three one-on-one situations with the goalkeeper. Luckily, Neshcheret saved us, otherwise the score could have been hefty.
It should be noted the very weak game of two central defenders Batagov and Mikhavko. The attacking players of the Dutch passed between them as they wished. Do you agree?
— I can't say that Mikhavko is a bad player, but he is not progressing. It should be noted that the tactical preparation of the defense is at a very low level. There is no cover, the two central defenders are very far apart when the opponent attacks, so long corridors are created. And considering that both do not possess speed qualities — there you have the reason for the conceded goals. Any difficult moment puts us in a bind.
In defense, there was a failure and nothing in attack. If the Netherlands created 3-4 goal opportunities in the second half, how many did our team create for the entire game?
— Only one opportunity with the score 2:0, when Ocheretko made a pass through the penalty area but Tsarenko didn't manage to catch it. That is one real chance. And that's it! As I mentioned earlier about the ability to manage the game, the team is losing, and the coach substitutes a striker, playing with one. It must be said that Vanat played this tournament at a low level.
Who can be highlighted in the national team in this tournament?
— I would note Ocheretko, who stood out for his creativity in all three matches, and Yarmolyuk.
If we summarize, the national team lost two games and dropped out of the group rightfully. Do you agree?
— I would say this: we lost rightly, but by potential, we dropped out undeservedly. The key match was against Denmark, where with 30 minutes to go, the players simply stopped and lost a winning game. Somewhere in the matches, there was not enough character, somewhere physical condition, craftsmanship, and luck. And the main thing — coaching experience!! When all the components come together, then success comes.
Sergey Shebek
