One of those who closely followed the twists and turns of Ukraine’s first qualifying match for the 2026 World Cup against France (0:2) was Vitaliy Kvartsyany. The long-time head coach of Luts’k’s “Volyn” shared his impressions of the match.
— Everyone understood that the match against France would not be easy. All of us who were part of the Ukrainian football delegation in Wroclaw had hope and optimistic expectations. The main team had a large audience that evening, which reminded us of Ukraine. Together with a huge army of our fans, the Polish also supported Serhiy Rebrov’s team. But the miracle did not happen. Although at times our team did not look hopeless.
— Many believe the problem of our national team lies in its finishing.
— Our boys played well, but they always lack the kind of courage that would allow them to play freely and execute their technical actions — that which distinguished the French national team from the Ukrainian one. The French acted effortlessly, trying to love the ball in any situation and not shoving it away in any episode. Although I noticed that the opponent did not always act in a way that could have made it more painful and unexpected for us to wait for their sharp and quick counterattacks, as well as attacks. I mean the gradual development of actions at a quick pace. But the French did not do this and were slow to build up their play. And this is despite the fact that they have more explosive and athletic players who could sharpen the game in any situation. But they did not always do that. They could take the ball and pass it back.
In general, in the first half, the French players played very tightly and harshly. They literally “sat” on each other, not allowing our footballers to even lift their heads. This was immediately felt. Just like there is a fear when each player feels he is unable to do what he could. And the “culprits” in this were the French, who “silenced” our boys strongly. And our players could not always punish the opponent again by taking the ball away. The French employed a kind of game rhythm: they took the ball — and then acted not quickly, sometimes the opposite. Our footballers could play quickly, but then unnecessarily slowed down the development of the attack. Like in one episode involving Kalyuzhny. He took the ball — and passed it back.
A question arises: why after winning the ball pass it back to the defenders when it would be more appropriate to pass the ball to partners who are in a better attacking position? All three of our central midfielders — Yarmolyuk, Sudakov, and Kalyuzhny — should look for where Dovbyk is. He was running, getting involved, he was pushed, fouled against him, but the referee did not react — after all, he was in the right position, facing away from the goal.
— What stood out to you in Dovbyk’s game?
— There was an episode when he received a good pass and could go one-on-one, in the same manner as before Mbappe’s second goal. He turned, quickly took off — and scored a goal that shattered our hope for a positive result. So, regarding Dovbyk. He received the ball on the second pass, then moved to the first and to zero. After which he passed the ball back. It seemed that Dovbyk and Mbappe had two identical episodes, but each acted in them entirely differently. The manner of action was different for each. Why did Dovbyk keep the ball when he was thirty meters from the goal? Beat the defender — if you lose the ball, there would be someone to back you up, since there are players in the midfield and defense.
— And what do you say about Sudakov?
— He had two or three moments when he received the ball and should have come up with a specific decision, thinking: “I will receive the ball, go through and shoot at the goal.” A shot is a shot — the goalkeeper can either save it or let it through under his arm. But when there is no shot, there is no chance to score either.
— In each half, our national team conceded one goal in situations that did not foretell it. Are we stepping on the same rakes again?
— The French played a combination leading to the first goal. A hidden pass, an oncoming run by midfielder Olise — and he rolls the ball into the net. It turns out, all our defensive players gave him the opportunity to make such an unconventional decision. No one was “sitting” on him. Therefore, a question arises: why bring a player all the way into the penalty area?
However, the French had several such attacks, but the decisive pass did not come — our central defenders deciphered this well. But one moment they did not decipher. And everything was leading up to the fact that something would break through. And for us, it did not break through: once — back, once — across the field. However, there is no focus on the goal. They can do it, but they are not doing it. After all, not only the striker Dovbyk should score — everyone should score. Yes, we were a bit unlucky.
We could have equalized when Zabarniy couldn’t direct the ball into the goal with his head. Well, it happened. But still, the French created more chances and wanted to score more. And they succeeded. In the second half, our team opened up, began to attack, chance after chance arose. Although the French do not have anything special — if you pressure them, they lose their confidence. And this was evident. But it was an interval phase that lasted about twenty minutes.
However, in my opinion, we needed to strive to maintain tension in the midfield and the attack line, giving the same Dovbyk a good pass to open space. And definitely shoot at the goal, and he will finish it off — after all, his surname is Dovbyk. Shoot — and he will finish it off. If they don’t shoot, then he’s not Dovbyk, because he doesn’t finish. What can you do here.
Andriy Pysarenko