One of the most authoritative Ukrainian coaches, Vitaliy Kvartsyanyi, shared his impressions of the third qualifying stage match for the 2026 World Cup between the national teams of Iceland and Ukraine (3:5).
Vitaliy Kvartsyanyi— Vitaliy Volodymyrovych, how did you find yesterday’s football match in Reykjavik with a hockey-like number of goals, primarily by our national team?
— The national team played well, what else is there to say? Of course, few expected Ukraine to score five goals away. It was noticeable to me that Rebrov changed tactics, and the team played more boldly, unlike in previous games where they acted too defensively. They also managed to play well on counterattacks yesterday, and it was definitely worthwhile to bring Malinovsky back to the team.
— Indeed, Ruslan was on fire yesterday!
— Against Iceland, Ruslan demonstrated his best qualities. He acted the way he did when he played at Atalanta, being highly focused and keen on long-distance shots, one of which resulted in a goal. The second goal by Malinovsky was a shock for Iceland.
In previous matches, the Ukrainians rarely attempted shots from long distances, and this was a mistake, as it is an effective tactic. Leading teams of the world often play this way, such as Germany, the Netherlands, Argentina, and Brazil. There’s no need to just pass the ball around like the Spanish team does. They started the trend of almost dribbling the ball into the goal from a meter away.
I think Rebrov and his assistants consciously focused on long-range shots, gave such a directive, and it worked.
— Three goals from outside the penalty area indicate the strategy worked. In your opinion, who deserves to be named the best player in the Ukrainian team in Reykjavik? Fans chose Malinovsky as the 'Lion of the Match'.
— Usually, it’s always judged by who scored the most goals, who made the most assists. Malinovsky played brilliantly yesterday, in an unconventional way: scoring one goal with his left foot, another with his right. He was very focused. So yes, if anyone is to be singled out and named the best player of the match, it is Malinovsky.
However, I would also mention Zabarnyi. He did tremendous work in defense, unnoticed amid the flurry of goals, and he had a considerable number of successful tactical and technical actions. Coaches should analyze this moment in theory.
Mykolenko played well; it’s evident he has recovered from the injury and has added significantly. He almost didn’t lose any duels, and his experience in the Premier League was visible, as he backed up and made good passes in attack, one of which resulted in a goal.
— What didn’t you like about the Ukrainian national team’s play?
— Our right side in defense [Yukhym Konoplia] was wobbly; from there, we conceded two goals.
— It wasn’t just Konoplia who was 'off his game', but also his clubmate at Shakhtar, Matviyenko. In the moment with the second conceded goal, Mykola was just standing in the penalty area like an observer.
— He simply isn’t a central defender! That’s not his position, in my view as a coach. How many times has he lost battles from set pieces playing for Shakhtar? More than once or twice. He is a good player when it comes to organizing the transition from defense to attack, in playing along with partners, but we don’t need a conductor from behind.
Ukraine needs a beast in defense, a strong player, a pit bull! One who bites, fights, is unyielding in aerial duels, can play shoulder-to-shoulder, instead of grabbing the opponent by the shirt.
Matviyenko shouldn’t play as a central defender for the national team. That’s not his place. In the supporting zone or on the left in defense on the flank, he would be much more useful, in my opinion.
— Regarding playmakers. Shaparenko was supposed to perform this function, but against the Icelanders, I hardly saw Mykola on the field, did you?
— He moved quite well, especially in the first half, but there wasn’t much benefit from it.
— Anatoliy Trubin was also off his game yesterday. The first goal went right under his hands, and he conceded three overall...
— Of course, the first goal he conceded is entirely on Trubin’s conscience. He let it in his near corner. He should have watched the ball, reacted to the shot, rather than leaning and falling prematurely. I really don’t like this manner of falling before the shot among current goalkeepers.
You need to choose the right position, react to the shot, and play with your hands in the end — goalkeepers are allowed to do that, unlike outfield players. Fortunately, Trubin’s teammates came to the rescue. Against Iceland, it was clearly not Trubin’s best game.
— Should we expect Rebrov to bench Anatoliy against Azerbaijan and trust Buschan or Riznyk instead?
— I don’t think Rebrov will replace Trubin for the game against Azerbaijan because Anatoliy is integrated into the national team, he is familiar with his partners and knows how things run. I wouldn’t change the goalkeeper; it’s not a position where rotation is needed.
— After the victory over Iceland, should the wave of criticism against Serhiy Rebrov subside? Or will fans and hater-experts remember the three conceded goals?
— The result is on the scoreboard, what criticism of Rebrov can there be?
Victor Hlukhyi
