Renowned Belarusian coach Oleh Dulub shared his thoughts on the football demonstrated by the Ukrainian national team in the recent 2026 World Cup qualifying match against France (0:4) and evaluated the performance of each «blue-yellow» player in this match.
— Oleh Anatolyevich, let’s start the analysis of the match in Paris with the starting lineup. After all, Rebrov decided to save the main players of the national team for the match against Iceland.
— The tactical setup could actually be guessed. As the game progressed, if you looked at how it developed, you could say it was generally the right choice. Perhaps, instead of 3−5−2, it would have been more appropriate to try 3−4−2−1. Why? Because 3−5−2 is considered one of the most energy-consuming systems of play, requiring very good physical preparation of the players and high-quality interactions between them (especially in the central and flank defender positions) as well as the ability to play on counterattacks — something that didn’t work out in the first half.
As for the choice of players for the match against France, I was surprised. However, considering the strategic position of the Ukrainian team in the group right now, it could be a justified decision — if the team wins against Iceland in the last round. But no matter how you look at it, 0:4 is a lot.
— Personally, I liked our game in defense during the first half. It was noticeable that the players acted compactly, constantly shifted, covered each other, and played with dedication. What happened in the second half? Could it be that the episode with Mychailivka’s penalty and Mbappe’s goal led the team to just fall apart?
— I’ll repeat, 3−5−2 is a very energy-consuming system. I cannot say that the flank defenders interacted very well with the central defenders. There are also questions about the work of the trio of holding midfielders as such a triangle. Yes, the team defended compactly, but all of France’s shots came from the central zone. After the shots by Mbappe and Barcola, only Trubin’s saves saved the team.
The big problem, even in the first half, was the zone between Mykhaylo and Mykhailychenko. Olise would enter there and create chances. While there was still strength, they defended reasonably well.
The penalty by Mykhaylo? It’s purely a gameplay episode. Then 0:1 affected the overall condition of the team. From the 70th minute, France restructured into a medium block, and space immediately appeared behind the backs, and after transitioning to four defenders in the Ukrainian team, there was a lot of free space behind the backs of those same holding midfielders. The combination of Shaparenko-Nazarina is not holding midfielders for ball recovery. When Voloshyn came on, the pressure on their zone increased even more.
— The French scored their next goals very easily. If the second goal was a mistake by Yarmoliuk under pressure, the third and fourth goals were scored with no substantial resistance from us at all.
— One team was already on a high, and the other understood that it was preparing for the next game — the key one in all of the qualifiers. That’s already a different mood, a different approach to the game. However, one cannot help but mention a moment that could have fundamentally changed the entire course of the game.
— An unawarded penalty to France’s goal?
— If the referee had awarded the penalty, which was at the discretion of the judge, the game could have gone completely differently. It was noticeable that the possibility of awarding this penalty stopped France’s attacking rush. I observed how Deschamps got nervous on the bench, how the French players themselves were surprised. Especially when the main referee goes to watch VAR, it often leads to a change in their previous decision. This penalty could have become one of the key moments.
Anatoliy Trubin — 7.0
— The French took 25 shots, nine of them were big chances. The shots by Mbappe and Barcola, which he parried, were of great value. Without such a performance by Trubin in the goal, the score could have been even bigger.
Bohdan Mykhailychenko — 6.0
— It was tough for him since he had to play against the best French player in this game — Olise. Mykhailychenko found it very difficult to counter him. Mykhaylo didn’t always manage to cover for Mykhailychenko, leaving Bohdan very often in one-on-one situations. All the threat from the French effectively came through this flank.
Taras Mykhaylo — 6.5
— If not for that penalty, his debut could have been considered successful. His ability to play well in two positions, especially in the phase of initiating attacks, helped initiate the transition from defense. In such conditions, Mykhailychenko would push up high, and Yaremchuk and Hutsulyak could comfortably play with the central defenders. Mykhaylo’s only blunder was the penalty episode. But that moment turned out to be crucial.
Oleksandr Svatok — 6.5
— Fairly well-covered his partners, especially in the first half. However, there is one nuance in his play that limited both the defensive and attacking potential of the Ukrainian team. Svatok attracted Zabarnyi and Mykhaylo very close to himself. He positioned them close, and it turned out that one player was lost in defense or attack. Since the distances that are usually covered by two players were covered by three in this case.
Speaking of duels, he played very well in covering. In the first half, it was Barcola’s advance to the goal line, a pass behind him, and in this situation, Svatok read the episode very well, like a holding midfielder.
Illya Zabarnyi — 5.7
— Probably, this is Zabarnyi’s worst match for the national team. Passes behind his back went through, and overall, he didn’t feel as comfortable as when playing with two central defenders with Matviyenko. Perhaps, this new combination of defenders affected him. Overall, a very weak match by Illya.
Oleksandr Karavaev — 5.7
— A lot of mistakes. Precisely under 3−5−2 Karavaev fit, considering his profile. The only thing was his interaction with Zabarnyi left much to be desired. A lot of penetrating passes went through these zones between them.
Yehor Nazarina — 6.0
— A mixed impression from his play. In the first half, with the trio of holding midfielders Yarmoliuk-Nazarina-Ocheretko, there was quite good interaction from him. But when Shaparenko joined, it became clear that his combination with Shaparenko was not about playing on defense. It can be said that this was a rather mediocre game by Nazarina.
Yehor Yarmoliuk — 6.5
— Worked very well in ball recovery, clear play in position, good covering of partners. A young guy, 22 years old, but this mistake during the second goal in the attack initiation phase was costly. After the second goal, the game was effectively over. This mistake, you could say, spoiled the impression of his play.
Oleh Ocheretko — 7.0
— Ocheretko was the best among the midfielders. He integrated quite well into this trio of holding midfielders. In the first half, Oleh tried to make brave attacking runs, trying to show at least some counter-game.
Oleksiy Hutsulyak — 6.0
— Stood out more for his defensive actions. Hutsulyak didn’t make any significant mistakes. However, overall nothing outstanding was seen from him in this match.
Roman Yaremchuk — 7.0
— Probably, like Ocheretko and Trubin, Yaremchuk was one of the best players in the Ukrainian team in this match. Roman did well in holding onto the balls, initiating attacks, and completed a lot of defensive work. The only thing is that he, as a forward, didn’t have any real chances throughout the match. But that’s a question not for him, but for the players who should have been creating those goal-scoring opportunities on counterattacks.
— Which of the Ukrainian national team’s substitutes would you single out?
— I would single out Shaparenko, who replaced Ocheretko. When Mykola appeared on the field, I felt that the trio of holding midfielders started working. But when Voloshyn came on for Yarmoliuk, the combination of Shaparenko and Nazarina remained — they’re not players for defensive play in the holding zone.
— In general, throughout the qualifiers, Ukraine seriously faltered only once, drawing with Azerbaijan. Can it be said that Rebrov’s team, at the very least, didn’t fail this qualification for the 2026 World Cup, even despite the result of the match with Iceland?
— It’s quite the opposite. The result of the game with Iceland will be crucial in assessing the entire qualification for Ukraine. You see, with such a setup, where two or three teams in the group are approximately at the same level, it’s the games with the underdog that decide who will be higher in the standings. Only the result of the match with Iceland can give a clear answer to the question: did the qualification succeed for the Ukrainian team or not.
— What do you think about Ukraine’s crucial match with Iceland?
— I watched Iceland’s match against France (2:2), and I saw the Icelanders' game against Azerbaijan (2:0). I can say that Iceland has a very well-tactically organized team. Especially in the first half of the game with Azerbaijan, they played almost perfectly if we consider the game’s structure. The same was true for the match with Ukraine in Iceland. Let’s be honest, in that game, luck was on the side of the Ukrainian team. During that game, everything was at least not going toward an Icelandic defeat. It meant Ukraine needed more in that game than Iceland did.
So in just two days, we will see who will be favored by Fortuna this time, who will be stronger. I hope that Ukraine will still manage to have a successful match with the Icelanders and advance further in the playoffs for the 2026 World Cup qualification. There’s nowhere to retreat.
Vladyslav Lyutostansky