Renowned expert and coach Oleh Fedorchuk shared his impressions of yesterday’s match, the final of the 6th round of the qualifying tournament for the 2026 World Cup between the national teams of Ukraine and Iceland.
Oleh Fedorchuk— Do you consider today’s result more a reflection of the logical choice of tactics, pressure, necessary aggression, or was luck more on Ukraine’s side today?
— I would say that Ukraine had the advantage of football resources because a country of 400,000 people like Iceland naturally has fewer human resources. It’s, in fact, a small district of Kyiv. Playing two games within four days with a long flight from Baku — you understand.
I watched the game with Azerbaijan carefully; the Icelandic coach fielded practically 90% of the players who played in Baku. They spent a lot of energy, and today it was very noticeable. It was already clear by the end of the first half that the Icelanders were faltering, and they simply couldn’t finish the match.
— From the Paris lineup, only three people came out for the Ukrainian national team. Did such total rotation by Rebrov justify itself?
— Absolutely. The coach took a risk because we suffered a painful fiasco, but all the experts agreed that if they played successfully with Iceland, everything would be forgotten. Therefore, Rebrov acted wisely — as they say, the team lost the battle but won the war. The strategy was chosen absolutely correctly. It’s not very good image-wise, but the result is there. And I will say that both Iceland and our team have shortcomings. We don’t know how to play with three forwards, while Iceland plays only with three forwards. But in all games, they concede.
Therefore, both Iceland and Ukraine are two teams with very conservative tactics. In any case, I sympathize with this Icelandic team; they command respect.
— Is the defeat of the Icelanders only due to the factors you mentioned, or was the subconscious pressure of the fact that a draw would be enough for them?
— And this, of course, as well. But we must also consider our factor. As I mentioned earlier, we have a mentality where when things are bad, we find reserves. And it’s not only in football. We see it in war and in everyday life. That’s our peculiarity.
Regarding the game, I can’t help but note that several players were lacking today. First of all, Vanat felt insecure, Yarmoliuk hadn’t recovered. He was flying against France, and today he was invisible. Sudakov was also missed because he was the sharpest player on the national team in recent years.
I also believe that the left flank, unlike the right, where Tsyhankov and Konoplia interacted very well, didn’t look good — it was clear that Mykolenko and Zubkov don’t quite understand each other.
— Ruslan Malynovskyi, who became the hero of the first match with Iceland, was practically invisible in this game. Is it him, or did the Icelanders draw conclusions from the previous encounter?
— He’s not a young footballer. It’s difficult for him to maintain form for a very long time. It’s been a month and a half. Plus, his current club is in a very difficult state: a new coach has come, and there is tension in the team. It all affects him. The team is facing relegation. As you may think.
Kaluzhnyi also pleasantly surprised me. I didn’t expect it from him. He played well today, not the best, but did what was needed — didn’t lose position and won a lot of battles. Not all, but at least 50−60%. After all, the Icelanders changed their style, but they haven’t forgotten how to fight, creating many aerial duels with set pieces. His function is to clean everything up.
And Tsyhankov probably played the best match in the last year or two. He was a leader in the attack, unquestionably creating sharpness, originality. If they asked me, I would mention him as the best player.
— Didn’t you feel that he was missing in Paris?
— I think he couldn’t handle two games. I don’t see a player who can play two games equally well right now. Even Zabarnyi was not playing confidently today. Yarmoliuk is young, one of the youngest in the national team, but he played the second match weakly. Trubin played consistently well in two games, but he doesn’t have to run.
— Can he be called the hero of today’s match?
— Absolutely. In the second half, there was a key moment, and if he had let it pass, I think we would have definitely finished.
— Zabarnyi has been repeatedly criticized by the French press recently. Is the criticism fair, judging from these two games?
— My personal opinion is that Zabarnyi’s level does not yet correspond to a first-team player of the best team in the world. I mean PSG, which is at least among the top three teams in the world. Therefore, he is nervous. Such is the fate of a player who, let’s say, is out of place. It’s not his level yet, but Illia is close to it and doesn’t give up. That’s why he is nervous. If he gave up, he would not be nervous. So that is normal.
It’s the same with Dovbyk. Everyone goes through this. Until you score or play well in several games, you gain confidence and then start playing even better. So, I think everything will pass. Such a stage in a person, you can’t do anything about it, you need to live through it.
— Attackers were almost invisible today. Neither Vanat nor Yaremchuk, who replaced him. Can we talk about a crisis in the attack, or were they tactical expenses?
— You don’t need to be an oracle or an expert to understand. Take simple arithmetic. Who do we have the most expensive by European standards? Defenders and goalkeepers. We feel the problem with forwards in all teams and at the club level. In Shakhtar, also not Ukrainians in attack. And in Polissya too. This is a temporary phase. We hope that someone will appear in 2−3 years.
— If you were to evaluate Serhiy Rebrov’s team in this cycle, specifically in the qualifying period, without talking about the playoffs, which will only be in the spring, what would you rate on a 5-point scale?
— I would rate it four minus. Because it was going more towards a three, but we won the last match. And the fact that we won two games against Iceland, the main competitor, is what raises the team. In other aspects, conservatism is striking. The logic of inviting some players is not completely clear.
Well, and most importantly, we haven’t found a playing scheme that would give us confidence in the result. We play 4−1−4−1, but it’s too banal because very few leading national teams play like that.
— What do you expect from the playoff cycle? How good or bad is it that the playoff matches will be only in spring? After all, the team now has a certain momentum, which they could maintain until the end of the year. Plus, these are still somewhat different matches in terms of intensity and strategy. How ready is this team for the playoff matches?
— Two factors will influence. This is primarily the functional state of the players, their form of play. Since most of our players play in foreign clubs, we shouldn’t complain about spring, it’s the same for everyone. Much will also depend on the draw because there are teams with whom it is better not to meet.
And much will depend on the condition of a number of key positions. Above all, the condition of the defenders. It’s good that Matviyenko is in very good form right now, and Zabarnyi is in relatively good form. Plus, the goalkeeper. If these players are in good shape, you can count on a positive result. Because in football, you can hide a lot of flaws, but it’s very difficult to hide a bad game from the goalkeeper and central defenders. The example of Kyiv Dynamo is very striking.
Vladyslav Liutostanskyi
