Well-known expert and coach Oleh Fedorchuk shared his impressions of yesterday’s match, the final of the 6th round of the group stage of the 2026 World Cup qualifying tournament between the national teams of Ukraine and Iceland (2:0), and evaluated the performances of the Ukrainian national team players in this match.
Oleh Fedorchuk— Oleh Viktorovych, congratulations on the victory. How did you find the game of Ukraine’s national team in the match of the year against Iceland?
— Thank you, I also congratulate everyone on the victory. I expected that our national team would be able to score an early goal in the first half — it was noticeable that this was the strategy. However, it didn’t happen. Nevertheless, I was inspired by the end of the first half. As a football player and coach, I have significant moments for myself. For example, if the team falls off during the period from the 38th to the 45th minute, it will also fall off at the end of the second half. This is what happened — we managed to press Iceland, which found it very difficult at the end of the first 45 minutes.
Now it can be acknowledged that the strategy of the coaching staff headed by Rebrov worked — they surrendered the match to France (0:4), and then gained the decisive three points with the Icelanders.
— Yes. Compared to the match against France, there were immediately eight substitutions in our national team’s starting line-up for this match, while the Icelanders had three compared to their game against Azerbaijan (2:0).
— Iceland has quite a limited roster, they played practically their main line-up against Azerbaijan in Baku a few days ago. Therefore, it’s clear why our team looked fresher.
I sympathize with the Icelanders. Over 10 years, their national team completely changed its style and shows a sympathetic game. However, in the match with us, Iceland lacked the mental and physical strength. This is the fault of our national team goalkeeper.
— What exactly do you mean?
— At the end of the second half, Trubin made a brilliant save. It was noticeable how despairing the Icelandic players were after this moment. I believe this was a turning point in the game.
— Freshness, Trubin’s save — okay. What else enabled our national team to eventually press Iceland and secure the victory?
— Thanks to the higher individual mastery of our players. Tsyhankov’s performance was very impressive. Zubkov was very active. Our attack flanks worked powerfully. Although there were certain «misses» — Vanat (very pale) and Yarmolyuk (not fully recovered after France). Hutsuliak entered the match brilliantly, scoring and assisting, and Shaparenko played well in the central field. Also, Matviienko’s confident game was commendable. The guys did a great job and handled the pressure well.
However, it should be noted that we played against Iceland, which acts in a rather risky manner, playing with three attackers — one central and two flank. Sometimes they did not always manage to return, which gave us an advantage. I would like our team to have greater tactical flexibility, as we practically always play according to the 4?1?4?1 scheme. It’s surprising that we didn’t work on other formations in the League of Nations, but that’s another topic for discussion.
— Fans recognized Tsyhankov as the «Man of the Match». Do you agree with their choice?
— Overall yes. However, I would also give a small «Man of the Match» title to Trubin. Tsyhankov well deserves this award, but without Trubin’s save, it’s unclear how this match would have ended. Among field players, Tsyhankov indeed looked the best — no doubt.
Player Ratings
Anatolii Trubin — 8.0
— One of the best players in the match. Currently, Trubin is undoubtedly No. 1 in the national team. He played an excellent match, saved the team, and generally looks psychologically resilient, which can’t be said about Lunin. It’s good that Trubin demonstrates such a high level of play in the national team, considering that it’s not easy for him at Benfica — that team practically lacks defense.
Vitalii Mykolenko — 6.8
— I can’t say that this was Mykolenko’s best game for Ukraine’s national team. There were some inaccuracies in his actions, misunderstandings on the flank with Zubkov. We all know that Mykolenko can play much better.
Nikolai Matviienko — 7.2
— I really liked his game. Matviienko looked positively aggressive and confident, worked well with the ball. Recently, he’s been in good form at Shakhtar too. His game proved that he doesn’t just wear the captain’s armband for no reason in the national team.
Illia Zabarnyi — 6.7
— There was noticeable nervousness in his game. In several moments Zabarnyi did not act very well, he could have underperformed. There wasn’t a sense from Illia’s game that this is the most expensive Ukrainian footballer and the player of the best club in the world.
Yukhym Konoplia — 7.0
— There was very good interaction between Konoplia and Tsyhankov on the right flank. Yukhym worked a lot on the flank, he positioned himself high. I liked how Tsyhankov cleared space for him on the flank. This connection worked perfectly.
Ivan Kalyuzhnyi — 7.2
— I liked how Kalyuzhnyi completely closed his zone. He was aggressive throughout the match, acted well in tackling. Although Ivan sometimes did not play to the attack, but this is not his virtue. Overall, he was constantly in the right place at the right time. After Trubin’s save, he even used some tricks, falling on the field to show either a cramp or an injury, giving the team a pause to recover from such a moment by Iceland — that’s experience.
Yehor Yarmolyuk — 6.2
— He was not a very noticeable player, acted more in support, did not particularly help the attack. It was noticeable that Yarmolyuk’s legs were «heavy» after the France match. Compared to Kalyuzhnyi, he did not show himself very well, although he is a more promising player. Yehor looked very weak in this game, in my opinion.
Ruslan Malinovskyi — 6.8
— This was a pale shadow of the Malinovskyi who shone in the previous game against Iceland (5:3). But there is one «but.» In this game, there were not so many dangerous set-pieces or moments for striking from dangerous zones. I also think that Genoa’s problems may affect him — the team is at the bottom of the Serie A table, there was a change of the head coach.
In this game, Malinovskyi had more running work, which is something he doesn’t particularly like to do. He didn’t spoil the game but didn’t add the expected quality either. We are used to seeing dangerous shots and masterful passes from Ruslan, but today his role was performed by Zubkov.
Oleksandr Zubkov — 7.5
— This is Zubkov’s best game for the national team. Frankly speaking, I don’t remember a better one. I don’t watch the Turkish championship, but now I understand why he was chosen as the best right winger of the year. He already had good press six months ago, but his game in the national team did not confirm this. It was in the match with Iceland that he finally showed he was rightly praised in Turkey. I believe that the position of left winger suits him even more in the national team. The only problem is that he slightly blocked the flank for Mykolenko by positioning himself too wide.
Zubkov scored a very important goal. However, it’s impossible not to note Hutsuliak’s huge contribution to this goal, as he won the first ball after the corner kick. That was the main moment. All coaches say that the main thing is not to lose the first ball on the corner of the goalkeeper’s area. So this goal is 70% Hutsuliak’s.
Viktor Tsyhankov — 8.0
— No wonder he was recognized as the «Man of the Match». Tsyhankov found balance in his position, played perfectly in width, which is why he had such wonderful interaction on the flank with Konoplia. He constantly intensified the game, keeping the Icelanders under pressure. Yes, he didn’t achieve a decisive action, but played a very good match. It’s good that this time injuries did not prevent Tsyhankov from showcasing his skills.
Vladyslav Vanat — 6.0
— Did not get into the game. Somewhere Vanat didn’t understand his partners, lost many duels, and was generally an extra element on the field. Very pale game.
— Which of the reserves of the Ukraine national team did you like in this game?
— Well, Hutsuliak definitely — No. 1. The guy gave an assist and scored himself, although there was no way without a ricochet. I would rate his game at 7.5. The same Yaremchuk (7.0) entered the match quite well and could have scored, but there the Iceland goalkeeper saved the team twice. Shaparenko came on very charged, helped the team, acted selflessly — he definitely played at 6.8.
— After the match, I managed to read the comments of some fans who, even after this important victory, have no special joy. Their main thesis is: «What are we going to do at that World Cup with this kind of play?» How can you comment on such an opinion?
— I will answer a little from afar. At the 1982 World Cup, Italy won. They played very weakly, barely making it out of the first group stage into the next. Then Italy minimally defeated their opponents, somehow beat Poland in the semifinals (2:0), and defeated West Germany (3:1) in the final. That’s how the Italians became world champions, although, to put it mildly, it wasn’t the strongest team in the tournament. And their main star, the top scorer of the Mundial and the Ballon d’Or winner of that year — Rossi — only served his suspension for betting on the bookmaker’s game a month before the tournament, and before that he was even in jail.
You can also recall the story with the Danish national team, which became the champion of Euro 1992, although they did not qualify for it. Then instead of Yugoslavia, which was collapsing, the Danes, who had already gone on vacation after the club season, were invited to the tournament. Even Denmark’s main star, Mikkel Laudrup, did not go to the Euro then, although his younger brother — Brian still got to the tournament and became a hero of the national team.
Here’s what I’m saying: you can’t be this indifferent to football. You have to play, you have to cheer. Everything can change in the national team in just two to three months: some player will find form and start shining. Just like in Ireland’s national team, a guy from AZ (Troy Parrott — ed. note) scored a hat-trick against Hungary (3:2), and before that he scored twice against Portugal (2:0). Although the Hungarians were much better in play than the Irish. It happens. In sport, you have to fight and wait for your moment.
— What do you think about our potential opponents in the playoff semi-finals for the 2026 World Cup qualifiers? Among the possible options, we have Romania, Sweden, Northern Ireland, Wales, and North Macedonia.
— It will all depend on the condition of each team at that moment. Overall, all the teams you’ve mentioned are on the same level. We have one such mental characteristic: when we are in a difficult position, we play better than when everything is fine, and nothing pressures us. Many such matches can be recalled. Even for Euro 2024, we qualified through the playoffs in the same style.
We have what some other teams lack — character. Maybe not too much mastery, but definitely character. This is also demonstrated by the current life in Ukraine — we are with character. I’ll put it more — Rebrov also has character.
He is criticized, but still respected. Don’t perceive criticism as a lack of respect. It’s good that there is criticism from fans — it means there is hope. You should be afraid that they will stop criticizing you, in which case they don’t notice you and no longer believe in you. Criticism is a manifestation of concern. Such is the coaching profession. Let them argue — they pay such crazy money for this psychological overload.
Vladyslav Liutostanskyi
