Dynamo Kyiv 0, Besiktas Istanbul 0
There was no miracle. Dynamo Kyiv did not break with the tradition of failing to qualify at least once (!) for the next European cup round after losing the first match with a two-goal difference. It will be recalled that two weeks ago, in Istanbul, Dynamo was beaten 1 to 3 by local Besiktas. The nil-to-nil draw in the Kyiv match has not only stopped the Ukrainian runner-up’s performance on the European arena but also showed the true level of one of Ukraine’s leading clubs.
Dynamo coach Mykhailychenko promised still in Istanbul that he would make it hot for the Turks in Kyiv. He kept his word, for he had not promised to win this match. The way Dynamo played inspired no optimism at all; what we could only count on was the players’ self-exertion and a stroke of fortune. As it turned out, fortune no longer wanted to smile on the Ukrainian club.
The organizers of the game versus Besiktas did all they could — and even more than that — to let Dynamo play successfully. The Olympic Stadium pitch was in good condition for an almost ten-degree frost, and it was a virtually fantastic exploit to gather such a large audience. All eyes were on the players.
Dynamo chose to field no fullbacks for this match. Left sitting on the substitution were Bodnar and Nesmachny replaced on the pitch by Peev and El Kaddouri. Belkevich was assisted by midfielders Husin, Leko and Lysytsky; the forward Shatskikh played with Diogo Rincon. Central defenders Ghioane and Sablic plus goalkeeper Shovkovsky formed the last ditch of defense.
This ostensibly attacking lineup was supposed to storm Cordoba’s goal, but the audience never saw a storm. Openly playing for a draw, the guests wisely built up their defenses, only once giving Dynamo a chance to score a goal, but defender Ronaldo Guiaro kicked the ball off the exposed goal line after Peev’s shot. We saw again that the current Dynamo can only score goals when circumstances are lucky. When it is necessary to score, there is no result. But is it surprising if Kyiv forwards are even unable to crush the defenses of Karpaty, Kryvbas’ or Obolon? As to Besiktas defenders, they saw through Dynamo’s attacking schemes without apparent efforts. As a result, every other pass of the Kyivans was cut short by their rivals, while the Dynamo attempts to exercise pressing caused us to worry about our, rather than Turkish, goal.
The situation did not seem to change in the second half. With a quarter of an hour to go, it was... the Turks who mounted an offensive. By way of wise substitutions, the guests’ coach Lucescu warded off any serious assaults on his team’s goal. No doubt, Dynamo did have a few occasions to hit the ball home. But it was not a storm the frozen audience looked forward to. However bitter it is to admit, Dynamo players lacked class to do so. The rivals were stronger and brought the game to a desired result without special problems.
It is hardly necessary to analyze in detail the reasons why Dynamo flopped. More than enough has been said about this in the past six months. Indeed, we have seen three squads named Dynamo Kyiv since July. The first team began the season by losing to Shakhtar Donetsk and then ceased to exist due to an unprecedented series of injuries and illnesses. The second team, made of second-string and reserve players, did its utmost and got through to the Champions League fixtures, displaying the almost forgotten self-denial and will to win. The third squad was formed after the sick and injured players had recovered and the first string had been reinforced with Brazilians and Croats. Was a team or just a set of players unable, for various reasons, to form a combat-ready soccer unit? Has at least one of the internationals flared like a star against the background of the others, did he manage to do anything that could justify his invitation to Kyiv? In general, was there any strategic guideline in the training of the team or did everything depend on pure chance?
To say that Dynamo were unlucky and that the weather, wind and referees stood in their way would mean sweeping the problem under a rug, only to face it again in the spring. What cannot leave the true supporters of Dynamo cool is the attitude of coach Mykhailychenko who said after the Besiktas game that he was not going to change anything in his work. Lobanovsky’s school is a good thing, but it is almost thirty years old. Soccer is now not the same as it was in the 70s and 80s, and a team that lays claim to serious success should seek new, modern, ideas and blaze a new trail. The Besiktas that Dynamo beat to a frazzle fifteen years ago has done and is doing precisely this. Conversely, we cherish traditions and reflect on the last century’s victories that are increasingly vanishing into the past.
The draw in the match vs. the Turks, Dynamo’s last game in this “soccer year,” exposed all the drawbacks. Yes, there were a lot of difficulties to put the blame on. But there were far more annoying mistakes. So if Dynamo do not admit these mistakes, we will be disappointed next year, too. But we want victories! Well-deserved, spectacular and indubitable victories!
