Liverpool 1: Dynamo 0

It is no shame to lose an away game to the famed lads of Liverpool. No objections can be raised to our chief coach’s words that Dynamo gave in to a very strong rival. Still, for some reason our champion has been coming across these very strong rivals too often on tournament trek. If the trend continues, we will each time have to identify ourselves with the lowest category of soccer. I think Dynamo Kyiv, in our opinion still one of Europe’s strongest clubs, deserves better. This is why what follows aims to revive, at least partially, the self-confidence and awareness of mastery in our champions.

BACK IN THE USSR

Liverpool would not have been the birthplace of the legendary Beatles if newspaper headlines had quoted the great musicians’ lyrics shortly before the Dynamo match. What allowed the English to call the game with the Ukrainians “back in the USSR” was the match against Dynamo Tbilisi which knocked Liverpool out of the Champions Cup series in 1979 on the whole. That newspapers were teeming with articles on Kyiv soccer players and coaches, statistics, and even rare photos was ample testimony to the Kyiv team still being respected and treated like a true follower of the achievements and traditions of Soviet soccer. But this is where the likeness with the former USSR ends. Like any serious European team, the Dynamo lineup consists today of players from various countries and continents. A sizable part of the audience was represented by our champion’s aficionados from various parts of Britain, which is also typical of elite clubs. However, it is the game that was to answer the question which of the two is tonier today.

LOST

Early in the game, both teams probed nervously for weak points in their rivals’ defense. While the Kyivans were practically on a par with the home players in positional play, they were somewhat awkward in playing off standard situations. Referee Pierluigi Collina disallowed the first goal Liverpool scored after a flank pass, for he saw foul play by the attackers. Later, there were two more dangerous moments, while the third one ended in an accurate kick by Jari Litmanen who pushed the ball home past Filimonov after a series of ricochets. As to our players, only Melashchenko managed to strike at the men from Merseyside after he found himself in a favorable position owing to an error by Emile Heskey. Our forward’s kick was easy and, as it turned out later, the only prey for home goalie Jerzy Dudek. After, our Dynamo players failed to drive the ball home.

Although the teams tried to avoid risks in the second half, Liverpool had at least three goal-scoring opportunities, while Dynamo had none. Showing as good technique, speed, and passes as the English, the Ukrainians conceded the pitch center because they were more wary of themselves than of their rivals. The home team literally stole the ball in every encounter, giving them an additional advantage. It would be wrong to say our side was unlucky. Dynamo players were a cut below because, unlike the Liverpudlians, they never ended up striking at the goal. Asked what caused our forwards to play like this, Valery Lobanovsky noted after the game that Dynamo has no forwards but has “a group of attack players.” A pity indeed, for it is forwards, not an abstract “group,” that always score the goals. Liverpool did have forwards: Litmanen scored, and Heskey almost did likewise. Dynamo also used to have forwards. Nobody would ever dare to call Blokhin or Shevchenko “attack group players.” Blokhin was and Shevchenko still is a striker whose job is to score goals. Our coach keeps silent about who does this job in the present-day Dynamo. Could it be a secret?

CAMOUFLAGING MANEUVER

Naturally, the second consecutive defeat in the Champions League tournament and, as a result, a solid berth in the Group B basement could not boost the optimism of our coach who communicated surprisingly long with the press after the game. However, Valery Lobanovsky’s statement that we haven’t got a team yet, and it will take nobody knows how many years to form one triggered not only a shock but mistrust. We saw this last year when Dynamo were first braced for victory in each of the Champions League matches and then it seemed, after resounding defeats in the away matches, that the team did not exist. This year it seems the same story. Having incorporated a number of young and promising players, Lobanovsky had shaped a very good team by the time the Champions League games started. This was confirmed by the previous games against Steaua, steady progress in the domestic championship, while the first half-time in the match versus Borussia strengthened our optimism still more. Could this have vanished somewhere in two weeks? Why were the players’ and coaches’ months of work brought to nothing?

By all accounts, the issue was Valery Lobanovsky’s inability to constantly communicate with the media. For this reason our top trainer decided to take extra precautions, pull the wool over everybody’s eyes, and lull opponents into letting their guard down. I cannot and do not want to believe that the team is unprepared to play on the Champions League level. Perhaps something got in their way at the last moment, but this does not allow us to say that we do not have a team of a required level. The truth is that the team is just not improving. In that case we have to say: keep up the good work and hope for success. For Liverpool was afraid of us. They put up a well- thought-out and resourceful defense. We could just do with a little more speed and luck.

LANGUAGE PROBLEM

I warn that it is not me but the Dynamo coach who first touched upon this problem: Valery Lobanovsky, who understood approximately on September 20 that he was unable to properly train the players who speak poor Russian, continues to say that this is precisely the point. Let us suppose this revelation of our coach is also a tactical ruse to deceive the rival. If this be the case, we must assume that the reluctance of some Dynamo guest workers to master the subtleties of “the great and powerful Russian language” is one of the causes for its failures in the Champions League series.

Seriously, let us note that none of the Dynamo coaches knows Russian the way he should, with the result that any ethnic Russian will immediately peg him as a Ukie. Our coaches and players are too shy to speak their native Ukrainian. So should we put any of the blame on the foreigners? Could they also feel shy? Could they understand everything but frightened to speak?

The reader must have understood I have my tongue firmly waged in cheek. In reality, to each his own: the players should play, coaches coach, journalists write, and spectators cheer the team on. Our nice and patient spectators brave the rain and snow, stinking stadium toilets and below-the-belt frisking by police. That our players are highly skilled and promising has been admitted by even the British. As to the coaches, this needs no comment: Lobanovsky wields undeniable prestige far beyond Ukraine. Our journalists also are quite good — at least I think so. So let us all bring together our efforts and try to beat the same Liverpool in the home game. Maybe Lady Luck will smile on us for a change. Then the Dynamo dream team just might show a clearer outline. The main thing is to believe in the strength of our favorite team, and then it is sure to win. This is the conclusion we come to from our notes on the merciless mayhem on the Mersey. I want my next notes about a victory.