Arsenal 1, Dynamo Kyiv 0
Last Wednesday, playing in an away match of the fourth round of the Champions League group tournament in London, Dynamo Kyiv lost to local Arsenal 1:0. Although Ukraine’s champions have retained the second place and still can make it into the European club championship, now this task has been significantly complicated. But let us return to London, which welcomed its guests from Kyiv with a light drizzle and warm wind that allowed one to sport either a T-shirt or a topcoat, which the British in fact do.
The arrival of the Ukrainian team, which recently crushed on their own turf the leader of England’s championship, did not make the headlines, with all newspapers running front-page stories of the life of the late Princess Diana as well as David Beckham and his wife Victoria. Only the London bookmaking shops, which match only our kiosks with vodka in their number and assortment, reminded of soccer. None seemed eager to bet on Dynamo’s victory. The bookmakers did not even take bets on a tie. Bets could be placed only on different variants of Arsenal’s victory with different scores and with goals scored by different Arsenal players, which was not a pleasant sight to watch.
With this we headed for the Highbury Stadium only to hear Ukrainian songs as we approached. This was the diaspora of our compatriots involved in the most labor-intensive branches of the local economy preparing to root for Dynamo.
Amazingly, nearly forty thousand spectators made it into the stadium with flags and other accessories without crowding, waiting in the line, and passing through similar formalities that await anyone wishing to see a Champions League match in Kyiv. This despite the fact that the stadium is in a dense residential area with mostly one-way streets. It seemed that there were a hundred times fewer policemen than is the custom during matches in Kyiv. Perhaps this very fact helped ensure order.
Since most readers could see the match broadcast live from London, I will only remind without going into too much detail that the Kyivans allowed a goal in the final minutes of the match, when Cole sent a header past Shovkovsky. Instead, let us think whether Dynamo could have won. They definitely could. There were moments when they could score the decisive goal and come to lead in the group. What kept them from doing this? Chance? If one is to follow this argument, the Kyivans risk losing the next best match in the final minutes or even sooner. The reason behind Dynamo’s defeat could be seen ever since the middle of the first half. The memories of their defeat in Kyiv still fresh, the host team did not rush forward en masse to score a goal. As it was, Arsenal could score at least on three occasions, if it was not for Shovkovsky’s saves and the Brits’ bad luck.
Dynamo cannot be blamed for not pushing themselves up to the final minute. The Kyivans were as good as the Londoners as far as ball handling is concerned. Seizing the initiative from the attacking Londoners in the decisive moments, Dynamo’s still bungled their attacks in the end. Meanwhile, those few moments near Lehmann’s goal were nothing compared to what Arsenal players were doing near Dynamo’s goal, with Shovkovsky parrying nine balls sent squarely into his goal. It was the highest number of saves in this round of the Champions League tournament. A dozen balls flew past the Kyivans’ goal. Meanwhile, on numerous occasions the guest team tackled attacking Londoners at the last possible moment. The Kyivans fought, pushing themselves hard up to the last minute. The one thing they did not do that night was play soccer. The team consciously played for time for much of the forty-seven minutes of the first half and forty-five minutes of the second. They were really close to scoring a goal. But how can one play like this in a Champions League match? How can one blatantly wait for the final whistle since the first minute of the match?
It is not ruled out that Dynamo’s plans had been frustrated when Onyshchenko, who played as both the midfielder and defender, was injured. Sablic, who replaced him, retreated to defensive positions, thereby giving the London virtuosos a free hand (or rather foot) in the middle of the pitch. Whatever happened to our famed midfielders Belkevych, Peev, Ghioane, Husev, each of whom can pass accurately, dribble, and strike mightily? For some reason our halfbacks huddled along the sidelines, painstakingly kicking the ball out of play. The biggest disappointment was Belkevych, who, instead of building Dynamo’s attacks, frustrated them, making inaccurate passes and losing control of the ball.
But even under such conditions the Kyivans could tie the match, if it was not for a few incredible changes made by the Arsenal coach. In the last fifteen minutes Arsenal had four forwards attacking Shovkovsky’s goal. It was risky. Dynamo had a few chances to counterattack. Meanwhile, by that time the Kyivans had started to kick the ball at random and away from their goal, with such luminaries as Henry, Bergcamp, Wiltord, and Kanu testing their nerve. Eventually, Arsenal scored a goal and won despite the great risk.
Could Dynamo have played like this in a critical moment? By way of reference: the last time Dynamo coaches fielded four forwards was in 1963, when the present Dynamo coach Mykhailychenko was born. An unwritten law Dynamo has been honoring for four decades allows fielding two forwards at most, three by way of exception, and one as per usual. For Dynamo coaches, fielding four forwards is tantamount to drowning in the Dnipro. Meanwhile, they can field even six midfielders, which is not the limit. Thus, playing in London, Dynamo reminded a machine for kicking balls beyond the midfield. Arsenal coach Wegner also knows something about tactics and is not a suicide. But he can take the risk. Our coaches of the famous school (of you know who) are incapable of taking the risk even at the level of school soccer teams. Not to allow a goal at any cost and then score one if you get lucky. Such is the eternal postulate of our coach, according to which Dynamo played and lost in London and in Milan before that.
Next Dynamo will be playing Moscow’s Lokomotiv, which, unlike Dynamo, did not lose to Inter in the final minutes. Match statistics suggest that in their away match the Muscovites held the ball five minutes longer than the host team, while the Kyivans held the ball ten minutes less than Inter. Lokomotiv has shown that in an away match one can play offensive soccer, seize the initiative, and not merely hold out until the final minute.
You always pity those who did not hold out. This cannot be helped, unless you turn the table and start playing soccer in a dedicated manner. Two weeks before the match in Moscow, the Kyivans have enough time to heal their wounds, learn their lessons, and retain a position that would allow them to continue contending for the Champions Cup.
Group standings after four rounds: Inter — 7 Dynamo — 6 Lokomotiv — 5 Arsenal — 4
Next matches:November 25: Lokomotiv-Dynamo, Inter-Arsenal.
December 10: Dynamo-Inter, Arsenal-Lokomotiv.
