National team of Ukraine, uaf November 17, 2025, 3:35 p.m

The day before, the national team of Ukraine beat Iceland in the final qualifying match for the 2026 World Cup (2:0) and took the final second place in Group D. Previously, the “blue and yellow” will be in the first basket during the playoff draw, which will allow them to avoid opponents of the level of Italy, Turkey and Poland. However, a scenario is possible when our national team will end up in the second basket as well. We wrote about all this in a separate article, but now let’s analyze yesterday’s game a little.

READ ALSO: Ukraine — Iceland. Our ratings

The first thing that caught the eye was the emphasis of the Ukrainian national team on vertical passes from the left flank: mostly from Matvienko, less often from Mykolenko. They looked for deep openings into the Palsson/Ingason zone for Zubkov or Vanat. In the first half hour, most of the attacks were based on this principle.

In this case, two points should be highlighted. The first is that Zubkov and Vanat interacted well with each other and presented themselves in the space. The second is not quite quick and correct decision-making by the mentioned players, which in most cases nullified this idea of ​​overcoming the low/medium block of Iceland.

Towards the end of the first half, our national team began to change the emphasis from the left flank to the right, which was finally confirmed in the second half. In contrast to the vertical actions on the left, here Ukraine built offensive actions due to the advancement of the ball by the handling of Ilya Zabarny and the individual actions of 1v1 by Viktor Tsygankov.

Rebrov’s wards played much more sharply when the emphasis shifted to the flank of the Girona winger. It was Tsygankov’s individual actions that led to Ukraine’s most dangerous moment in the first half. The goal corner was earned, and then Viktor also took it. Once again, the lack of clear coaching ideas in the positional game was compensated by the individual qualities of individual performers. We saw this in Reykjavik (Malinovsky), and also in yesterday’s game (Tsygankov).

Ukraine had more opportunities during the transitional phases. It was in these episodes of the game, when Iceland’s structure was disorganized, that we managed to create sharpness near the opponent’s goal. The most dangerous moment of the first half, when Tsygankov hit the crossbar, was created just during the transition phase. Interception in the center of Kalyuzhny, deployment of an attack on the right flank, where free space and a 2v1 situation were created and individual actions of our right winger.

Against the ball, the Vikings rebuilt themselves in a compact 3-5-2 structure with a low/mid block. This led to overlapping passes through the central corridor, but allowed Rebrov’s team to feel more free on the flanks. In principle, from the very beginning, Ukraine built its offensive actions exclusively through the flanks, with rare attempts to play between the lines in the center.

As always, the “blue-yellow” team’s positional attack was limping. This is due not only to the Icelanders’ compact and organized game in defense, but also to the slow movement of the ball, the lack of bold actions between the lines and non-standard, quick decisions in a limited space. There were times when our players, instead of meeting the offer between the lines, chose a less risky option, thanks to which Iceland calmly controlled the game against the ball. Especially in the first half.

Pressing the national team of Ukraine is a separate story. Almost every time, the opponent easily overcame the high pressing attempts of Rebrov’s team. Moreover, in some cases it led to danger near the goal of Anatoly Trubin. Again, as in the match against France, the Ukrainian pressure looked disorganized, lethargic, inconsistent. The only difference is that the class of the Icelanders did not allow them to punish our team, as Deschamps did.

The role of “Super Ivan” Kalyuzhny in the reported match should be noted separately. In the first half, the supporting midfielder of Metalist 1925 in most cases performed the so-called tactical role of “Lavolpiano” — fell on one line with the central defender/defenders and tried to determine the vector of the direction of offensive actions in the first or middle thirds.

Thanks to this, the captain of the “yellow and blue” Mykola Matvienko was in a wider and higher position. The idea was to create a numerical advantage on the left flank by bringing forward the central defender and allow Matvienko to attack the space more aggressively, thus breaking the Icelanders’ lines. In the second half, Kalyuzhny fulfilled this function to a lesser extent, because the emphasis finally shifted to the right flank of Tsygankov, although in some episodes he continued to act in this way.

The national team of Ukraine won the most important victory of this year. First of all, thanks to the individual actions of individual performers. Teamwork, on the other hand, was limping again. And this is a question for the coaching staff. “Blue-yellow” again could not play a complete game during the entire match. We again had problems in positional construction against a compact low/mid unit.

Next, more serious opponents than Iceland await us, and personally, I strongly doubt that the game of Ukraine under the leadership of Rebrov will radically change for the better. However, let’s hope that this will be enough for the long-awaited entry to the World Cup.