Sport Arena analyzes the actions of Dynamo Kyiv players in the Champions League qualification match against Istanbul Fenerbahce
In the Polish Lodz, the Ukrainian Dynamo played a draw 0:0 with the Turkish Fenerbahce. “Better than expected,” the pessimists admit. “Better than it could have been,” the realists are forced to admit. “It could have been even better!” the optimists will say. Ambiguous in terms of the number of mistakes, bad in terms of playing ahead, good in terms of neutralizing Fenerbahce’s best players.
Sport Arena evaluates the game of Dynamo Kyiv, given the discrepancy between expectations and what they saw.
1. George Bushchan – 7.5
>> The Turks struck six shots at the Dynamo goal, and Buschan repelled everything. A great save from a header from Valencia in the opening game, a solid performance from well-aimed shots from Kadyoglu and Kahveci in the first half, Bruma and Lincoln in the second. Worked well after numerous standards from Rossi. Is that one blot – with a flank serve before the break, and even then, it seems, there is more blame for the defender who interfered with the interception. Well done
94. Tomasz Kedzera – 5.5
>> The right flank of the defense was a problematic place for the Kyivans – Kendzera could not cope with King and Kadioglu, often (and unjustifiably) fouled. Although this did not play a fatal role, nervous tension constantly promised trouble from the Tomek zone. And on the attack, the Pole played worse than required, although if Verbic had firmly placed his foot under his cross, he could have become the author of an assist. We expect a much more confident game from Kendzera – in Istanbul, we will need the most experienced defensive player, and not the most unreliable one.
See also: About 12,000 spectators attended Dynamo-Fenerbahce match
25. Ilya Zabarny – 7.0
> Zabarny played very confidently and shrewdly. Tightly took care of Valencia, once, due to reading the game, having ripped off a potentially scoring chance from an opponent. He managed to secure Popov and even Bushchan. At the end of the game, the Turks, tired of such opposition, earned a warning on Ilya (it was Dursun).
4. Denis Popov – 5.5 << 83' 34. Orphan
>> With his anthropometry and intransigence, Popov urgently needs to improve in orientation and understanding of the game. Immediately in several moments, his careless underplaying led to dangerous moments. Even in the episode, when Valencia “painted” a penalty, he gave a reason, touching the nimble striker with his hands. As a plus, we will add only connections to the standards, where Denis won the position twice, but did not hit the target. Did not finish the match due to injury.
44. Denis Dubinchak – 6.5
>> We all understood where Dynamo’s weakest link was. But, either through the efforts of the debutant, or the flaw in the right flank of Fener, the left flank of the defense of the nominal owners played much less nervously than the opposite. Dubinchak played recklessly only with an early attack by Valencia, however, it is difficult to expect a good game from a short player in riding serves. In attacking game Denis is very good and could even play better, dare to shoot right away during a fast attack in the first half. Optimistic!
5. Sergey Sidorchuk – 6.5
>> The captain did a huge amount of work and only added during the match. Commendably on duty was his chance to break through, he could succeed at the gates of others. He acted harshly and uncompromisingly against rivals, sometimes he was not afraid to “put down” especially active ones at the cost of a yellow card. Understanding the somewhat limited reserve of strength and mobility of one of the oldest players of the current Dynamo, we especially note his work in this game.
10. Nikolay Shaparenko – 5.5
>> More can and should be demanded from Shaparenko – a rather creative player did not give much to the attack of the Kyivans in the accompaniment and did not use his ability to sharpen and punch at all, remembering only one unsuccessful blow. But at the beginning of the match, he was noticeably nervous – remember an inaccurate pass in the opening and a rather unsuccessful positional game, when in a couple of attacks Kolya blocked the entry into the zones of Verbich and Besedina. Maybe much more!
15. Viktor Tsygankov – 5.5 << 88' 20. Karavaev
>> Another player from whom Dynamo habitually demanded more – and this time they clearly didn’t get it. With varying success, Tsygankov fought on the flank with Yuksek (we suspect that both players played below their capabilities in this fuss), took the game unacceptably little and almost did not aggravate at the other’s goal. Unless he led a good pass from the game and set pieces, however, Sidorchuk, Popov and Buyalsky did not take advantage of this. Istanbul needs a much brighter and sharper game!
29. Vitaly Buyalsky – 5.0 << 77' 19. Garmash
>> The current Buyalsky means a lot to Dynamo in matches in the domestic arena, but in the international arena – not only for the national team, but also for the club – Vitaly is also not effective enough, as for the level of his equipment. In Lodz, Buja disappeared into the game, practically not participating in the team’s combinations and completely falling out of the finish line. As a plus, we will add only a good transfer to Besedin, which Artem was not able to use.
7. Benjamin Verbic – 5.5 << 83' 11. Vanat
>> The return of Verbic gave Lucescu a good option in the top three attacking players, but in fact the Slovenian did not play sharply enough. Having no advantage in speed, it was located quite deep. Instead of constantly supporting the attack at the level of Besedin and Buyalsky, he often “hid” in the depths, duplicating and blocking the active Dubinchak. He could score, but, with his technique, he unsuccessfully put his foot on the floor with Kedzera’s backache. He made some promising passes, but this is not enough to give a good assessment of Benji.
41. Artem Besedin – 6.0
>> The defensive striker justified his nickname – Besedin really worked a lot and usefully in attack, he was good in the fight on the opponent’s half of the field and could well score after the passes of Dubinchak and Buyalsky. Artem was not too lazy to go even for seemingly hopeless balls – the panic in the Fener redoubt in the second half was precisely a consequence of the assertiveness of the Dynamo forward. For such performance should be rewarded in the “response”.
Substitutions:
77′ 29. Buyalsky >> 19. Denis Garmash – 5.5
>> It is difficult to evaluate the Dynamo replacements, as they were belated. Probably, Lucescu wanted to make the most of the opportunities of the main players, so he was afraid of changes. And they were needed: Buyalsky suffocated, and the replacement for Garmash or Vanat was already read by the end of the hour of the game.
83′ 4. Popov >> 34. Alexander Sirota – no
>> After the injury to Popov, Lucescu ventured to replace the center back, and Sirota played the remaining decisive minutes with discipline. The task was not to “weld”, he completely coped with it. In the event that Denis does not have time to recover to Istanbul, Sirota may be an even better option in the center of defense than a possible transfer to the center of Kendzery when Karavaev exits on the right.
83′ 7. Verbic >> 11. Vladislav Vanat – no
>> First, Vanat had little time. Secondly, again, it seems that the best place for him is the penalty area, where this cunning player can use the ability to “unstick” from the guardian or finish the attack outside the box. We hope that Vladislav will have more opportunities to prove himself in Istanbul.
88′ 15. Tsygankov >> 20. Alexander Karavaev – no
>> Karavaev left a favorable impression in recent international friendly matches, so his appearance was expected earlier. Much earlier.
Source: Sportarena
I am Sandra Jackson, a journalist and content creator with extensive experience in the news industry. I have been working in the news media for over five years. During this time, I have worked as an author and editor at various outlets producing high-quality content that attracts readers from different demographics.
