Zarya – Leicester. Our ratings – football.ua

If we ignore all external circumstances, then Luhansk Zarya managed to make an epoch-making achievement in its modern history: for the first time, an English Premier League opponent was defeated. At the same time, Viktor Skripnik’s team managed to demonstrate significant football in their performance and Lester, at times, found no way to resist the high-speed attacks of his opponents. After the game, the bitter realization came that the success of the situation would be limited only to momentary joy, but given such a disastrous start to the company, one should ask us a question: Did anyone believe in this after the losses at home? from Braga and AEK?

Football.ua evaluates the play of the Luhansk Zarya players in the match at the Slavutych-Arena stadium (on a scale of 10 points).

Zarya Lugansk

Nikola Vasil – 8.0. The Bosnian goalkeeper was absolutely amazing that night. The opponents didn’t really make Vasil uncomfortable with a game that wasn’t the most pleasant for him coming out of the gate, and along the line Nikola felt confident that he had been able to watch more than once during previous encounters. On his own there were four saves in this fight, but the last three, which accompanied the final leg of the match, were truly luxurious. Zarya’s ultimate success is based on her goal line.

Denis Favorov – 7.5. Zarya’s right-back has long been walking towards a similar match in his performance this season. There are simply no complaints about Favorov’s actions in the offensive phase, and he can simply close his eyes to several failed episodes of the fight on defense. Denis does not have such a high percentage of accurate passes (70%), but it is worth considering the degree of risk of all his 40 passes for this game. In the end, one of them became decisive for the only goal of the match.

Dmitry Ivanisenya – Joel Abu Hannah – 7.0. The disqualification of Vitaliy Vernidub automatically transferred a pair of Zarya center-backs to the experimental category, but nominal defender Ivanisenya did not fail in unusual conditions for him, and thanks to his greater mobility, he calmly bypassed Iheanacho in fighting episodes near their own penalty area. Abu Hannah played the role of a classic defensive mainstay, for which he was responsible for individual bouts, while his partner took over interception duties. Harmonious image.

Andreas Tsyganiks – 6.5. The Lugansk left-back did a lot of work in his zone, but his actions were not flawless. 20 losses of possession turned into nasty attacks in the unoccupied zone, and the Latvian failed to completely shut down Dzhengiz Under. Tsyganiks did a good job loading other people’s possessions with their riding gear, but most were intercepted. Overall, he managed to show decent football, even despite the serious bugs that were available.

Egor Nazarina – 6.5. The defensive midfielder replaced Ivanisenya, who went to the center of defense, and did so, from the point of view of playing defense, with the maximum degree of efficiency. Yes, Nazarine clearly lacked the confidence in offensive actions, like a teammate, but, combined with almost completely won duels, his little pass to medium and long distance allowed the team not to lose much in attacking potential.

Vladlen Yurchenko – 7.5. The center-backs from Skripnik’s team were very mixed with each other, but it was Vladlen who had to come down and take the ball from them. Yurchenko had a holistic game, periodically turning the ball over in situations that didn’t require it, but this was entirely dictated by his position as point guard on the team, against whom the main lobbying efforts of opponents were directed. The goal scored could have further enhanced their performance, but the Slavutych Arena crossbar turned out to be against it.

Vladislav Kochergin – 7.5. The midfielder provided good motor skills on the left flank of the attack, and hit Leicester players thoroughly in this area. In fact, Kochergin was thrown one-on-one with the flank defender, so Ricardo Pereira’s replacement after the break can be easily explained: Vladislav, who had a yellow card, would certainly have put his jerks on a second warning.

Vladislav Kabaev – 6.5. Vladislav, with the pain in the middle, but getting used to a new position under the attacker. The next game did not bring any scoring action on his part, but it would be unfair to claim that he did not perform well on the field. Kabaev did not have a chance to hit goal in this game, just as critically he did not have enough time to make decisions under pressure. On the other hand, even under such conditions, we have 95% accuracy in its execution.

Alexander Gladky – 6.0. An experienced Ukrainian striker in this fight continued to play the role of the main fighter for the ball within other people’s possessions and in the accesses to them for his team, however, he was not noticed enough precisely in the final stage of the attacks. In Skripnik’s game model, Gladky is assigned one of the least notable roles on the football field, therefore, in order to somehow stand out from the background of other partners, he must score or do the amount of work on the edge of their capabilities. This match was not one of those in which such a scenario would be possible to implement.

Artem Gromov – 6.5. The Lugansk striker occasionally appeared in arbitrary zones in the opponent’s half of the field, where he tried to propose a further advance for his team in attack. Along with this, Gromov formed the first breakwater for the rivals’ attacks, leaving 11 successful duels on his account, the maximum figure for both teams that night. Artyom had no chance of scoring goals and did not directly gain control over other people’s possessions.

Allahyar Sayadmanesh – The Iranian striker had a good record earlier this season as a late substitute, so in a game that ended in a 50v50 style, it was not surprising that Skripnik decided to enter the game. The forward knew how to repay the coaching staff for their confidence in its entirety, scoring a goal of historical importance, but the total time that the player has been on the field does not allow him to fully appreciate his performance. And it turns out that we left a positive review and scored a 7.0 rating in our mind.

Mikhail perovich He entered as a substitute only thanks to the desire of the Lugansk people coaching staff to slow down the opponents’ pace and lengthen the time, never touching the ball.

Do you want to be the first to know the main football news? Subscribe to our channel on Telegram! You can also follow our website at Facebook, Instagram Y Twitter.