Football. Ua - about why clubs and football functionaries wrongly approached the issue of determining the format of the next ULP championship.
And so, a few days ago in the House of Football a meeting of representatives of the ULL clubs took place (there were all the coaches of the team, except Dmitry Mikhailenko, as well as some representatives of clubs from among the managers), Andrey Shevchenko, representatives of the broadcast channels of the championship and the leadership of the PL, FFU. During the discussion, of course, no one specifically agreed on the account format, except one: in the new season there will be 12 teams. And after a couple of days it became known that the changes would be so "cardinal", that the question arises: did you forget why you were going to? If the addition of playoff matches for the tenth and eleventh teams of the submarines with the second and third club of the First League is all that you are capable of, then it is worth explaining why the "great reformers" doom this decision to growing criticism, misunderstanding and condemnation, and also Just lose the next opportunity to make the championship interesting.
The essence of changes It is important to recall the chronology of events. Miner during the first phase of this season de facto issued the championship, and even before the split into two sixes, Sergei Palkin said that the existing format is not ideal, it must be changed, and offered his ready version. Further, the club connects the controlled television channels, they begin to "bombard", during which it turns out that the current format is unhappy with everything, and Palkin's version suits everyone, which is joyfully confirmed by the president of the submarine Vladimir Geninson, although later this option was not approved. And what is most interesting is that the format is really non-ideal, and the initiative of the Miners can be welcomed. The most dissatisfied in this situation are the representatives of the lower six. Vasily Sachko complains about the lack of motivation, Leonid Kuchuk says that they were simply thrown into the second six, representatives of other clubs also do not mind playing the playoffs and for the zone of the League of Europe, and for the right to remain in the elite. In general, the essence boils down to getting all tournament interest to play for the result to the last, especially the three clubs from the second six, who for 10 matches before the end of the season do not have the opportunity to fight for the zone of European cups, and definitely will not fly. Result - play-off matches for the tenth and eleventh teams are added. All. That is, if the current championship was held on this "new" system, then Steel, Vorskla and Zirka would continue to play "goods", and the Carpathians, the Dnieper and Volhynia would continue to fight for survival in the same way. What changed?.
The most interesting thing in the context of "changes" is the fact that the expansion of the championship, for example, up to 14 teams is now unrealistic because of the unpreparedness of the First League clubs in matters of either infrastructure or money (at least the content of the U-21 and U teams is added -19), or both of them. There is only Il'ichevets, who, obviously, will rise in the class. And with whom then in a year clubs of UPL will play the playoff games? Or in the First Division clubs become so rich that the stadiums will be built, and the heating will be provided with lawns, and they will suddenly have enough money? Apparently, more than three clubs that can pass attestation for participation in the submarine, there will not be found in a year, and even if, then taking into account the departing team of ULP in the current championship, if such will be.
Interpretation of changes What is still surprising is the thinking of functionaries and representatives of clubs. The meeting to discuss the future format was initiated by Andriy Shevchenko. And the decision about the format is tied for some reason to the interests of the team, although what these things are compatible in the current conditions, when you just need to save the championship and clubs - it is not known. It is absolutely clear that no matter what system the next season is, there will be no progress and no new level. Since four of the twelve clubs will continue to play home matches in foreign cities and in foreign stadiums, because the level of management of the UPL and clubs is at a catastrophically low level, because in the summer we will only lose quality foreign players, because we have weak players and coaches, most of us Who are not able to instill in their team a game that can interest the viewer, because some clubs can not repay old debts for several years, and the future of two or three clubs is now very vague.
Therefore, when it comes to format, the goal that changes must be pursued is that there can be only one - to create a format in which the maximum number of clubs meeting the ULP criteria will be used, in order to maximize the earning for them. The new system should not be convenient for all clubs or national team. It should not and a priori can not suit everyone, in terms of tournament tasks, the number of matches, the presence or absence of the playoffs. The format can be disastrously uncomfortable for the teams, and in general - absolutely any means that would help survive and save. Therefore, when representatives of clubs voted for something at the meeting, they argued and argued - it's just ridiculous. Because everyone has his own interests, which he defends.
Who should decide ... and therefore to collect and listen to the trainers in this context is a waste of time and evidence that the very approach to the issue of reform, unprofessional. Coaches - employees who are responsible for the game and the results of teams. Tomorrow they may not be in the club. Because they are forced to think about the most comfortable option specifically for themselves and the players, and now. They can not think of the strategy for the development of clubs for years ahead. Not all of them are even dedicated to the subtleties of leadership, financing, receipt of money. They can not make managerial decisions of this scale. They are simply incompetent and subjective in this. Some of them did not even have a single, clear position, which they would defend from beginning to end, based on any figures or specific arguments. They gathered in Kiev to listen to others (maybe someone will say something sensible, which is worth listening to), and there - how the card will fall down.
The variant of the new format should ideally be the result of a careful analysis of the managers of the Premier League to the smallest details, a variety of nuances. After that, the league was supposed to provide this thorough analysis to club leaders in order to explain and convince them why this, and not another format, will be the most effective and profitable in terms of possible earnings. Is any of the broadcasters and sponsors of the league ready to pay for the new format of the next season more than for the current or for the format with the playoff matches for the European League, which was never approved? Why was the main criterion for choosing the new championship system the interests of the national team, the calendar according to which it ostensibly can not play more and more often before the starting world championship, the weather and the opinions of the trainers, if it is necessary for others to guide - whether the format will increase the revenue for the clubs, which, in turn, can Help them survive / stabilize the financial situation and develop?.
Struggled all First. In order to fill the league with as many compliant clubs as possible, it was necessary to take into account and state directly: we were in a situation where we could not lose someone and put him down in the First League following the results of this season, we can not. Also, based on the fact that there is only one club ready for promotion in the First League, you will most likely have to close your eyes to the debts of Stali, Volhynia (obviously they will arise again, as always) and try to fight and help the Dnieper. It is obvious that now everything is going to the Dnipro exchange for Ilyichevets (or the Dnipro will cease to exist). But the fact that from the standpoint of the tournament will have to violate the rules - a fact that is still silent.
The second. The Premier League was afraid to take responsibility on the issue of the format. From the first day, Vladimir Gennison and the company chose the role of observers. While Sergei Palkin did not say about the need for changes, the management of the UPL also arranged the current format - so you need to understand the absence of any comments on the current system until that moment? When the information flywheel by Shakhtar was already launched, there was nothing easier than to say simply: "Yes, the offer is interesting, I do not mind meeting with the clubs". Actually, as did Geninson. But, when you support the best club in the country, with the strongest management, it's somehow easier to accept and accept its side than to break the wall yourself, is not it? After that you just need to ask the representatives of the clubs and their coaches, and then - and be - invite Potap, we will draw the balls on the draw of the calendar. And further - you yourself have all decided, to us - no complaints.
The third. The essence of any tactical changes in football and innovations - level the chances of teams. Novelties help create conditions in which the weak and the poor can withstand stronger players and wealthy clubs. Similarly, in the issue of format - to make a product that could interest spectators, sponsors and TV broadcasters, you need to level the chances. Considering the gap between Shakhtar and Dynamo (Zarya, if anything, she lost seven home matches in a row and she still has to compete for third place) and the rest, you can level odds only at the expense of one - dividing points by two after the first stage. If this practice was used this season, then the second stage would be the following: Shakhtar would be ahead of Dynamo by only seven points, Kyiv Zarya - three points, between the third and fourth places would also be only three points, not six, and so on. And now remember a few moments: in the spring, the Dnieper did not lose a single match in the championship, gaining 12 points, the Carpathians scored 16 points, finishing the first stage in the seventh place Vorskla - only 5 points, Zirka - 8. By the second stage of the team from the bottom six would be suitable in such a tournament position:.
Vorskla - 12 points 8. Steel - 12 points 9. Zirka - 12 points 10. Carpathian Mountains - 7 points 11. Dnepr - 5 points 12. Volyn - 5 points So is such an innovation capable of solving the problem of the current format more effective than all possible playoff matches is unknown with whom? Would they have started Igor Surkis and Sergei Rebrov talking about Shakhtar's championship still in the winter, falling behind at 7, not 14 points? It is interesting, at what stage would Vorskla's motivation be lost, the seventh team following the results of the first stage, which now more or less comfortably would avoid the relegation zone only thanks to the removal of points from the Dnieper in February and in the spring? At the same time, given the density of the location in the table of commands from the sixth to the third position, almost guaranteed places in the European League would be played until the last round.
Alas, but this option was not even discussed this time. Although it is he - although somewhat unfair - would have solved really much, if not all, that can change any format. But the risk, which is just able to aggravate interest in the championship and motivation for all clubs without exception, is too big - apparently, so considered the participants of the submarine. Clubs are simply afraid to risk.
Once gathered Do format and the interests of the team, as mentioned by Andriy Shevchenko - as a priority in importance the question of what other topics were not discussed at all close? If the issue with the format already, in fact, closed, why does not the question of how to raise the level of teams and clubs that the format has been effective? There are plenty of topics for discussion:
a possible limit on the number of rented, prohibit or allow them to play against, landlords clubs, the priority right of the club to sign a player educated in their association to any particular age, which will strengthen the structure of high-quality young players not only miners Dynamo intercepting talent across the country in childhood, increasing the number of players in the application brought up clubs and associations, an effective fight against match-fixing and so on - etc. dposylok and opportunities for real reform is really a lot, and in such matters gathered coaches would indeed be more competent. But, unfortunately, the conversation took place within the framework of discussion of the format, no more.
The final decision pushes to the conclusion that the company was going to waste, as in most cases, confirming its unwillingness to change everything for real.
Anatoly Volkov, Football. Ua Author: Anatoly Volkov.