Now that Dynamo Kyiv’s fan’s emotions have calmed down a little, after the team’s disgrace on the European arena, the discharge of Valery Gazzaev was not entirely unnoticed but was nevertheless taken for granted. They will definitely not forgive Ihor Surkis (the president of Dynamo) a second “BATE.” Moreover, most of these fans pointed out errors long before the team’s current European campaign, and sighed with relief after the dismissal of the Russian coach.
There are different ways to look at Gazzaev, but the fact remains that the coach repeatedly won the championship of Russia and won the first European cup on post-Soviet territory. This inspires respect. However, Dynamo is not Gazzaev’s team, this was clear from the very beginning of the previous season. There were only three good games at the beginning of the season. And this wasn’t owing to Gazzaev, but rather the groundwork laid by Siomin. Gazzaev started creating a team for the future (to win the Champions League in three years).
Well, never mind Gazzaev. At least the man assumed responsibility and was bold enough to state that he did not cope with his responsibilities (though with some delay). There are no questions to him. Now. There are questions to the administration of the club. First of all, to Ihor Surkis.
Gazzaev mainly did what was about to happen anyway. Maybe he accelerated events a little, as problems had been accumulating for many years. There is an impression that only Lobanovsky was an authority for the Surkis brothers. Whoever headed Dynamo was not allowed to work properly (with some rare exceptions). Scandals in engaging coaches, no progress in the infrastructure of the club, a vague, to say the least, transfer policy, and personal interference of an administration dragging by the head and ears, at any cost to the Champions League.
Indeed, it is difficult to combine achieving results immediately and preparing for the future. But the competence of a coach depends on his ability to do this properly. Gazzaev was stubborn, he did not tolerate a counterbalance (or alternative opinion), and therefore he became the hostage of his tactical schemes; pride and selfishness prevented him from delving into the real situation in Kyiv. Didn’t Ihor Surkis know about it? If he did not, then such a president of the club is of little worth.
Many big clubs stumble, fall, and rise, and soon stumble and rise again (Milan, Juventus, Liverpool). Without this they don’t acquire new experience and hence cannot be great! But the fall of Dynamo looked bad and they are not rising. However, there is a hope that during the next years they will manage to rise, form excellent foundations, and defeat grand teams.
Gazzaev said it did not work out and left. Markevych left the national team, he couldn’t work in such a situation. Maybe this is a systemic problem? Maybe professionals cannot survive in such conditions?
