Löw or Kapadze. Is it necessary to make changes in the management of the national team?

In recent days, a new topic of debate has arisen in the Uzbek football community. Allegedly, the Uzbekistan Football Association has made an offer to the famous German coach Joachim Löw, and he may lead the main team and possibly take it to the World Cup. Sources say that Löw is not being considered as head coach, but rather as a coordinator, advisor; it is also said that the UFA has not made a final decision on this matter, and at the same time, there are specialists in the organization who consider it appropriate to invite Löw as the head coach. They even write that if Löw becomes the head coach and Kapadze is appointed as his assistant, the Uzbek coach may leave the team.

These reports may be close to the truth, since the German coach recently, answering a question about his future, stated that he had offers from several national teams and clubs, that he is currently studying the teams, and has not yet started concrete negotiations. Could it be that we are talking about the Uzbekistan national team?

Finally, this information, in the form of a question, reached Temur Kapadze.

"Honestly, I don't know what's going on. Like everyone else, I read this news on the internet. No one from the UFA has told me anything. No one has said anything to me about anyone being invited or something changing. So I can't say anything about this. I completed the assigned task. Time will show what happens next. If it's destined, I will continue to work; if not, we will see where fate leads. For now, I am the coach of the national team and continue to work," said the coach.

Why is the UFA silent?

While journalists and fans are arguing on both sides and Temur Kapadze is forced to answer uncomfortable questions, it is surprising that the Uzbekistan Football Association is not making any comments, which at the same time opens the way for some assumptions.

If the UFA had definitely decided to go to the World Cup with Temur Kapadze, I think the organization would have already reacted to these rumors. After all, this directly concerns the team that will officially start preparations in less than two months, and the head coach has the right to know about his future. If no one has said anything until now, then there really are some actions going on. Not only Joachim Löw, but also Slaven Bilic, who is also mentioned, and maybe several more coaches whose names we have not yet heard, may be under consideration. Currently, there are many coaches without work, and the national team, having already secured a ticket to the World Cup, seems very attractive to many specialists.

Yes, a similar situation once happened with Srecko Katanec — the public constantly debated whether he would leave or stay, and the UFA did not reveal its position during the autumn months. But that could be understood, since much was related to Srecko Katanec's health. Such uncertainty, perhaps, also prevented the UFA itself from making a final decision.

If the organization does not express a clear position on the head coach issue now, then the issue of the head coach is still open.

Foreign coach. The pros

Recently, on one social platform, a poll was posted: "Who do you choose as the head coach of our national team?" — among the options were "Temur Kapadze" and "Experienced foreign coach." Temur's candidacy won with a twofold margin. A few days later, the poll was repeated, but this time, instead of "Experienced foreign coach," they specifically wrote "Joachim Löw" — and now the votes were almost equally split.

This was just a regular poll with a small number of participants; I want to say that if a truly highly qualified, experienced coach, proven in big tournaments, is invited instead of Kapadze, the attitude changes. With all due respect to Uzbek coaches, it must be recognized that there is a big difference in qualification between Löw and our coaches. Even if the German specialist has not worked anywhere for four years.

A few years ago, when Hector Cuper was managing the main team, one case was told. For preparation for the Asian Cup, a training camp was held in Turkey. For recovery, the players needed ice, but in the hotel where the team was staying, there was none. Cuper insisted — there must be ice, the required therapy must be provided. The administrators ran around and found some ice somewhere. This is not a quirk, but professionalism. Did the national team need ice that day? Yes. I think an Uzbek coach also knows the importance of ice, but I can't imagine him insisting so categorically.

Or the example of Katanec and Utkir Yusupov. Yusupov was making gross mistakes in several matches, and Abduvohid Ne'matov at that time was showing good play both in the youth team and the club. The management advised Katanec to let go of Yusupov. Maybe Srecko himself was thinking about such a decision, but after such demands, he fully started to protect Yusupov. The result — who actually took us to the World Cup — we know well. Naturally, such decisions, when football arguments come first, affect the players too, if the head coach is their main and only defender, the attitude will be completely different. If a coach, after a defeat, records a video message and apologizes to the management (meaning Ravshan Haydarov), it becomes easier to feel the subtle difference between foreign and our coaches.

In March, Abduqodir Husonov participated in state events and was forced to go to Iran for an important match, barely recovered. Imagine, if on that day the head coach was not Temur, but Joachim Löw? Only two options come to my mind: either Husonov would have stayed at the base, or if he hadn't, he would not have been taken to Iran. At least, on the match day, he would have been left on the bench.

It must be acknowledged that there are such differences, and the more famous and qualified the foreign coach, the greater these differences become. Of course, the experience of big tournaments, tactical knowledge — all this is also an integral part of success.

I am far from the idea of accusing Uzbek coaches of unprofessionalism. We have many good coaches, and of course, Temur is among the best. But now we are talking about foreign specialists, and if the current conditions of the base and environment of the national team differ sharply from five or six years ago, then, in my opinion, the credit is not only to the UFA's functionalists but also to the foreign coaches who came here with their own vision.

Temur Kapadze took us to the World Cup. Can this be an argument?

The most important matches for the World Cup ticket were away against Iran and UAE. In these games, our team was led by Temur Kapadze, and in both matches, we got satisfactory results. Naturally, the main work for the ticket was done by Temur, who accepted the team under great pressure. If there had been a failure, he would have been accused of "not being able to serve ready food," but even after winning, we are arguing — did he take us or was it Katanec? In such conditions, we should be as grateful as possible to the coach who managed to resolve the situation in our favor. This is history, and no one can change it: our national team won its first World Cup ticket under Temur Kapadze. Period.

At the same time, there are two other undeniable truths. Why was Katanec criticized lately? After all, he achieved satisfactory results in almost all matches? Yes, he mostly played cautiously, paid great attention to defense, and for many, that's why his work was underestimated. Now the question is, who won 1:0 over Kyrgyzstan at home, playing one man up? Could UAE, like Qatar, have scored in the last minutes and beaten us?

So caution was dictated by the situation, and Katanec, when pressure was less, could be attacking. Kapadze also showed this, being cautious at important moments. And Katanec, in the last, meaningless match against Qatar, I am sure, would have won with a big score.

Although Kapadze put the last point, in fact, he did not make a revolution in the team, did not bring his own style, did not win the ticket thanks to anything new. The existing team, with some good changes, continued on its way and kept the place it had occupied from the very beginning. I think we should look at the whole qualification as one, and not exaggerate or downplay Kapadze's role, but accept him as a specialist who fulfilled the task assigned to him. Another approach would be wrong, and Kapadze himself admits it.

What do I mean? The argument "let Temur Kapadze continue, since he took us to the World Cup" is encountered often. This reminds of the situation when "Chelsea" appointed Di Matteo as interim coach, and he unexpectedly won the Champions League and as a reward stayed for the next season, but was dismissed after three months.

So now, when we compare Kapadze to some other specialist, arguments can be made for both coaches. For example, which coach's tactical style fits the team, whose training program is better, which coach will make the players better, and so on. All this will be put on the scale, and on Kapadze's side, there should not be arguments like "he took us to the World Cup", "it would be unfair if he is fired", "he is our own".

Why does the national team need a sports department?

For me personally, the more qualified and experienced a coach works in our national team, the better. That is, I believe that a coach like Joachim Löw can make our team even stronger. But another journalist in the editorial office may believe the opposite, that the Kapadze option is better. Unfortunately, we can't see both options in parallel universes, this is impossible. After a year, looking at the result at the World Cup, the debate will continue, it's a normal situation.

Spain always had football stars. But for a long time, the team was the most unlucky at major tournaments, and only in 2008 did they win the European Championship. Some subsequent victories can be connected with the rise of "Barcelona," perhaps it was not as much hard work, but the Euro 2024 victory cannot be compared with those. In the Spanish squad, only Rodri, Yamal, and Pedri were truly top-level players. On other lines, there were players from mid-table Spanish clubs or average players from top clubs. But even against the backdrop of France, England, Germany, Portugal, Spain was able to show the best football.

The reason — the sports department worked well and chose the right coach. De la Fuente, who had not won any trophies before leading Spain, only achieved success with youth teams, won both the Nations League and the European Championship in two years.

This example seems to put Kapadze as a favorite over Löw. Like, the Spaniards trusted their own coach who worked with the youth, not a famous top coach, and became champions — so why does Löw need to come? Maybe this opinion is also valid.

But what I really want to say is: the UFA and the sports department must thoroughly analyze all factors and only then make the right decision. Like, we brought in the best foreigner, did what we could, or, on the contrary, left Kapadze because he took us to the World Cup — this is not an option either. That would be a risk. Tomorrow you will either be wrong or you will win.

Everything should be thought out professionally, substantiated, and only then, regardless of tomorrow's result, you will have done the right thing today.

Another important point — for how long will the new coach be hired? For example, the current leaders of the team are older players. Naturally, in the coming years, a generational change must take place. Katanec adapted his style to Shukurov, Shomurodov, Masharipov, Iskanderov, Saifiev, but the national team is not a club, you can't always play in one style and find the right players. Therefore, along with participating in the World Cup, further plans are also of strategic importance.

The sports department of the national team must seek answers to these questions as well, making decisions covering future processes. The coach may set the goal of performing well at a particular tournament, but the UFA should now begin thinking about regularly qualifying for the World Cup and fighting for medals at the Asian Cups.

Which is correct? Kapadze or Löw? I don't know. Or maybe I do. As I said above, I can only give my opinion and present my arguments. Good thing I am not responsible. But someone has to make a decision. It's hard. Yes, it's a responsibility. But no one ever said it would be easy...

Read 'Zamin' on Telegram!