Today is a wedding. One of the distinctive features of this ceremony is familiar to you as well – one by one, someone takes the floor, praising this or that person, lifting them to the skies. Today is such a day, whoever we praise will fit, and the next one is about Srechko Katanes.
Although this is our first time participating in the World Championship, another tradition was not broken this time either – we could not hold the World Cup qualifiers with a single coach again. After 6 rounds of the final stage, Srechko Katanes had to leave the team due to health issues, and his replacement, Temur Kapadze, managed to fulfill the task.
Do you know, it is always difficult for new coaches. Because resignations do not happen for no reason, and a new coach who comes to the team has to change many things. In most cases, there are two reasons that lead to a coach's resignation, and we have always observed such situations in football.
The first is the decline in the team's performance and results, deterioration of the internal environment, emergence of conflicts between players and coaches, and so on. It is not easy for a new coach. Yes, from the perspective of pressure, it may seem easier; the worse the team is, the easier it seems to make positive changes, but it requires immense effort.
If the team has not succeeded, it means that the style used by the previous coach did not suit the players, and the new coach must come up with a new, most suitable one and test it. Due to poor results, the players' situation is also not good; there is little confidence in the team, a slight failure or a little inconsistency in the game can break the team. It is also not easy to convince them that they are capable of achieving great results and that the new style can bring results; it requires experience and potential from the coach. The most common resignations we observe happen precisely for this reason.
Until now, this issue has always been present with our previous coaches who accepted the team halfway through the tournament. Especially ask Mirjalol Qosimov, who found himself in such a situation twice, having to fight with a team that suffered defeats.
The second is the completely opposite situation. Usually, a coach achieves all successes with the team, wins trophies, and leaves the team due to the expiration of the contract or a bigger offer.
It is an even more difficult situation for the coach who comes in his place. Yes, the team is strong, just won trophies, had successful seasons, but is it easy to continue on the same path? It is impossible to completely replicate the former coach; implementing one's own style and ideas is even more difficult – players need to be convinced of this. After all, they recently achieved success with a completely different style and ideas, right?
There will also be problems with motivation – it is not always easy to urge trophy-winning players to fight for those trophies again. Something needs to be changed, the working mechanism needs to be disrupted, and better options need to be proposed. The hardest part is that the pressure will be high. It is difficult to stay at the top; perhaps a decline was expected even with the former coach, but if there is a decline now, everything will be seen as the new coach's fault. The pressure is immense.
In such conditions, coming to the team is even more difficult; remember how Moyes, who came in place of Ferguson at "MYU," Benitez, who replaced Mourinho after winning the treble at "Inter," and Guardiola, who took over from Heynckes at "Bavaria," faced criticism. In general, such arrivals often end in failure, and it becomes impossible to replicate previous successes.
In short, managing a new team is always a difficult task, and Timur Kapadze succeeded in this; he carried out the task to the end. It was a bit easier for him because the legacy left to him does not resemble either of the two situations mentioned above. The team was not in a spiral of failure; a good environment had formed, and all players were directed towards a common goal. There was no need to come up with something new or replace the style – a few touches to the ready, working mechanism were enough.
It was not the second situation either. He did not take over a team that had won trophies, fallen into a motivational void, and needed new blood. The captain changed on a ship that was already on its way, moving forward steadily. This is a completely different event from many resignations we know, including the changes that have occurred in our national team until now.
Of course, this is also a test for Timur Kapadze; as I wrote before, it resembles a penalty shootout situation. The penalty taker is under immense pressure; if he misses the penalty, everyone will criticize him, and he will become the unfortunate one who squandered a ready victory. For accepting this extremely risky task, Timur deserves thanks, but this article is about Srechko Katanes.
It is Katanes who is the architect of this successful team, and it is hard to deny this. Katanes gathered a stable squad from nearly fifty candidates that we can now easily name after waking up from sleep. Katanes tested many styles and brought in the scheme that is currently working and perhaps is the most suitable and reliable for these players. Katanes taught our players determination; we began to make comebacks, and we started to believe that there is a possibility of a successful finish regardless of the score. The important draw with Iran may have occurred due to Kapadze's tactical preparation, I do not deny it, but did our players not gain confidence from previous encounters with Iran that such a performance was possible?
Many are saying – this happened simply because the number of spots reached 48; we have beaten the opponents Katanes faced before. Perhaps that is true; perhaps if the format of 32 teams had remained, we could have faced tougher opponents, and the old story could have repeated itself.
However, this is actually a somewhat incorrect approach. Why should we emphasize "ifs" when we have ready facts in hand? It was mentioned above about the legacy; what legacy was left to Srechko Katanes? After all, in the previous World Cup qualifiers, we could not even enter the top 12 strong teams, could we? Why are we accepting our entry into the World Cup participant as a simple occurrence when we are entering the strong six?
Many criticisms have arisen because our team has focused more on defense, especially the match against Qatar was remembered for Katanes' most unsuccessful decisions.
Now look, why could we not score more than one goal for a long time in the second game against Kyrgyzstan? Was it not possible for us to concede a goal at the end of the second game against the UAE? What I mean is that our current team does not actually differ much from that of Katanes' era; we are still overly cautious, not much has changed. This proves that we achieved the World Cup qualification not with significant changes, but precisely with Srechko Katanes' team, his style, ideas, and scheme.
Is this good or bad? Were we actually capable of playing stronger? I do not know; the next coaches will certainly show this. We wish Timur Kapadze good luck, and we believe our team will conquer higher peaks.
But the World Cup qualification belongs to Srechko Katanes' team. This cannot be denied. There is no need to deny it. Mister Srechko, thank you for everything. May you live long.
Qahramon Aslanov
