Ukraine – Belgium: Agony And Relief (0-0)

Heartbreak for Ukraine, sheer relief for Belgium, despite both teams finishing with four points. Ukraine’s approach without the ball effectively restricted Belgium’s attacking solutions, but their failure to capitalize on chances was their undoing. On the other side, Domenico Tedesco’s men certainly delivered a lackluster performance on the night, but their progression to the knockout rounds will ultimately overshadow their performance.

Tactical analysis and match report by Rahul Madhavan.

We decided to make all of our EURO 2024 articles free to read. If you want to support our work, consider taking a subscription.

Heading into the final group stage fixture, Group E was perhaps the tightest of all, with all four teams sitting on three points each. Two of the favorites to qualify faced a potentially decisive battle, with every outcome on the table.

For Ukraine, the tournament had started poorly, as they were soundly defeated by Romania by a three-goal margin. Their situation went from bad to worse when Slovakia netted the opening goal, but Ukraine held their nerve and fought back to secure a 2-1 victory, keeping their hopes alive. They arrived knowing that a win would guarantee their qualification, while even a draw could see them finish among the best third-placed teams, depending on the result of the other game between Romania and Slovakia.

Head coach Serhiy Rebrov seemingly switched to a 5-3-2 system to counter Belgium’s wide threats. In front of goalkeeper Anatoliy Trubin, Illia Zabarnyi, Oleksandr Svatok, and Mykola Matviyenko formed the back three, while Oleksandr Tymchyk and Vitaliy Mykolenko took on the roles of wing-backs. The midfield trio consisted of Volodymyr Brazhko, Mykola Shaparenko, and Georgiy Sudakov, with Artem Dovbyk and Roman Yaremchuk leading the attack upfront.

Belgium, on the other hand, regained their confidence with a convincing victory over Romania. An early goal from Youri Tielemans calmed their nerves, and Kevin De Bruyne’s late goal sealed the victory despite Romania’s late surge. They were placed second on goal difference, and only needed a draw to secure their spot in the knockout rounds, but failure to do so could jeopardize their progress to the knockout round yet again.

Tedesco was forced to make a change to the winning combination, as Dodi Lukebakio was suspended after picking up a second yellow card. Arsenal’s Leandro Trossard stepped in to fill the right flank. Despite some fitness concerns, including Arthur Theate’s injury late in the game against Romania, the full-back was able to start again, while Jérémy Doku, who had an impressive performance against Romania, retained his place in the lineup despite picking up a knock.

Ukraine’s shape stifles Belgium’s options

Belgium’s dynamic midfield certainly caused significant problems for Romania in their last encounter. The inclusion of Tielemans in advanced areas and De Bruyne’s movement between the lines created overloads against Romania’s man-oriented marking in midfield. However, Romania’s lack of defensive cohesion also somewhat played into Belgium’s favor.

Ukraine, on the other hand, were well-prepared to counter Belgium’s threats. Rebrov anticipated where his opponents could be dangerous and deployed a back five to neutralize their wide threat, while maintaining a compact and energetic midfield to limit space for De Bruyne and Tielemans. Belgium adapted by shifting to a 4+2 buildup structure, with both full-backs positioned wide. Tielemans and Onana operated on the same line in front of the center-backs, allowing De Bruyne the freedom to roam in midfield.

But it was Ukraine’s 5-3-2 structure that stood out due to its flexibility on both flanks. On the left, where the dangerous Doku operated, the ball-sided midfielder, Shaparenko, initiated the press, but quickly tracked back to double up on Doku, ensuring Tymchyk wasn’t isolated. On the right, when Castagne received the ball, wing-back, Mykolenko, swiftly closed down the space, allowing Ukraine to shift into a shape resembling a 4-4-2.

Minute 34: Ukraine’s shape out of possession. As Belgium shifted the ball across the backline, Ukraine’s shape varied. Shaparenko, initiating the press, moved towards Tielemans; Brazhko shifted from Tielemans to De Bruyne, and Sudakov from De Bruyne to Onana. When the ball moved to the right side, Mykolenko quickly advanced to mark Castagne, resulting in Ukraine transitioning to a compact 4-4-2 shape.

This underscored Ukraine’s understanding of where Belgium’s attacking threats came from. They were content to leave space behind Mykolenko, trusting Matviyenko to handle one-versus-one situations against Trossard, as Belgium’s right side lacked the pace and quality to pose a consistent threat. On the left, where Belgium aimed to overload, Ukraine doubled up on Doku, while willingly allowing Theate to see more of the ball.

Consequently, Belgium’s approach became quite predictable. Their only joy came from quick switches and De Bruyne’s clever movement between the lines to receive the pass after the switch. Brazhko, often tasked to mark the Manchester City midfielder, was occasionally caught out, but apart from an early chance for Lukaku, created by De Bruyne’s incisive pass, Belgium failed to generate any shots from inside the penalty area in the first half.

Problems out of possession

Ukraine were not only well-prepared for Belgium’s threat, but they also had an approach for creating problems with the ball. In the previous game, Belgium’s man-oriented press was effective due to their dominance in possession and ability to win duels against the Romanian forwards. However, Ukraine possessed more quality in possession and repeatedly exploited their weakness, especially in the first half.

Facing Ukraine’s 3-1-4-2 structure, Belgium deployed Lukaku upfront and adopted a man-oriented press across the pitch. The challenge for them lay with Ukraine’s two forwards, who were capable of winning duels, while Shaparenko and Sudakov were quick to win the second balls. Consequently, Onana was slightly deeper, often forced to be positioned in front of the center-backs, which in turn allowed Shaparenko or Sudakov to drop alongside Brazhko and receive the ball in ample space when Belgium pressed higher up the pitch.

Belgium also encountered issues when they shifted to a medium-block. Tedesco employed the familiar 4-1-4-1 shape, but using De Bruyne and Tielemans alongside Onana proved ineffective.

With Lukaku marking the lone pivot, Brazhko, the ball-sided midfielder – either De Bruyne or Tielemans – had to engage the wide center-backs (Zabarnyi or Matviyenko) in possession. Onana would then shift laterally to cover the space and mark Ukraine’s midfielders. However, this often made it too easy to bypass the press and find Shaparenko or Sudakov centrally; Onana had too much ground to cover, while De Bruyne and Tielemans were not consistently tracking back to cover the space left when one of them pressed.

Minute 25: Ukraine’s offensive sequence. As Matviyenko receives the ball, De Bruyne presses him while Onana shifts laterally to mark Sudakov. When the center-back switches sides, Tielemans steps up to engage Zabarnyi, who easily bypasses the press and finds Shaparenko. Onana is left covering too much ground, allowing Ukraine to progress through the middle with ease.

To counter this, Tedesco tried narrowing his wingers to close down the space when the ball-sided midfielder pressed. However, Ukraine effectively used their full-backs to stretch the pitch and were content to deliver crosses into the penalty area, with Yaremchuk and Dovbyk, along with both midfielders, ready to capitalize. They created two or three excellent chances in the first half, but were let down by poor final passes, failing to fully exploit Belgium’s weakness.

Ukraine lament missed chances

Belgium certainly improved in the second half, particularly in terms of ball retention and territorial dominance. Their structure out of possession also saw improvements after Tedesco substituted Tielemans with Orel Mangala. This adjustment made them more effective in their man-oriented press, as both Onana and Mangala had the license to press forward when Ukraine’s attacking midfielders dropped deeper. Essentially, their physicality in duels and ability to win second balls forced Ukraine to play long, allowing Belgium to regain possession quickly.

Despite these improvements, Belgium’s attack still lacked quality. They managed to get the ball into the final third thanks to Doku’s skill-set on the flanks and Lukaku’s hold-up play, but struggled with chance creation. De Bruyne found himself in promising positions but lacked options, as Lukaku was the only player making runs into the penalty area and was closely marked by three center-backs. On the flanks, Doku was often double-teamed, leaving the one-dimensional Belgium without solutions.

Pitch plot highlights the lack of high-quality chances for both sides.

Ukraine, on the other hand, struggled to create chances as well, until the final quarter of the game. Rebrov revitalized his attack and midfield by introducing Taras Stepanenko, Vladyslav Vanat, and Ruslan Malinovskyi, while also replacing center-back Svatok with Andriy Yarmolenko. In response, Belgium, who had been easily bypassed in midfield when pressing high, chose to absorb the pressure and played for a draw in the closing minutes.

Ukraine still had two or three clear-cut chances, especially from set-pieces. Sudakov also had a golden opportunity in stoppage time as well, but he shot straight at Casteels. Ultimately, Belgium withstood the pressure to secure another clean sheet and book their place in the knockout rounds, leaving Ukraine in agony despite earning four points.

Takeaways

At the final whistle, it was unexpectedly the Ukrainian supporters who applauded their team off the pitch, while Belgian fans elsewhere jeered their team, which summed up the game. Tedesco’s side struggled to unlock a well-organized Ukraine, and their decision to settle for a draw in the closing moments further frustrated the supporters, leading to this reaction.

Now, Belgium will face France in the round of sixteen after finishing second behind Romania. Tedesco’s men appear more effective in games that are end-to-end compared to matches against disciplined opponents. The dynamism displayed previously was notably absent, and their reliance on De Bruyne to rescue them was evident.

On the other hand, Ukraine will rue their missed opportunities. Rebrov, however, was quick to acknowledge his team’s improved response in the last two games following their heavy defeat to Romania. Nonetheless, it’s a harsh exit, considering teams with just three points advanced to the knockout rounds.

We decided to make all of our EURO 2024 articles free to read. If you want to support our work, consider taking a subscription.

Use the arrows to scroll through all available match plots. Click to enlarge.
Check the match plots page for plots of other matches.