Two sides of the same coin: why the defeat of Spartak and Zenit in European competition should be assessed equally

On the eve of the Moscow "Spartak" unsuccessfully started its performance in the Europa League. Rui Vitoria's wards conceded a goal in the first stoppage minute by the regular time of the match and suffered an offensive defeat from Legia in their field. This caused a violent reaction from both fans and experts, who allowed themselves harsh criticism of the red and white. And this is strange, because in the game they were noticeably superior to their opponents, and the fate of the confrontation was decided by the offensive mistake of Nikolai Rasskazov. In addition, Zenit had lost to Chelsea the day before, but won rave reviews from the football community.

Someone will say that it is impossible to compare the defeats of Spartak and Zenit, if only because the level of their rivals and other circumstances were noticeably different. Muscovites played at the Otkritie Bank Arena with the reigning champion of Poland, but taking the 16th place in the championship table after seven rounds. At the same time, the Petersburgers went to Stamford Bridge to visit the Champions League triumphant and the second Premier League team, inferior to Manchester United only in additional indicators. In addition, Vitoria had all the strongest performers, and the only exceptions were Pavel Maslov and Georgy Melkadze. Semak, at the last moment, got the opportunity to release Vilmar Barrios on the field, but at the same time he could not count on Deyan Lovren, Vyacheslav Karavaev and Magomed Ozdoev. And that's not counting Artyom Dziuba, who is in imperfect form.

At first glance, the teams were in completely different conditions, therefore, no parallels can be drawn between their results.

But upon further examination, you can understand that there is much more similarity here than it seems.

And in this regard, it is especially surprising that one collective deserves praise, while the other is exclusively criticized.

Of course, the goal in the 91st minute significantly spoiled the impression of Spartak's game, and made many people remember the “shame” of ten years ago, which was also facilitated by the statement of the club's owner Leonid Fedun.

Then the outcome of the confrontation in the qualification of the Europa League was also decided by a conceded goal in stoppage time.

And it’s not surprising that this was the reason to adjust the problem to the answer and say that the red and white looked awful and once again didn’t demonstrate anything on the field.

But this is not at all the case.

In terms of the game, Spartak was noticeably stronger than Legia, which is fully confirmed by the statistics. The hosts surpassed the guests in expected goals (1.62 - 1.07), shots on goal (23: 7), possession (52:48) and passes in the final third of the field (203: 131). And the numbers really illustrate the state of affairs. The wards of the Portuguese specialist possessed a colossal advantage and, although they were forced to act against the uncomfortable low defensive block of the enemy, they regularly found gaps in it. Suffice it to recall Victor Moses' attempt to break through the Swede from within the penalty area, Jordan Larsson's breakthrough on the left semi-flank. And that's not counting the corporate standards, culminating in the emergence of dangerous moments with the participation of Samuel Gigot. In the first case, the Frenchman missed the near corner, and in the second he shook the crossbar.

And if it were not for the second confusion of Rasskazov, coupled with the oversight of Alexander Lomovitsky, who did not work to the end, the meeting with Legia would have been remembered not as another failure of Spartak in European competitions, but as a game of missed opportunities. Undoubtedly, there would be those who were not satisfied with such an outcome, but the emotional background would be different. But is it true that even a gross, but in fact, the only mistake negates the result of all the work done and makes you forget about all the positive aspects?

After all, it was precisely such a flaw that decided the fate of the confrontation between Zenit and Chelsea. In the match of the first round of the Champions League, Dmitry Chistyakov replaced Deyan Lovren and more than successfully held back Romela Lukaku himself throughout most of the meeting. However, in the end, the difference in skill still affected. The Russian left the Belgian for a split second and allowed him to first open up behind him, and then print the gates of Stanislav Kritsyuk. Did the defender lose a key combat? Undoubtedly. But does it make you forget about all his successes?

As for the game component, Zenit expectedly gave the ball to Chelsea and spent most of the time at their own penalty area, occasionally responding with dangerous counterattacks. Sergei Semak's team acted in a similar way in confrontations with strong rivals and in the course of previous Champions League draws, and this plan rarely brought him success. The only difference is perception. If to act in a similar way in the meetings with Leipzig, Lazio and Dortmund Borussia some considered shameful, then with the current winner of the tournament - no.

The enemy's status in many ways was the reason that the defeat with a minimum score was perceived as a success. And this is even despite the fact that already in the first round of the Champions League there were teams that were even more daring in duels with the favorites. The same "Brugge", although it relied on counterattacks, but inflicted almost twice as many shots on goal as the superstar "Paris Saint-Germain" - 16: 9, and the "Young Boys" completely beat Manchester United with a margin (19: 2). Yes, the removal of Aaron Wan-Bissaki affected, but the decision of the Swiss to act as the first number and follow the victory, despite the danger of missing a counterattack from Cristiano Ronaldo and company, is worthy of respect.

All this does not detract from the merits of Zenit, but it makes it clear that such a polarity of opinions when assessing their performances with Spartak is hardly appropriate.

Both teams played to the best of their ability and for a long time successfully implemented the tactical plan, but in the end they got a little hooked.

The defense of the Petersburgers became less dense, and the Muscovites reduced their activity and gave the opponent the opportunity to carry out counter-attacks.

As for Chistyakov and Rasskazov, although both looked very solid throughout most of the match, at the right time they let their partners down and devalued their efforts.

And this once again explains why the first is a spare at Zenit, and the second is regularly at the epicenter of transfer rumors.

At the decisive moment, both overlooked their opponents a little, as a result of which their teams lost points.

But did anyone harbor illusions about the level of both players? Last season Chistyakov appeared on the field only in 16 matches and spent 918 minutes in total (57.3 minutes per match on average), and Rasskazov did work on loan at Arsenal Tula. Among other things, both did not play a single game for the Russian national team - and this is taking into account the obvious shortage of performers in both the central and right-back positions.

And if the situations are so similar, then the results of the performances are approximately the same. Zenit performed more than decently, but did not jump your head like Young Boys. And although “Spartak” lost, they played a quality match and dominated the field, once again demonstrating progress in the game. The only problem is that if the Petersburgers are just waiting for a meeting with the main outsider of the quartet - "Malmo", then the Muscovites have already held their own. And then only the hardest tests await them in the form of "Napoli" and "Leicester".