by Jānis Vītols
Latvia ended its 2025 World Cup qualifying campaign with a 1-2 loss to Serbia, a match in which several key players were unavailable and the team could not hold onto its early advantage. More importantly, it may have been Paolo Nicolato’s final game as head coach. His two-year contract, signed in early 2024, expired at the end of November, and although the Italian insisted after the Serbia match that he would be willing to continue, the question remains whether Latvian football should move forward with him, whether two years was enough, or whether it is time to pursue a new direction. Looking back over this period and the path that led to it, the answer is far from simple.
Nicolato inherited the job at a delicate moment. In January 2024 he replaced Dainis Kazakevičs, who had completed a long four-year spell in charge – 1418 days, the third-longest tenure in modern Latvian football after the legendary Jānis Gilis and Aleksandrs Starkovs. Those two coaches left fingerprints on the biggest moments of independent Latvia’s footballing history – Gilis laid the foundation that later allowed Starkovs to lead the country to EURO 2004. Kazakevičs, by contrast, never reached such heights. Competition in world football had evolved, the landscape was different, and although there were moments to appreciate – such as the Nations League D-group win and draws away to Turkey and Norway – there was a sense that both the style of play and the atmosphere surrounding the team had stagnated. Fans were calling for change, and the Federations’ decision not to renew Kazakevičs’ contract felt like the necessary reset.
The LFF embarked on its search at the end of 2023 with one clear rule: the next coach had to be a foreigner. Although the most recent foreign appointments – Mixu Paatelainen and Slavisa Stojanovic – had lasted less than a year each, the Federation felt that a fresh outside perspective was required. LFF president Vadims Ļašenko conducted extensive outreach, trimming the candidate list to four by late January: former Sweden national team boss Janne Andersson, successful Polish coach Marek Papszun, former RFS manager Valdas Dambrauskas, and a lesser-known name for most Latvian fans, the Italian youth-team specialist Paolo Nicolato. The requirements were strict: the coach had to speak English and had to commit to residing full-time in Latvia, attending Virslīga matches and living the daily rhythm of the national team environment. These conditions alone eliminated several candidates. Papszun’s English was not strong enough, despite his excellent relationship with one of the Latvian National team leaders Vladislavs Gutkovskis who’m he coached at Rakow winning the Polish Ekstraklasa and two Polish Cup titles together. Dambrauskas preferred to continue coaching at club level. Andersson was very much the preferred choice, but he could not promise to live in Latvia full-time due to an upcoming medical procedure. With that, Nicolato emerged as the final viable option.
When he was officially appointed on 5 February 2024, his introductory appearance revealed a coach with modest English but clear intentions. Ļašenko famously said that the language was “not ideal, but okay,” and predicted that it would improve quickly. More importantly, Nicolato brought a philosophy that sharply contrasted with Kazakevičs’ era. He emphasized competition for places – “Those who are inside must prove they deserve to stay, and those who are outside must break in” – at a time when the previous regime had developed a reputation for sticking to the same players, sometimes despite form or internal tensions.
The growing pains were immediate. A disastrous early own goal against Liechtenstein in Nicolato’s first international window highlighted the team’s discomfort with building from the back. But the Nations League C campaign soon provided a clearer measure. Unlike Kazakevičs, who never opened a match with a three-centre-back system, Nicolato implemented a distinctly Italian structure: slow, deliberate buildup, emphasis on possession, and a three-man defensive line that many Latvian players were unaccustomed to. A heavy 1-4 loss to Armenia was a brutal start to campaign, yet the team stabilized, avoided relegation, and showed early signs of the new identity he was trying to construct.
The real test arrived in 2025 with World Cup qualifying. Latvia found itself drawn against England, Serbia, Albania, and the always-stubborn Andorra. This was the year that would reveal whether Nicolato’s system could elevate the national team or whether it was simply too ambitious for the player pool. The improvement was clear. The playing style had structure, the team generated better xG numbers, defended with more organization, and controlled the ball more confidently than in previous cycles. Even more telling were the players’ reactions: before the decisive match against Serbia, Gutkovskis publicly stated that the team wanted to fight for the coach – a powerful endorsement from one of the squad’s leaders.
With a bit more luck, Latvia could have taken points in both matches against Serbia and in both against Albania, despite being without several important players for most of the campaign. The lone truly disappointing performance was the home draw against Andorra. Yet the broader picture was encouraging: only England managed to beat Latvia by more than one goal in the entire calendar year. That level of resilience had been extremely rare in previous cycles, usually achieved only against the weakest opposition. Importantly, this progress came while integrating inexperienced defenders such as Veips and Meļņiks during a long absence of captain Kristers Tobers, the heart of Latvia’s defensive structure. Despite the challenges, the team did not collapse.
And so arrives the central question: has Paolo Nicolato earned the right to continue? He is the highest-paid national-team coach in Latvian history, and while money alone does not guarantee success, it does raise expectations. Latvia could pay huge salaries to world-class names like Mourinho or Guardiola, but without players competing at the top club levels, no coach can completely transcend the limitations of the talent pool. Most Latvian internationals still play either in the Virslīga and some in mid-tier European leagues; the elite development pipeline is limited, and no coach can change that overnight. The Italian tactical structure may also be too complex for a squad without daily training together, and some may prefer a more direct style, like the vertical approach Kazakevičs favored. These are legitimate concerns.
But the coaching alternatives are limited. The most promising Latvian coach, RFS manager Viktors Morozs, is on his own upward trajectory and likely not ready to abandon club ambitions. Jurģis Kalns is an intriguing and energetic option but probably too inexperienced for this moment. Calling back Marians Pahars or searching for yet another foreign coach brings its own uncertainties. And the next competitive matches – against Gibraltar in the Nations League playoff in March – are too important to gamble on a new coach who would have almost no time to adjust.
Taking all factors into account, continuity seems the most rational path. The system created over the last two years would be wasted if discarded now, especially when the players clearly believe in it. If Nicolato stays, the only reasonable adjustment would be a more modest salary structure and perhaps a contractual condition tied to the March results, though even without that clause, Latvia should expect to beat Gibraltar. And despite occasional selection controversies – like omitting Raimonds Krollis late in the year – the core of the team appears united behind the coach, which should matter more than anything.
Ultimately, the national team under Paolo Nicolato has played its most coherent and modern football in years. The performances have improved, the tactical identity is clear, and the squad’s response has been overwhelmingly positive. With seven potential starters missing in the final qualifier against Serbia, the team still competed, still fought, and still reflected the coach’s ideas. That alone suggests that his work is not finished. For all these reasons, and after weighing the limited alternatives, the most sensible conclusion is that Latvia should extend his tenure and allow the project to continue.
