The 2023 A Lyga champions continue to drift further away from the league’s top positions. After seven rounds, sitting in seventh place is far from what was expected before the season, especially for a club that set a clear objective – securing European football.
Following their latest defeat to Džiugas Telšiai, Panevėžys have now fallen 11 points behind league leaders and reigning champions Kauno Žalgiris. For a club considered among the top five in the league by budget, this is not just a poor start – it is a structural failure.
Even the coaching change during the international break failed to inject new energy. German Roland Vrabec was replaced by Finnish specialist Toni Korkeakunnas, but the new coach is still unfamiliar with the squad, and adaptation will take time – something clubs with ambitions simply cannot afford.
At the same time, the coaching change itself raises uncomfortable questions. Why was Vrabec not dismissed immediately after last season? Why did the club wait until the situation had already deteriorated?
Equally concerning is the club’s communication strategy – or lack of it. Panevėžys remains closed off, avoiding interaction with official media, despite operating with taxpayer money through municipal funding. This reflects a broader issue in Lithuanian football, where financial support is often tied to political proximity, and the entire system resembles an outdated model that discourages private investment. Football is not the number one sport in Lithuania, and investing in it does not guarantee reputational returns – on the contrary, failure often demands even greater financial input.
The question becomes inevitable: what kind of community is the club trying to build if it continues to follow outdated leadership patterns – avoiding transparency, distancing itself from supporters, and replicating management styles associated with past failures?
A major turning point in Panevėžys’ decline came after the departure of Deividas Česnauskis following the historic 2023 title-winning season. His role in the club’s structure, although not always formally defined, was crucial. His exit left a vacuum.
Initially, the following season was written off as a typical “hangover” after success. But looking back now, it becomes clear that deeper issues were already present. There are indications that certain individuals within the club were not properly rewarded or appreciated after the title-winning campaign. Whether due to personal ambitions or internal disagreements, relationships broke down – and in some cases, were simply cut off.
The silence from both sides only fuels speculation. Was it about promised bonuses that were never paid? Internal politics? Mismanagement? The answers remain hidden.
Squad building has also come under heavy scrutiny. For the second consecutive season, Panevėžys does not look like a unified team. According to sources close to the club, the dressing room is effectively split into two groups – local players and foreign legionnaires – operating separately rather than as a cohesive unit.
Several decisions reinforce this perception. Serbian striker Pavle Radunović, one of the most productive players in the squad (six goals and two assists mid-season), was not retained. Ariagner Smith, on the other hand, remained in the structure perhaps longer than he should have, with his performance curve and motivation clearly declining.
Equally questionable was the departure of Domantas Vaičekauskas, one of Lithuania’s most promising young defensive midfielders. A local player, developed within the club system, he could have formed a strong midfield partnership with Matas Ramanauskas. Instead, Panevėžys opted to bring in Ernestas Burdzilauskas on loan from Kauno Žalgiris.
Looking at the bigger picture, Panevėžys’ decline becomes easier to understand. The 2023 championship team was built on an existing foundation. Once key players left, the club failed to build something new – not because it lacked ambition, but because it lacked the structure and people to do so.
The absence of Česnauskis remains central. What exactly caused the split is still unknown. Both sides remain silent, but it is clear that something fundamental broke.
Meanwhile, former coach Gino Lettieri has been gone for several seasons. Results have declined, yet the responsibility continues to fall primarily on coaches, rather than on the club’s leadership or outdated working methods.
A revealing quote from Vilma Venslovaitienė in 2025 suggested that Lettieri “simply got scared and left after realizing the squad would not deliver the required results.” Whether true or not, it reflects the instability surrounding the club.
Leadership inside the squad is another missing element. The absence of former captain Linas Klimavičius – a strong, authoritative figure – is clearly felt. His ability to manage personalities, especially among foreign players, is something the current team lacks.
Current captain Vytautas Černiauskas does not possess the same leadership profile, while players like Ernestas Veliulis are more introverted and not naturally vocal. The result is a team where authority is not clearly defined, and internal discipline suffers.
These deeper structural problems were reflected on the pitch in the match against Džiugas.
In the first half, the visitors from Telšiai arguably deserved to lead. Panevėžys struggled to control possession, often sitting deep and allowing the opposition to dictate the tempo. The tactical setup resembled either a 4-3-2-1 or a 4-2-3-1, but it appeared untested and ineffective.
Transitions from defense to attack were particularly poor. Around 25–30 meters from their own goal, Panevėžys repeatedly lost control due to Džiugas’ pressing and positioning. Striker Edvin Muratović often received the ball under pressure, surrounded by two defenders, with little chance to create anything.
Džiugas, meanwhile, played a dynamic and flexible system – possibly shifting between 3-4-3 and 3-5-2 – with aggressive wing-backs pushing high and controlling large areas of the pitch.
Panevėžys survived the first half largely thanks to goalkeeper Vytautas Černiauskas.
Another notable aspect of the match was the presence of veteran coach Virginijus Liubšys in the stands, a figure who spent around 16 years with “Ekranas” and played a role in the early development of FK Panevėžys.
The match also highlighted safety concerns. Polish defender Jakub Wawszczyk repeatedly struggled with advertising boards placed too close to the pitch when taking corners. This is not an isolated issue – there have already been cases this season where players suffered serious injuries after colliding with such structures. One example is Džiugas player Aleksa, who was sidelined long-term after hitting metal advertising boards in Kaunas.
In the second half, Panevėžys showed more initiative, playing higher and attempting to impose a more chaotic, open style. The game became stretched, which suited the hosts better. However, the decisive moment came from the penalty spot – a fair decision that ultimately secured a deserved victory for Džiugas.
The refereeing by Mindaugas Jackus also stood out positively, allowing physical play but maintaining control and stepping in when necessary.
Džiugas, under Andrius Lipskis, continues to grow. His experience as technical director, time spent in Belgium under the Anderlecht project, and work alongside João Prates have clearly shaped a well-structured team. Their system is disciplined, their roles clearly defined, and their performances consistent.
Players like Ibrahim Cissé, who calmly converted the winning penalty, along with defenders Josh Okpolokpo and Bacary Sané, form a physically dominant defensive unit that allows full-backs to push forward aggressively.
Young midfielder Nikita Pavlovskis is another standout talent, with the potential to reach national team level if his development continues.
If Džiugas can maintain their squad and avoid injuries, they are capable of achieving one of the most successful seasons in the club’s history.
Panevėžys, on the other hand, appears lost – a team without cohesion, a structure without clarity, a club without direction.
The responsibility now falls on Toni Korkeakunnas to rebuild not only the tactical side but the identity of the team. Whether he has the tools – or the time – remains the biggest unanswered question.
If you are enjoying Mantas’s interviews and analysis, please consider supporting his other projects here and here, as well as follow him on TikTok
