“Things were better back then” – that was the kind of reaction spreading across social media after Tuesday’s collapse of FK Žalgiris Vilnius.
The positional structure – once again – was unsuccessful on the pitch, and taking advantage of Žalgiris’ defensive gaps, the team from Mažeikiai snatched a ticket to the next stage of the cup – the Round of 16, where the 16 best teams in Lithuania will compete.
Summarizing the match: in the Vilnius side, 36-year-old Liviu Antal was the most effective – scoring the visitors’ only goal. Speaking about the hosts – Atmosfera players – they were also led forward by foreign players: in the 75th minute Yutaro Funami scored the equalizer, and just 7 minutes later another Japanese player Kanta Seki scored the winning goal, as the final result showed.
What conclusions can Žalgiris management draw from this match? None, because they are not competent in this regard. They are not competent to take responsibility. The most rational thing they can do in this situation is to remain silent, and the best thing they could have done yesterday – after waking up in the morning – is to cure their hangover. As old folk wisdom says: “What you got sick with is what you should treat yourself with.”
What conclusions can their fans draw from this match? Let them blame themselves. During the match, ambiguous chants were heard, such as: “We lost again, we lost again – hey, hey!” Who were they meant for – themselves or to mock the team? Let them answer that themselves.
A. Skerla – an alchemist?
“When there’s a storm in your stomach, Espumisan will help you” – this advertising slogan should be the panacea for Vilnius Žalgiris this season. However, there is no cure for everything. The role of the alchemist in the club will be attempted by former long-time Hegelmann Kaunas district coach Andrius Skerla, who in his time, with a much smaller budget (without much attention or fanfare), quietly worked together with Giedrius Klevinskas in Kaunas and for several years in a row played in European competitions. In any case, their tandem in the past produced tangible and real results in the A Lyga (two second-place finishes and three appearances in the cup final). Will this be achieved in Vilnius? Time will tell.
There is a saying: “A good start is half the work.” This time the start was not good – before that a draw with Banga, and now – a failure in the cup. And what can the coach do in such a situation? In any case, it will no longer be enough to shift the blame onto the players (even if deserved), as was done after the cup match. It will be necessary to find that balance, that tactical scheme, which will be suitable and closest to the philosophy of the best A Lyga coach of 2024.
From personal conversations with the coach, he likes to repeat the phrase that he would like to play with three defenders, if only he could and had all the conditions for it.
All these conditions this year are present at Telšiai’s Džiugas. Perhaps this summer Vilnius Žalgiris will surprise everyone by bringing in several players from Telšiai? However, football in Lithuania is not basketball. There are no buyout clauses and loud transfers, because the market is small and clubs are not used to doing that, as there is no money allocated for it. If this was once done by the former Vilnius Lietuvos rytas (after G. Vainauskas stepped down) – during financial hardship poaching M. Girdžiūnas and A. Butkevičius from Klaipėda’s Neptūnas – it is not a fact that the current club management should follow the same path. In any case, in the summer the capital club needs to buy a good striker if they want to compete in Europe, a wide midfielder, and two centre-backs.
A bit about tactics
Situation 1. At the beginning of the match, Mažeikiai’s centre-back (Moses Bawa), after a lofted ball into the penalty area, had a chance to score the first goal of the match, but he lacked the striker’s instinct and technique. Still, it must be admitted, scoring a goal from a single aerial pass without the ball touching the ground is not that simple.
Situation 2. After an excellent counterattack and a pass from Paulius Golubickas to Liviu Antal, the Romanian failed to properly strike the ball in motion (in defense, the previously mentioned nearly 1.90m tall M. Bawa was very late), having stayed too long in attack.
Situation 3. During a set piece, Deividas Šešplaukis almost curled the ball into Liutauras Juška’s goal (poor positioning by the goalkeeper). Summarizing the first half – the goal was coming, coming, and finally came. After a long-range shot by Šešplaukis, the ball struck Liviu Antal, and the Mažeikiai defenders could wave their arms all they wanted, but the goal stood – a cold shower just before the break. Half of the goal should be credited to Šešplaukis, but Antal was also in the right place at the right time – as they say, a good pass never goes to waste.
For fairness, in the first half the Vilnius side should have pinned their opponents back and held at least a two-goal advantage. That was likely the plan at the start of the match – with Andrius Skerla aiming for an early goal (within the first 30 minutes) and to build a lead before halftime.
Situation 4. The start of the first half and a fire in front of Vincentas Šarkauskas’s goal. Good positioning at the near post and excellent reflexes (like a cat) on the goal line – that’s why he is a goalkeeper. How four Žalgiris players allowed the Japanese player Taiga Horikoshi to feel so free is hard to explain, while centre-back Petar Bosančič, left on the flank, could only watch the ball with his eyes.
Situation 5. It was pleasant – very pleasant – to see former long-time Hegelmann Litauen captain Klaudijus Upstas return after a hamstring injury (back thigh muscles) and be active on the right flank (he could have doubled the score at the start of the second half). The first adjustments in Žalgiris’ tactical schemes are visible, while the previously often-mentioned Georgian Saba Mamatsashvili did not start this match.
How is this defender valued at nearly half a million? At times it seems like he’s playing in the NBA and wants to be paid only for attacking, but this is football – and he’s a defender. Yuriy Kendysh also had a great chance with a header. Set pieces – something new and something that was missing in Rolandas Džiaukštas’ ideas.
From the situations shown above follows a more detailed explanation, as they reflect the overall style of play of the green-and-whites this season.
The main issue is the unstructured crowding around the ball. Too many Žalgiris players gather in one area, but without any clear purpose or defined role. This is not organized compactness aimed at pressing the opponent – as a result, neither the ball nor the space is properly controlled.
Another major problem is the defensive line. The defenders are positioned at different heights and lack coordination: one drops deeper to protect space behind, while another steps forward to press. This creates diagonal passing lanes for the opposition and makes it easy for them to progress forward. At this level, such lack of synchronization and leadership between lines is unacceptable.
There is also a complete absence of effective pressing. The player on the ball feels comfortable, with no real pressure applied. There is no aggressive approach, no positioning to block passing options, and no clear intention to win the ball back. This is not defending – it is simply watching the game unfold.
Equally concerning is the poor control of space between the lines. Opponents find too much freedom between midfield and defense, as midfielders fail to close the gaps and defenders do not step up to support. This creates dangerous pockets of space, which is perhaps the most critical issue of all, as it directly leads to conceding chances and ultimately losing matches.
Finally, there is a clear lack of collective compactness. The team does not function as a unified block – both horizontal and vertical distances between players are wrong, and although each player may occupy a zone, there is no real cohesion. This suggests either the absence of a clear tactical model or an inability to properly implement it on the pitch.
Situation 6. Spaces
1. The second centre-back – wrong decision and timing
In this situation, the second centre-back is essentially not involved at all. He is overactive in the wrong way, running in recovery mode and already losing control of the situation. There is no cover, no depth management, and he fails to close the inside channel or properly orient himself toward the player on the ball.
At the highest level, this is basic: one defender steps slightly higher and wider, while the other provides cover and balance. Here, there is no balance and no one is protecting anything.
2. The right-back? He simply isn’t there
The question is obvious: where is the right-back?
The opposition winger is completely free on the flank. There is no protection on the outside of the penalty area, not even a shadow of a defender. Did he simply forget to track back?
This is a serious structural positioning error during the match. Why did it happen? Either the full-back pushed too high without cover, or the team lost defensive transition and no one compensated. In both cases, this is a failure of collective principles, not just an individual mistake.
3. A free winger = a goal waiting to happen
The wide player on the left side of the attack is completely free, facing the play and with time to make a decision. This is decisive, because it forces the defensive line to drop, opens passing lanes into central areas, and creates constant two-versus-one situations.
4. The central space is completely open
Look at the player on the ball: there is no real pressure, he moves forward with his head up, and has multiple passing options available.
This completely destroys any defensive structure.
Situation 8. No matter how much you try to patch it up, the defense will still leak. The right side of the Vilnius team looked completely exposed to the Japanese players that evening – almost as if it had been handed over to them.
The Georgian who came on as a substitute and the Kendysh who started the match looked completely exposed that evening, offering little resistance defensively.
The attacker (Kanta Seki) receives the ball facing forward and moves toward the goalkeeper without any real aggressive pressure. The first defender reacts too late and reads the situation poorly, while the second defender fails to close down or protect the inside channel.
The result: the attacker solves a 1v2 situation as if it were 1v0.
This is a lack of defensive effort – no aggression, no coordination.
The second major issue is the centre-backs. Even when they react, they don’t actually defend. They don’t close the distance, they don’t step up to the player on the ball, and they don’t control the space between the ball and the goal. Instead, they remain stuck in a “dead zone” – neither pressing nor protecting depth, which is the worst possible scenario for a central defender.
The outcome is predictable: the attacker gains time, gains space, and wins the situation. It highlights a complete lack of defensive quality.
The defending inside the penalty area is also poor. Players focus only on the ball instead of scanning the surrounding movement. The distances between defenders are too large, and no one actively challenges the attacking player during the shot or pass. This isn’t proper zonal defending – it’s just passive positioning without any real impact.
What makes it worse is that this pattern repeats. There is no pressure on the ball, full-backs are left completely free, and the centre-backs remain passive. This is no longer an isolated mistake – it reflects a lack of collective coordination and a weak or poorly coached defensive structure.
This goal did not come from the opponent’s brilliance. It came from a lack of aggression, the absence of clear playing principles, and a lack of leadership in the defensive line.
Overall, this analysis shows that there was no real pressing in the match, and the Vilnius players looked more like spectators than competitors.
Conclusion
With a budget like this season’s, the objective should be clear. In at least 90% of matches (except against Kauno Žalgiris), possession should firmly belong to the Vilnius side under any circumstances. Injuries or absences can no longer be used as excuses – otherwise, it’s simply masking deeper issues.
Žalgiris is the biggest club in Lithuania, but right now it is going through a very poor period. Many aspects of the club – both on and off the pitch – need to be questioned. A club of this size must have a clear playing model and must dominate matches, as most of its time is spent attacking and applying pressure.
The key question remains: do the current players actually fit these demands? And does Andrius Skerla have the right tools to achieve results, or is he being left to deal with problems created by past decisions?
One thing is certain – there is significant money within the structure of Vilnius Žalgiris, and they are paying heavily for it.
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
