Former FK Liepāja head coach Vladimir Vassiljev has admitted he was surprised by the timing of his dismissal, saying he still believed the team was moving in the right direction and would have finished fourth in the Virslīga if he had been given time to complete the season. Speaking to Baltic Football News two days after leaving the club, Vassiljev said he understood from the beginning that Liepāja was not an easy environment for coaches, but arrived with the belief that a longer-term project could still be built.
“Of course, I was surprised – not so much that it happened, but when it happened,” Vassiljev said. “I knew before coming here that it is not easy to work for coaches in this club. There is a lot of pressure and they change coaches quite often. But I was a little romantic and naive. I really believed we could change something and build a long-term project.”
The Estonian coach said the club’s final explanation was straightforward. According to Vassiljev, owner Oļegs Hramovs told him that he was satisfied with the work being done and the way the team had changed, but not with the results.
“He told me he was satisfied with our work and how the team transformed, but he was not satisfied with the results,” Vassiljev explained. “He has spent a lot of money and wants to be in the top three every year. He has the right to want that.”
Vassiljev also confirmed that the person who initially pushed for his arrival was sporting director Ivans Visockis, with whom he had already spoken about players before coming to Latvia. However, he stressed that the final decision was made by the club’s ownership.
“It was Ivans who brought the idea. We had spoken before, even when I was working in Šamorin, because he offered players and we discussed different profiles. But of course, the final decision was with Oļegs and Marks, because they are the owners.”
The former Levadia and Paide coach admitted that he may have underestimated how quickly results would be demanded. He believed that, based on what he had seen from the squad before arriving, changes could be implemented faster. Instead, he found that the team needed more time mentally and tactically.
“I thought we could change the situation quicker. I have experience at different levels with installing a game model and working mentally with players, but I was surprised that it took us a little longer. I still think that if we had stayed for the final nine games, we would have achieved what the owner wanted. But miracles do not happen so fast.”
For Vassiljev, the biggest issue at Liepāja was not simply tactical, but psychological. He believes the club’s demanding environment affected the players, especially in matches against teams they were expected to beat.
“If you look at Liepāja, it is a very hard environment for players and coaches. The players feel the pressure, even if people inside the club think they are not giving pressure. Against Riga FC or RFS, they can play more freely because losing points is not seen as a disaster. But against teams below them, they know that if they lose points, there will be chaos and a negative atmosphere.”
That, in his view, explained the team’s lack of consistency. Liepāja could produce strong performances against top sides, but then struggle in matches where victory was expected.
“For Liepāja, every game starts from a negative result. Against almost everyone except Riga FC and RFS, 0-0 is already a negative result. Players want to play dominant football, but at the same time they are thinking only about the result. Unconsciously, the head chooses the easier way – to defend something instead of attacking and winning.”
Vassiljev said this also shaped some of the squad decisions made during his time at the club. Asked about the departures of Ivans Patrikejevs, Djibril Gueye and Ingars Pūlis, he said the issue was not personal, but about whether players suited the pressure of Liepāja.
“Not every player fits this environment. Some players can perform very well when they have less pressure, but when they know that every mistake can bring a negative reaction, they close themselves. In this club you need a special mentality. You need players with a winner’s character.”
He used Patrikejevs as an example of a player who may benefit from a different environment.
“I saw him in the U-21 national team and I saw him at Nõmme. When he does not have so much pressure, he can show a very good level. But when he has this pressure on his back, he closes himself. That is why some changes were logical.”
At the same time, Vassiljev spoke positively about the club’s young academy players, including Roberts Untulis and Lauris Lākutis, who received some minutes under him even in European competition. He said he does not judge players by age and believes some of Liepāja’s academy talents are already capable of being part of the first-team rotation.
“I give chances to players who deserve them. I don’t care about age. They showed a very good level in training, and I was happy with the work done by the academy coaches. If the situation in the table had been different, I would have played them even more. But when the result is the only priority, you have to protect young players. You cannot put them into a difficult moment and risk damaging their confidence.”
Vassiljev believes those youngsters could become regular first-team players with a full pre-season and more stable conditions around them.
“I am quite sure they are already ready to compete for positions. They deserve more playing time, but in this specific club you have to calculate every moment. If they do the next pre-season with the first team, I think they can play.”
The coach also reflected on working again with Fellipe Vieira, whom he had previously coached in Slovakia and this summer with a six-figure transfer fee moved from Liepāja to Ukrainian Premier League. Vassiljev described the Brazilian as one of the most gifted technical players he has seen.
“With the ball, he is one of the biggest talents I have seen in my coaching career. His technique is unbelievable. First I saw him in Copinha, then he was brought over to Slovakia, we started working with him physically and tactically, and he improved a lot. When I came to Liepāja, I already knew his quality, and I was very happy to work with him again.”
Vassiljev said he was pleased to see Vieira take the next step in Ukraine, even if his departure left Liepāja without a natural number ten.
“I was happy for him, but unhappy for us, because at that moment we did not have the same type of player to replace him immediately. We later did find something with Abioudun Ogunniyi in that ten role, but with Fellipe I still think he has big potential. If he improves physically and tactically, he can reach a very high level.”
He was even more direct when discussing striker Oloko, the Latvian Virslīga top-goalscorer, describing him as one of the strongest forwards he has coached.
“He has the character of a warrior. He can play his best football even with this pressure on his back. For me, it is almost criminal that he is playing in the Latvian championship. He is the strongest striker I have worked with. Strength, speed, technique, game understanding and passion – it is a crazy level. Maybe he can improve his heading, but on the ground he has everything. I honestly think he could play in Poland, Slovakia or Hungary.”
Looking back at the Virslīga as a whole, Vassiljev said the Latvian league left a strong impression on him. Having worked in Estonia and Slovakia, he now considers Latvia to have the strongest domestic competition in the Baltics.
“I am quite sure that from all Baltic countries, this is the strongest league. First because of the budgets. I knew Riga FC and RFS spent a lot of money, but I was surprised how much other clubs also invest. The level is higher, the intensity is higher, and tactically it is stronger.”
He also pointed to the foreign-player rules as one reason why the league feels more stable and competitive compared with Estonia.
“In Estonia, you have more local-player restrictions, so the level can be different. In Latvia, because there are more foreigners, the league is more stable and intense. Matches against Riga FC, RFS and Auda are very high-level games. For a coach, playing against Riga or RFS is almost like playing a Conference League group-stage match.”
Vassiljev also compared the way clubs operate in Latvia and Estonia. He described Estonian football as more stable and Scandinavian in its decision-making, while Latvian clubs are more emotional, impulsive and active in the transfer market.
“In Estonia, there are not so many changes during the season. Clubs are more stable, and there are fewer transfers and coaching changes. Here, owners are more impulsive and things change faster. But I also enjoyed that. There is more energy, more pressure, more adrenaline. It makes you feel alive as a coach.”
Asked which performance best reflected the football he wanted from Liepāja, Vassiljev pointed to the first game against RFS before the red-cards.
“That was one of our best performances. We showed we could compete at the highest level in Latvia. We had intensive pressing, direct attacks, energy – everything we wanted. After that game I thought: this is it, now we will move forward. But then came matches where we became too passive and afraid of mistakes again.”
The game that frustrated him most was the defeat away to Daugavpils, which he described as a major setback after a positive period.
“Daugavpils was probably the most frustrating. We went there after a good win and were well prepared, but the long trip, the artificial pitch and the whole environment affected us. We were bad in almost everything. It was a strong punch in the face.”
He also felt the home match against Tukums was decisive, especially coming during a physically difficult period for the squad.
“We had a crazy schedule, nine games in one month, and we did not have our own pitch because some games were moved. Against Tukums, we were much better and could have finished the game in the first half, but football is like that. We missed chances, they scored, and suddenly we lost a game we should not have lost.”
Despite those setbacks, Vassiljev insists he still believed the team was improving and that a fourth-place finish was realistic.
“I still think that if we had continued, we would have finished fourth – one hundred percent. The team had started to believe more and do more of what we expected. That is why, for me, it is a sad story.”
In his final message, Vassiljev spoke warmly about Liepāja as a city and the supporters. He said the club has the financial strength and local potential to build something successful, but believes the structure around the team must improve.
“I really enjoyed working in this city. Liepāja has everything needed for football – a good city, good people and a president who can invest and create big projects. I think the management structure should be different, but the potential is there.”
He admitted that one disappointment was the lack of home matches during his short spell, which made it harder to build a stronger connection with the supporters.
“We did not have many real home games because of the concert and the pitch situation. When we played Austria Wien and the stand was full, even if it was not our usual home ground, you could feel the emotion. When fans support you, it gives extra motivation and power.”
Vassiljev ended by saying that football ultimately belongs to the supporters and thanked those who backed the team during his time in charge.
“We do football for the fans. They are the most important. They come to enjoy the game, and we have to give them emotion and results. When people came after games to speak, ask for photos or autographs, it made us proud. I hope one day there will be full stands in Liepāja for every home game, with songs, drums and real football culture. We tried our best, but unfortunately we did not have enough time.”
