The game | The result | Goal scorers |
---|---|---|
Super Nova – Liepāja | 2:6 (1:1) | Jaunarājs-Janvāris 35′ Vishnakovs 63′ – Dodo 3′ Kliushkins 55’84’ Kucija 59′ Makandzhuola 68′ Tiedenbergs 75′ |
Daugavpils – Auda | 0:2 (0:0) | Berjqvist 71′ Ulimbashev 90’+3 |
Jelgava – Tukums 2000 | 2:2 (1:0) | Patijchuk 1′ Vejkrieger 84′ – Steponavičs 52′ Samoilovs 58′ |
Metta – RFS | 0:0 | |
Riga – Valmiera | 3:0 (2:0) | Regža 5′ Čudars 23′ (Sun) Niangs 64′ |
Koliņko and Pérkonas press conferences
At the first press conference of the round, the head coach of Salaspils “Super Nova” Aleksandrs Koliņko made a public speech in Latvian for the first time, but the most important press conference of the round took place 23 hours later – the head coach of the debutant “Jelgava” Ervīns Pērkons after the drawn draw against Tukumniki (2:2). revealed that he will not continue working with the team after the first round. The reason – differences in opinions, team development and football vision with the club’s management (read – owner Māri Peilānas).
Since both Pērkons and Peilāns are persons of character who can speak very openly, there can be many facets in their mutual relations, but if you look only from a sporting point of view, the first round can of course be evaluated very positively – for Pērkons, the youngest coach of the Premier League, should be one of the favorites for the honor of the best coach of the first round (having left the “play-offs”, the Toronto “Raptors” fired Dwayne Casey five years ago, who was recognized as the best coach of the NBA regular season a few days earlier). During the round, from time to time, the feeling that a small drop is expected in the Jelgava players’ results sooner or later – if only because only three away games will be played in the first 11 rounds (RFS, on the other hand, has disproportionately rarely played at home so far), so it’s a pity about changes from such aspect: if there really will be a decline, then it can easily be attributed to the change of coaches. But in any case, the performance of FS “Jelgava” so far, no hopeless games even against the big ones, the ability to wildly rotate the composition and schemes, without the quality suffering much from it, far exceeded the expectations before the start of the season. That would also have been interesting – would the core stabilize over time?
FS “Jelgava” won 11 points in the first round – the same as FK “Jelgava” collected in their debut in 2010, which finished the season in sixth place. During 20 seasons, 30 teams have moved from the 1st league to the Premier League, and in this competition, the two Jelgava teams occupy the 6th and 8th positions, respectively, or are confidently at the positive end. Jūrmala “Spartaks” entered the Premier League the best, which debuted in the Premier League in 2012 with 16 points, and Daugavpils “Ditton” returned to the Premier League with the same 16 points in the first nine games in 2006. Last year, the profitable “Auda” started with 15 points and fewer goals than Pérkonas Jelgavnieci (9:8 against 11:13). None of these 29 teams, not including FS “Jelgava”, subsequently finished higher than the fifth place – Pērkona Jelgavnieki currently occupy the sixth place and are closer to the top four than the relegation zone.
Year | A team | U | N | Z | Gate | P | Year | A team | U | N | Z | Gate | P | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2012. | Spartacus | 5 | 1 | 3 | 15:10 | 16 | 2008. | Blazma | 1 | 3 | 5 | 4:11 | 6 | ||
2006. | Ditton | 4 | 4 | 1 | 10:5 | 16 | 2012. | Metta | 1 | 3 | 5 | 9:17 | 6 | ||
2022. | Wet | 4 | 3 | 2 | 9:8 | 15 | 2009. | Transit | 0 | 5 | 4 | 7:13 | 5 | ||
2019. | Daugavpils | 4 | 1 | 4 | 10:9 | 13 | 2013. | Ilukste | 0 | 4 | 5 | 8:25 | 4 | ||
2011. | Gulbene | 4 | 0 | 5 | 11:17 | 12 | 2022. | Tukums 2000 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5:24 | 4 | ||
2010. | Jelgava | 3 | 2 | 4 | 18:14 | 11 | 2021. | Noah | 1 | 1 | 7 | 6:29 | 4 | ||
2011. | Jurmala | 3 | 2 | 4 | 10:10 | 11 | 2010. | Youth | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5:32 | 4 | ||
2023. | Jelgava | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11:13 | 11 | 2022. | Super Nova | 0 | 3 | 6 | 2:14 | 3 | ||
2016. | RFS | 3 | 2 | 4 | 7:12 | 11 | 2009. | Daugava | 0 | 3 | 6 | 9:27 | 3 | ||
2014. | Daugavpils | 3 | 1 | 5 | 10:15 | 10 | 2017. | Babe | 0 | 2 | 7 | 6:21 | 2 | ||
2004. | Ditton | 3 | 1 | 5 | 6:17 | 10 | 2020. | Tukums 2000 | 0 | 2 | 7 | 6:27 | 2 | ||
2004. | Jurmala | 2 | 3 | 4 | 9:12 | 9 | 2007. | Olympus | 0 | 1 | 8 | 4:20 | 1 | ||
2005. | Sale | 2 | 3 | 4 | 7:10 | 9 | 2018. | Valmiera | 0 | 1 | 8 | 8:35 | 1 | ||
2016. | Riga | 1 | 5 | 3 | 6:9 | 8 | 2006. | Dizvanagi | 0 | 0 | 9 | 4:27 | 0 | ||
2008. | Windava | 1 | 4 | 4 | 7:10 | 7 | 2015. | Gulbene | 0 | 0 | 8 | 2:25 | 0 |
Note: “Gulbene” managed to play only eight rounds before elimination. The table does not include clubs that entered the Premier League without participating in the 1st league, such as Olimps, Daugavpils Daugava and Liepāja.
Two main contenders for the title
Although one of the key games between “Metta” and “Liepāja” has not yet taken place, the first round has probably already provided an answer for the first division of the big teams. At the moment, it looks like the historical 2-3-5 scheme, in which the two big Riga clubs stand out against the background of the others – the rich “Riga” has the best composition and for now also the most convincing, meaningful game (and it looks like the ideal eleven has also crystallized), but also RFS on the bill of the preserved core, playability, more experienced lineup and the style of play corresponding to the particular lineup is not far behind. The mutual derby is the only game in which “Riga” and “RFS” did not have a big xG advantage (who knows, maybe “Riga” would win even then without rejection). Even in those matches in which “Riga” and RFS lost points or suffered victories, the advantage was still significant and one could talk about illogical results.
V | A team | S | U | N | Z | Gate | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1. | Riga FC | 9 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 22:3 | 23 |
2. | RFS | 9 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 13:2 | 19 |
3. | FK Liepāja | 8 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 15:10 | 16 |
4. | Valmiera FC | 9 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 12:9 | 14 |
5. | FK Auda | 9 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 7:10 | 12 |
6. | FS Jelgava | 9 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 11:13 | 11 |
7. | FK Metta | 8 | 3 | 1 | 4 | 9:12 | 10 |
8. | FK Tukums 2000/Telms | 9 | 2 | 1 | 6 | 10:16 | 7 |
9. | SK Super Nova Salaspils | 9 | 2 | 0 | 7 | 6:22 | 6 |
10. | BFC Daugavpils | 9 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 8:16 | 5 |
Unlike the champion “Valmiera”, which stands out in terms of anomalies in the illogical 0:1 in Salaspils (due to the fact that, after the performance, at least a replay was required) and the excellent 4:0 in Mežaparks against “Auda” (due to the fact that such a brilliant match with complete dominance from the first few minutes do not fit into the picture of the rest of the first lap). In mutual matches, the performance of “Valmiera” was worse than “Riga” and “RFS” and better than “Liepaja” and “Auda”, but the battles against the second echelon are worrying, in which the Valmiera team dominated only in Salaspils (and also a lot of ball control against Tukumniki, but not a big advantage in terms of danger) and after moments is much closer to “Metta” than to the big duo of Riga. I think it can be seen with the naked eye that “Riga” and “Valmiera” are currently on different levels and that the gap of nine points is natural – the composition of Valmiera already became weaker in the winter and greener, but the quality has been severely damaged by severe injuries in the front line. The summer transfer period can, of course, fix all that, but a full second round is expected before the national team window – the main task of the current squad is to hold their positions until the summer, so as not to start getting nervous even about the places in the Eurocups. Without the Japanese (and now also without Ivan Želizko) losing control of the game and the attackers being treated in the infirmary, a lot of pressure is on the defense – in every game the opponents have scored at least one goal (the best defense score was 0.89 goals against Jelgava), while RFS and “Riga” allowed their opponents very, very little.
What is interesting is that with RFS stumbling against “Metta” (0:0, xG advantage in the second half was +2.1), “Liepāja” remains the only team that has not yet lost points to the second echelon – four far from easy victories, but with a large advantage of moments (not getting an early lead, this was also predictable and perhaps creates a deceptive impression). The Kurzemens still have a game against “Metta” in reserve – it’s a pity that this match didn’t take place, because it seems to be the key to understanding whether the bottom end is, in my opinion, the potentially strongest team “Metta” (now Bruno Melnis is injured, and in the summer the lineup can change for the worse) you can also dream of something higher than sixth place. If “Liepāja” has not lost any points against the previous ones, then the content against the top five was very weak – four points (1:0 in Valmiera, 1:1 against “Audu”) in the first round was a very complimentary result. “Auda” has a similar problem, which last season did not win a single victory against the top four (0-5-11) and this season is also in second place (0-2-2), lagging far behind Riga’s big clubs in terms of performance in mutual games (against RFS though held 0:0) and “Valmieras” and “Liepāja” (1:1). Any predictions or assessments can be quickly changed by injuries and the summer transfer window.
Balance against top five and bottom five
A team | U | N | Z | Gate | P | xG | A team | U | N | Z | Gate | P | xG | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Riga | 3 | 1 | 0 | 9:1 | 10 | (+4.69) | Riga | 4 | 1 | 0 | 13:2 | 13 | +15.64 | ||
RFS | 1 | 3 | 0 | 3:1 | 6 | +5.47 | RFS | 4 | 1 | 0 | 10:1 | 13 | +11.16 | ||
Valmiera | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4:4 | 4 | (+2.07) | Liepaja | 4 | 0 | 0 | 13:4 | 12 | (+5.24) | ||
Liepaja | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2:6 | 4 | -6.93 | Jelgava | 3 | 1 | 0 | 8:4 | 10 | -1.49 | ||
Tukum | 1 | 0 | 4 | 6:10 | 3 | -8.93 | Valmiera | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8:5 | 10 | +2.46 | ||
Super Nova | 1 | 0 | 4 | 4:14 | 3 | (-10.60) | Wet | 3 | 1 | 1 | 6:3 | 10 | +6.57 | ||
Wet | 0 | 2 | 2 | 1:7 | 2 | -5.90 | Metta | 3 | 0 | 1 | 9:5 | 9 | +2.10 | ||
Daugavpils | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2:10 | 2 | -6.32 | Tukum | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4:6 | 4 | +1.87 | ||
Jelgava | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3:9 | 1 | -8.65 | Daugavpils | 1 | 0 | 3 | 6:6 | 3 | +0.31 | ||
Metta | 0 | 1 | 3 | 0:7 | 1 | -5.57 | Super Nova | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2:8 | 3 | -2.79 |
Statistics for the matches “Super Nova-Liepāja 2:6” and “Riga-Valmiera 3:0” are not yet available in “InStat” – the sums indicated in brackets are without these matches, in which the teams of Liepaja and Riga have a big lead.
Next round
The date | The game | Time |
---|---|---|
02.05. | Super Nova – Auda | 18.00 |
03.05. | Liepaja – Metta | 17.30 |
Daugavpils – Tukums 2000 | 18.00 | |
04.05. | RFS – Valmiera | 15.00 |
Jelgava – Riga | 17.00 |
???? Watch SK Super Nova Salaspils and @LiepajaFK goal!
⚽ 3’ Dodo
⚽ 35′ Jaunaraj-Janvāris
⚽⚽ 56′ 84′ Kliushkins
⚽ 59′ Kutsia
⚽ 64′ Vishnakov
⚽ 68′ Makanjuola
⚽ 75′ Tiedenberg#OptibetVirsliga pic.twitter.com/qADEfvg6zI— Optibet Virsliga (@FutbolaVirsliga) April 28, 2023
???? Watch it @fkauda goals in the victory over BFC Daugavpils!
⚽ 71′ Bergqvist
⚽ 90′ Ulimbashev#OptibetVirsliga pic.twitter.com/5vIYdN3qcW— Optibet Virsliga (@FutbolaVirsliga) April 28, 2023
???? Watch it @fsjelgava and FK Tukums 2000/TELMS goals!
⚽ 1′ Patijchuk
⚽ 52′ Steponavicius
⚽ 58′ Samoilov
⚽ 84′ Vejkrieger#OptibetVirsliga pic.twitter.com/Lpr9JWsO4M— Optibet Virsliga (@FutbolaVirsliga) April 29, 2023
???? Watch it @RigaFC_Official goals scored in a win over @valmierafc!
⚽⚽ 6′ 23′ Reža
⚽ 64’ Niang#OptibetVirsliga pic.twitter.com/QpemjV0HS7— Optibet Virsliga (@FutbolaVirsliga) April 30, 2023