Vladimir Ponomarev, a former CSKA Moscow player and a member of the USSR national team, weighed in on who should lead the Russian national team now and offered his observations in a way that readers know they can trust. His comments map out a clear line of thinking about the coaching options that many fans and analysts have been discussing, and they do so with a sense of practical realism about what the team needs on and off the training pitch. The message is straightforward: there are candidates who are familiar, who have earned respect inside the locker room, and who can communicate authority without creating unnecessary friction. The point he makes is not about prestige alone but about the ability to motivate players and to set standards that can be followed consistently across the calendar of matches and camps. This perspective has been echoed by many people following the sport in Russia and beyond, and it reflects a broader conversation about leadership, accountability, and the daily work that goes into preparing a national squad for the highest level of competition. (Source: Euro-Football.Ru)
According to Ponomarev, the pool of potential coaches includes figures who are not unfamiliar to the Russian setup. He argues for inviting someone who is already known to the players and staff, someone who can hit the ground running without a long acclimation period. He asserts that there is value in choosing a manager who can command respect through a combination of toughness and clarity of expectations. In his view, a coach who can speak plainly, establish discipline, and demand consistency would be more effective than someone who relies solely on tactical novelty or media-friendly charisma. This line of thought has been interpreted by many as a practical call for stability and a clear project plan that can align the players with a common philosophy. The emphasis remains on leadership that resonates with the squad and drives performance through accountability. (Source: Euro-Football.Ru)
Among the names frequently discussed in the public discourse is Valery Karpin, who had been at the helm of Rostov before taking on the national team responsibilities on a temporary basis. It is noted that Karpin initially attempted to balance his duties with Rostov and the national team, but eventually he chose to focus on the national team. The arrangement led to a transition where he would spend the majority of his time with the national side, though his contract had a defined horizon. When the situation required, he was prepared to manage both roles again, reflecting an approach that mixes continuity with the potential for fresh energy. Depending on the evolving needs of the team, this arrangement was seen by supporters as a pragmatic solution with the potential to deliver steady development and improved results over time. The contract terms that followed were viewed as a sign of confidence in his capacity to guide the squad through a critical period. (Source: Euro-Football.Ru)
There is a broader context to the discussion: the national team has faced interruptions and complications in recent times, limiting competitive fixtures and pressuring the management to navigate a patchwork schedule. In the spring, the team managed to play only unofficial matches as a result of suspensions, a situation that has intensified the debate about who should be directing preparations and selecting players for crucial friendlies and tournaments. Still, the memory of a decisive 4–0 victory over Serbia highlighted the potential within the squad when the right framework is in place. Plans for a forthcoming friendly with Paraguay were put on hold due to external events, underscoring how off-field factors can influence the national program and the timetable for evaluating coaches. These dynamics are rarely static, and any coaching decision must account for the realities of scheduling, player availability, and the broader political and sporting environment. (Source: Euro-Football.Ru)
Stanislav Cherchesov began his tenure with the Russian national team in 2016, guiding the squad to the quarter-finals of a home World Cup and delivering an impressive performance that resonated with supporters. Although the campaign at the European Championship held in the summer of 2021 did not meet the same high expectations, it remains a landmark moment in the program’s recent history. Cherchesov eventually parted ways with the national team after the 2020 European Championship, making his experience a reference point in discussions about leadership, continuity, and the kind of tactical ethos that can endure through changing circumstances. As discussions continue about the best path forward, Cherchesov’s record is frequently cited as a benchmark for how a manager’s approach can shape a national team’s culture and perform under pressure. (Source: Euro-Football.Ru)
Dmitry Bulykin has also contributed to the conversation around coaching choices by referencing Karpin’s trajectory and by weighing the principles that should guide decision-making in football governance. His reflections underscore the ongoing interest in a leadership model that blends clear expectations with a focus on results, while also respecting the players’ development and the need for a coherent team identity. In the evolving dialogue about who should coach the Russian national team, Bulykin’s remarks add to a chorus of voices urging measured, experience-informed decisions that align with the ambitions of the program and the realities on the ground. (Source: Euro-Football.Ru)