First division, supposedly the best of Soviet football. The league was to be of 18 teams next season and only one team, the very last, was to be relegated. Easier life for many clubs… the new rule of only 8 ties providing points was bothersome, for it went against old, deep habits to play for 0-0, but perhaps a remedy was found just as quickly: if before clubs shared points, quietly tying matches and scoring early goals when there were points for scoreless ties, now it was just a bit of a gamble, but not much: what was needed was only an agreement for exchanged home victories – you get 2 points at home, then I got my 2 points when you are visiting. How big corruption was in Soviet football nobody can tell, but the new rule suddenly changed the picture: for the first time since the late 1960s ties were few. Also few were the clubs slow to adapt to the new reality: five clubs lost points because of extra ties. Torpedo (Moscow) suffered most – they tied 11 matches and lost 3 points. Goal scoring did not improve, though, casting doubt on the effectiveness of the new rule – the idea was to open up the stale Soviet football, to make it modern, and that meant more than reduction of ties: attacking football, aimed at victory, demanding goals. At least in Europe. In USSR change of rules was needed to force clubs to even think of winning. The change worked, perhaps not to the greatest expectations, but worked. What did not work was a league of too many unambitious clubs – and this fact makes the decision of enlargement of the league very strange. What was hoped was unclear – bigger league meant safety for various clubs concerned only with one thing: to be in the league. At least two benefited immediately – since only one club was relegated this season, by hook and crook 4 weak clubs survived. They came dangerously close to the 16th place, but at the end took a deep breath of relief: Kairat (Alma-Ata), 12th with 25 points, Neftchi (Baku), 13th with 23 points, Ararat (Erevan), 14th with 22 points and Lokomotiv (Moscow), 15th with 21 points too. Lokomotiv was unlucky to tie a 9th match and lost a point as well – under standard rules they would have been a place above Ararat, with 23 points. But all those survived – Dnepr (Dnepropetrovsk) got the short stick. They earned only 21 points and finished 16th – last and relegated. Not a team to be missed… The rest of the league was positioned pretty much as ever – the Moscow clubs in the upper half of the table; smaller provincials in the lower half, Chernomoretz (Odessa) and Zenit (Leningrad) right in the middle, but most teams were fairly equal in strength, weakness, and lack of ambition, so no big gaps between their points appeared. Zarya (Voroshilovgrad) and Ararat (Erevan) were steadily going down since each club won the title in the first half of the decade and the decline continued. Perhaps Torpedo (Moscow) disappointed – they finished 8th and even if the rules gave points for every tie, no matter how many, they were not to climb higher than 6th place. Yet, Torpedo was well rounded and balanced squad, playing nice football, one of the best squads in the league – or so it looked like.
Crouching from left: Petrov – masseur, Khrabrostin, Filatov, Sakharov, P. Yakovlev, Vanyushkin, Khudiev.
Second row: Zarapin, Mironov, N. Vassiliev, Prigoda, Buturlakin, Nikonov, Suchilin, Zhupikov, Ivanov – coach.
Why this team was not a title contender, but mid-table finisher is a bit mysterious. It may have been because of the difficult character of the former great Soviet star Valentin Ivanov, who was demanding, but not so good coach. Tense relations between coach and team are often decisive factor, but there was perhaps more important reason: Torpedo never had the means of the other Moscow clubs and was not able to recruit or keep the best players. This squad was was typical – good players, but not extraordinary ones. Well balanced team, but without a big star capable of leading and inspiring his teammates. Individually, every player was perhaps ranking third or forth in the country at his position. They were respected, some even were included in the national team, but it was a team of second-raters and such teams may be solid and occasionally win, as Torpedo did in the fall championship of 1976, but usually they stay exactly in mid-table. A bit sad, a bit annoying – Torpedo started the year well, winning the winter indoor tournament in Moscow, thus rising hopes. On grass they did not do much.
Much better performed Spartak (Moscow). They finished 5th, which was hardly a success, considering the history of the club. Yet, it was, for they just came back from Second Division, the team was radically remade, and this was the first season of the new Spartak in top flight. They did well and were met with approval – the new Spartak had fresh approach, played attractive football, and the players were noticed.
Dinamo (Moscow) was 4th – they lost the bronze medals because of the new rule, having 10 ties. Not very impressive, Dinamo stayed on top largely because most of the other clubs were weak. Above them were Shakhter (Donetzk), a representative of the fresh air in Soviet football. Shakhter was similar to Torpedo – always in the shadow of Dinamo (Kiev), they had limited choice of recruiting top players. But good selection built bit by bit a descent team. Not top players, but unlike Torpedo, the Ukrainians had few strong personalities, particularly the centre-forward Vitaly Starukhin, providing leadeship and inspiration. Perhaps they were not able to reach for the title, but came close, were dangerous team, and whoever underestimated them paid a bitter price.
So, at the end two clubs competed for the title. The final table is misleading – the champions finished 4 points ahead of the silver medalists, who were just a point better than the third placed Shakhter. If all points counted Dinamo (Moscow) would be third, just a point behind the second. It looked like very tied race, judging by the final points, but in reality it was a race between two clubs – Dinamo (Kiev) and Dinamo (Tbilisi). It was also very unusual race – Dinamo (Kiev) started sluggishly and were in midtable for quite a long time, but eventually shifted into another gear, steadily climbed up , and if the championship was longer very likely they were to win it. As it was, they paid the price of their sluggish first third of the season. Of course, Lobanovsky – indirectly – argued that his training plan was fine and if the schedule was not against them, Dinamo had to win. Stupid Federation scheduled the season wrongly, starting it when Lobanovsky’s team was not yet in top form, and finishing it right when Dinamo was at its peak. It was perfect excuse, for his plan aimed at reaching top form one or two months after the start of the season – no matter what schedule the Federation made, it would be wrong by such reasoning. And just in case this excuse failed, Lobanovsky had another, unbeatable trump in his sleeve: irresponsible players not following his instructions. Can’t argue with that… argue, not argue, Dinamo was trailing the whole season and finished second.
Their namesakes from Tbilisi argued nothing – they took the lead early and stayed on top to the end of the season, losing first place once or twice, but never slipping lower than second. The competition dropped back, losing steam quickly, and Kiev spend half the season simply recovering the ground they lost in the beginning. Dinamo Tbilisi were old darling, always a pleasant and attractive exception of the stiff and dull Soviet football. Highly skilful, artistic, entertaining, attacking team for years, always considered a high scoring team, which did not correspond to their actual records, but the belief was powerful. So, it was very nice to see them on top. Dinamo were constantly strong, but so far won the title only once, in the distant 1964. Their second was much deserved and enjoyed.
The champions, almost close to their perfect line-up: standing from left: Vitaly Darasselia, David Gogia, Aleksander Chivadze, Vakhtang Koridze, Revaz Chelebadze, Manuchar Machaidze-captain, David Kipiani.
First row: Vladimir Gutzaev, Gocha Machaidze, Tengiz Sulakvelidze, Ramaz Shengelia, Tamaz Kostava.
A nice blend of experience and young talent, coming close to its peak. Perhaps the central defender Shota Hinchagashvili (missing on the photo) was the most important player this year. The former left full-back was successfully moved to the middle of defense and there he flourished – tall, elegant, very dependable centre-back with excellent vision, he commandeered not only the defensive line, but also organized attacks. He was paired with Piruz Kanteladze (also not on the photo), a mighty duo in the center of defense. The full-backs were another story – the initial regulars suffered from heavy injuries: Nodar Hizanishvili, followed by Ilya Ruhadze. David Mudziri lost his form and also had to be replaced. Thus, Gocha Machaidze was moved back from midfield, and the little known reserve Tamaz Kostava took the right side position. The improvisation worked excellently. The experienced 30-years old David Gogia was stable between the goalposts – Dinamo was fine in the back, but its strength was midfield and the strikers. Koridze and Daraselia were the main power, particularly Daraselia, and the captain Manuchar Machaidze. Depending on occasion, Chivadze played as defensive midfielder or Kipiani moved a bit back. Ahead were Gutzaev on the right wing and Shengelia on the left, with Kipiani in the centre – not a typical centre-forward, but rather coming from deeper back, and combining excellent scoring skills with playmaking. Unpredictable, constant danger for opposite defenses, operating on wide field, a magician with the ball, and great passer, Kipiani was if not the best Soviet player, at least the most attractive and creative one. But he was left behind by constantly improving Shengelia this year, who was voted player of the year. Shengelia was not the only new big star – Chivadze and Sulakvelidze were rapidly improving, Gabelia was competing with Gogia. Revaz Chelebadze and Vakhtang Kopaleyshvili were also pushing for a place in the starting eleven. Most were young players – a big hope for the future, and best of all – not an empty promise. Chivadze, Sulakvelidze, Kipiani, Shengelia became regular national team players for many years. Hinchagashvili, Gabelia, Chelebadze, Gutzaev, and others also played for USSR.
The coach Nodar Akhalkatzi was the maker of this team – as a native Georgian, he was best for a Georgian team: he understood his countrymen, he shared their free-wheeling, creative,and joyous approach to the game. He did not stifle them with geometric tactical schemes, but let them improvise and play as they felt. And this was the weakness of the team… the players loved to keep the ball and were often carried away by flashy dribbling. Opportunities were often sacrificed in the name of artistry. Gutzaev was the main offender – may be the reason he never became a true big star, and rarely was included in the national team of USSR. As most technical teams, Dinamo were not tough physical fighters and had difficulty responding to close physical play. They were also moody and if the things were not going their way, often broke down. As a whole, Dinamo was a bit naïve squad, lacking tactical variety – what they played, no matter against whom, was essentially the same attacking technical football. Akhalkatzi was seen as the prime reason for that – may be rightly, may be not, but he was considered rather plain coach, unable or unwilling of introduction of tactical variety. Disciplined and physical European teams usually managed to block Dinamo, often helped by the individualistic tendencies of Gutzaev. Dinamo Kiev too. More or less, it was enough to cover closely the Georgian players, to leave them without free space. But not many teams, especially in USSR, were able to do that – Dinamo was not overwhelming leader this season, yet, consistent, prevailing, collecting points, and in great form. Worthy champions and great news for the future, for they were generally young and very talented. 17 wins and 8 ties gave them the title. Dinamo lost only 5 matches and no matter how strong Kiev were in the fall, still Tbilisi finished with 4 points more than the enemy.