Performance Results from EYC2026: The Baltic States (Latvia). Part Three.
Today we will analyze the performance of the national teams in the Baltic region. We will identify the causes and consequences of their poor performances and assess their prospects for the near future. At the root of all these failures lies the near-total elimination of coaching talent. Using Latvian clubs as an example, we’ll show what a foolish, radical “closed curtain” policy leads to.
So: An overall assessment of the performances of the national teams from Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania.
Image001 / Image002 / Part One \ Part Two
.If you look closely at the overall performance table, the Lithuanian and Estonian teams occupy modest—if not lower—7th and 8th places. At the same time, the number of participants representing these teams sometimes exceeds the number of representatives from the top-ranked teams by as much as double—or, in the case of the Estonian and Ukrainian teams, by as much as four times. From this, we can draw the disappointing conclusion that quantity does not guarantee the necessary quality and does not produce results. Given that these national teams fielded mostly their own players in the U10 age group—which we are not taking into account—an analysis of the data in the second (more objective) table immediately reveals the significant challenges facing the national teams of these countries.
The Latvian national team is also struggling with low performance and obvious problems. In the full performance report, even with an all-time record for the number of participants, the Latvian national team ranked only fourth. And if we exclude the results of the U10 and U26 groups—which allowed weaker teams to secure some of the medals—the picture of the Latvian national team’s performance is downright dismal. In the second table, the Latvian national team ranked only sixth. At the same time, as we noted above, the number of participants from these three national teams accounts for 50% of the total number of participants in the second table and nearly 57% in the first. The majority of the championship’s participants were represented by these national teams in the junior group.
First conclusion: The national teams of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia posted rather mediocre results, despite the championship being effectively a home event and the use of artificial groups. They finished in 6th through 8th place, respectively, without the participation of some of Europe’s strongest teams: the Russian national team and the Belarusian national team. If these teams had been allowed to compete, the results would have been even more modest—if not plummeted to a critically low level. This explains the frenzied policy of supporting the disqualification of athletes from the Russian and Belarusian national teams, aside from the “brown” ideology prevalent in those federations. And representatives of these national teams will continue to stand their ground for a long time to come if the FMJD remains just as lackluster and ineffective, allowing all these organizations to justify their existence in some way.
A brief historical note:
1.1 There are at most three draughts coaches left in Lithuania. All of them have signed letters supporting the disqualification of the world’s leading national teams. Two of the three coaches are at an age where retirement is more appealing than working to achieve results. The third is barely making ends meet. What does the future hold for Lithuanian sports? It’s hard to imagine that these coaches will be invited—even as chaperones—to draughts tournaments where athletes from the leading countries will participate once the disqualification is lifted. And sooner or later, that will happen. Moreover, we must also take into account the internal conflicts within the Lithuanian Federation itself. At one point, the new team shared with us (by accident) the extent of the fraud they had uncovered while poring over the financial reports of the previous management team.
1.2. There aren’t many more coaches in Estonia. At most, two or three. Given that the federation president has fully “messed up” by supporting questionable individuals from the previous FMJD team, backing disqualifications, and attempting to hold strange international championships based on the Draughts-64 format, it’s safe to say that the future of the sport’s development is highly uncertain. It’s also worth noting that Estonian government agencies have not allocated any funds for draughts, and the issue of future funding is in a critical state. The well-known tournament in Jõgeva is also undergoing a major crisis. No one knows how much longer it will last in this condition. There is a group of level-headed athletes, but their efforts are not supported by federation officials. Future athletic results are projected to be very poor—solely due to the great individual potential of one group, for whom we have sincere admiration.
1.3. The Latvian national team is currently relying on three coaches and a few individual players who may simply stop playing and competing in such European tournaments as early as next year. The chaos within the federation, the blatant nepotism, and the pervasive right-wing politics are yielding the worst possible results, despite the leadership’s public facade and poster-advertising campaigns. Only three coaching groups are working consistently. One group of coaches has now been suspended from their duties due to personal animosity and the utter stupidity of the ineffective leadership. We’ve written and spoken about this before. Perhaps we’ll mention it again in the second part, dedicated to the Baltic states. If we look at and evaluate the results, it’s clear that despite the enormous number of participants—most of whom can’t even make it into the top 10 at the Latvian championships—the success rate is a modest 30%. In Latvia, the only player who consistently delivers results is Zoya Golubeva, who moved to Riga in the early 1990s and whose name is now associated with the successes of the Latvian national team. This is a personal achievement of Zoya Alexandrovna and the draughts school of the Republic of Belarus. We would give second place to the school run by Robert and Olesya Misanykh. It is worth noting that Olesya is a graduate of the strongest draughts school in Bashkiria. As for local individual players, the two strongest players rely on the assistance of coaches from other countries. This leads to the disappointing conclusion that local coaches are unable to compete and develop draughts at a competitive level. Most of them can only work with younger age groups and only in mass sports. Local coaches are completely incapable of fostering competition and developing the draughts movement in the country.
Second conclusion: The continued severing of these national teams’ ties to the international community and their persistent desire to pursue a policy of isolation will have a devastating effect on youth sports and will soon bring the level of the sport down so low that playing checkers in these countries will become considered bad form.
To be continued