Expert commentators in the Studio SHNL show analyzed the Whites' latest slip-up against Istra, with special focus on controversial refereeing decisions that, in their opinion, wronged the visitors.
After just two rounds of the new SuperSport HNL season, Hajduk finds itself with only one league point. Following a defeat to Varaždin in the opener, a draw with Istra at Poljud followed, and a goal conceded in the 90th minute further deepened the crisis, sparking a wave of discontent among the fans.
In the Studio SHNL show, expert commentator Hrvoje Vejić did not mince words in criticizing the players. He claimed that the Whites have a worrying pattern of conceding goals in the dying moments of matches. "Hajduk cannot afford goals like these; now we have a pattern: Žilina scored in the last minute, Pafos did too, you missed a penalty against Varaždin, and now you concede again in the 90th. Uncertainty and fear have crept in," said Vejić.
He specifically addressed the responsibility of the defensive players, emphasizing that the coach's position is not crucial. "The two center-backs, no matter who they are, have to clear that. If you keep losing matches and points in several games, you have to look for other solutions. It doesn't matter who the coach is; the players have to show their character. You can lose ten duels, but you have to win that one," he urged. He agreed with coach Garcia that the team concedes "silly goals," but he raised a key question about the cause of such lapses.
His colleague Gordon Schildenfeld offered a slightly different perspective, highlighting the positive aspects of the Split side's play. "Hajduk's game had good organization. They had a plan and a program, scored from a set piece. Hajduk was organized, had a clear plan, but lacked a bit of luck. They deserved to win, but Istra put up a manly fight and caught them on the counter," Schildenfeld analyzed.
He also noticed a tactical flaw in the defensive line. "Hajduk had situations where the defense dropped too early, creating a gap between the midfield and the defense, and Istra exploited that brilliantly. They need to play more bravely. I believe Hajduk needs a riskier approach, with the center-back closer to the attacker," he added.
Apart from the result, the refereeing decisions also stirred up a lot of dust. The guests from Pula protested vehemently on two occasions, demanding a penalty. First, Silić dropped the ball after a cross, entered a duel with a visiting player, and saved a goal. Then came an even more heated situation where Hajduk's center-back Van Hoorenbeeck elbowed Istra's forward Jaganjac in the head during an aerial duel. Referee Erceg did not call a foul, and the VAR room remained silent.
Schildenfeld had no doubts. "Two penalties... One is a hundred percent in our opinion, and the other is a matter of personal feeling. In the end, Hajduk could have lost, but that's how these matches go," he said, then commented on the elbow: "I don't know what needed to be looked at; the referee didn't make any decision... It's a clear penalty, striking without the ball. He elbowed him."
Hrvoje Vejić was even more explicit in his condemnation. "An elbow strike, definitely. It can't be a clearer penalty. The guy goes with his elbow straight into the chin, hitting him with great force. I don't see why VAR didn't intervene. It's a clear yellow card and a penalty," Vejić emphasized, not hiding his astonishment at the decision. "Apparently, we don't know something that the referees know, or we don't see something that the referees see," he concluded with a touch of irony.
