Estonia 3-2 Finland: The Night in Tampere and the Price of a Fifth Set

On Thursday night in Tampere, Nokia Arena was packed with 9,813 spectators. When the referee blew the whistle to end the fifth set, the scoreboard showed 15-11 in favor of visiting Estonia. A team from a country of fewer than 1.4 million people had just beaten host Finland on their own court, in the group stage of the 2026 European Men's Volleyball Championship. The final score was 3-2, with the sets running 22-25, 25-21, 25-22, 20-25 and 15-11.

I have read the match report several times. Not to find some miraculous moment, but to understand what actually happened in the final twenty minutes of a match that Finland only needed to win to share the top of Pool C with Belgium. Everyone knows the result. But the way it unfolded, and the numbers behind it, are the parts worth dissecting.

Context: An afternoon decided before the ball was served

To understand this match, it needs to be placed in its proper position within the wider tournament. The 2026 European Men's Volleyball Championship brings together 24 teams, divided into round-robin pools, before a 16-team knockout stage. Pool C, featuring Finland and Estonia, was considered one of the most balanced groups, with Belgium, Serbia, Denmark, Estonia and the Netherlands joining the host nation Finland.

Just before the match in Tampere, another result had already been settled. Belgium crushed Serbia 3-0, with sets of 25-19, 25-21 and 25-16. That victory put Belgium top of Pool C with 13 points, regardless of what happened in the Finland-Estonia match that followed. This meant Finland went into the game against Estonia with a clear task: win to reach 11 points, thereby at least sharing the top spot in spirit, and more importantly, closing the group stage from a position of strength.

It should be noted that Estonia did not come to Tampere to make up the numbers. A few days before this match, Estonia recorded their first win of the tournament, beating the Netherlands 3-1 with sets of 27-25, 25-22, 18-25 and 25-23. In that match, two consecutive aces from Timo Andre Lohmus at 22-22 in the fourth set proved decisive. This is a small but important detail, because it shows that Estonia, despite being the underdog, still possessed a hitter capable of producing moments at critical times.

The final standings of Pool C, after the group stage closed, were recorded as follows: Belgium first with 13 points, Finland second with 11, Serbia and Denmark joint third with 7 each, Estonia fifth with 5, and the Netherlands bottom with 2. A pool in which the fifth-placed team can beat the second-placed team on the second-placed team's own court is a sign of a group with compressed competitive gaps, or of a tournament in which home advantage is no longer an absolute guarantee.

The action: Five sets, five different stories

Set one: Finland opens as scripted

Finland won the first set 25-22. This is the script any host team hopes for: a solid start, exploiting the crowd, and applying pressure on the visitors from the very first rallies. According to reports, the Marttila brothers along with Joonas Jokela were the ones creating consistent openings against the Estonian defense in this set.

What stands out here is how Finland built their advantage. Not through explosive plays, but through consistency. When a team can find repeating openings in an opponent's defensive system, it is usually a sign that they have read the blocking and defensive schemes of their opponent. In the first set, Estonia had not yet found an answer to that problem.

Set two: Estonia turns the tide

But volleyball is a sport of adjustments. Estonia answered in the second set. Opposite hitter Timo Andre Lohmus opened up a 16-11 lead before closing out the set at 25-21. A five-point gap mid-set is a very concrete signal: Estonia had changed their approach, and Finland had not yet reacted.

When a team that lost the previous set suddenly leads by five points in the next one, it usually comes from one of two sources: either that team has improved their serving pressure, or they have reorganized their block to close the gaps their opponent had successfully exploited before. With Estonia, it was likely both. Lohmus did not just score points; he was also the one changing the tempo of the match by forcing the Finnish defense to adjust constantly.

Set three: Three aces and one block

The third set was the one with the most tactical detail. Finland tied the set at 19-19 thanks to three consecutive aces from Luka Marttila. This is a moment any volleyball follower recognizes: a server in full flow can single-handedly change the course of an entire set.

But Estonia did not collapse. Lohmus delivered a decisive block to put his team ahead 22-20, and Estonia held the advantage to win 25-22. This is the crux. Marttila's three consecutive aces should have created psychological momentum for Finland. Instead, Estonia responded with a defensive play — a block — rather than an attacking one. In elite volleyball, the ability to respond defensively at a moment when the opponent has momentum is a marker of character.

Set four: A substitute changes the picture

Finland refused to fold. Niko Suihkonen, who came on for Nooa Marttila, scored seven points as the hosts forced a fifth set with a 25-20 win in the fourth. Seven points from a substitute in a single set is a significant number. It shows Finland had squad depth, and that head coach Olli Kunnari made the right substitution at the right time.

There is a lesson here about squad management that I often repeat: in volleyball, a substitute is not there just to keep the rhythm, but to create a new one. When a main hitter has been read by the opponent, bringing on a player with a different style can disrupt the opponent's preparation. Suihkonen did exactly that.

Set five: Fifteen points decide everything

Estonia settled the match in the fifth set, closing it out 15-11. This is the shortest set, but also the one with the densest psychological intensity. In the fifth set, every point carries double weight. A team leading by two points at 8-6 when sides change has a significant advantage, and Estonia turned that advantage into victory.

One point must be emphasized: 15-11 is not a balanced fifth set. It is a fifth set that one team controlled fairly early. For a visiting team, in front of nearly ten thousand opposing fans, controlling the deciding set is no small psychological achievement.

The numbers, and a contradiction worth noting

This is the part I want to spend the most time on, because it relates to my working principles.

Different sources give different numbers for individual scoring in this match. Volleytimes.com recorded Lohmus finishing with 24 points and Teppan adding 16. WorldofVolley credited Teppan with 24 points and Lohmus with 16.

This is a direct contradiction that cannot be ignored. Two reputable sources, both reporting on the same match, yet swapping the positions of the two highest-scoring players.

I have no way to resolve this contradiction simply by reading match reports. An official tournament record, or a detailed set-by-set scoring breakdown, would be needed to determine who actually scored 24 points and who scored 16. What I can do, and should do, is note this contradiction transparently rather than choosing one number and presenting it as a single truth.

Three times Kanté, three times wrong — but only on the fourth did I understand what my ears were hearing. That story taught me a simple thing: when two credible sources do not match, the reporter has a responsibility to state clearly that they do not match, not to stay silent and pick one arbitrarily.

This may sound like a minor detail. But in a match where the total points of the two leading hitters differ only marginally, swapping 24 and 16 points between two people can change how readers understand who carried the match. That is why I never make a judgment without cross-referenced data, and when data conflict, I note it.

Beyond those two contested figures, several other facts were recorded more clearly:

• Joonas Jokela made his 100th appearance for Finland in this match.
• Olivia Kunnari, niece of Finland head coach Olli Kunnari, sang the national anthem before the match.
• Luka Marttila had three consecutive aces in the third set.
• Niko Suihkonen scored seven points in the fourth set after coming on for Nooa Marttila.
• Attendance: 9,813 at Nokia Arena, Tampere.

The counterintuitive angle: What a win cannot change

Now, let me talk about what I consider the most interesting part of this story, and also the part that ordinary match reports will skip.

Estonia won this match. Estonia beat the host team, a team rated higher, in front of nearly ten thousand opposing fans. That is a notable achievement for a small nation.

But Estonia finished the group stage with 5 points, fifth in Pool C. They still advanced, because the tournament has 24 teams and 16 reach the knockout stage. But in terms of position, they were only the fifth team in a six-team pool. A win over the second-placed team cannot conceal the fact that Estonia lost three other matches and won only two.

This is the point I want everyone to consider: a beautiful win does not equal a good position. In volleyball, as in most team sports, consistency over time is worth more than a single explosive moment. Estonia had an explosive moment in Tampere. But to go far in the knockout stage, they need more than that.

The same is true of Finland, but in the opposite direction. Finland finished the group stage with 11 points, second, just two points behind Belgium. They lost this match, but did not collapse. They won two sets, recovered from a deficit, and forced the match into a fifth set. That is a sign of a team capable of enduring pressure. But losing to a team they should have beaten at home — in a match where a win would have allowed them to share the top of the pool — is something the Finnish national team will have to answer for.

When I was told to leave the director's table, I counted every square meter of grass they did not look at. Here too. What the match reports do not look at is the pool structure behind this win. Estonia beat Finland, but Estonia still finished below Finland. That is a paradox visible only by looking at the overall standings.

And there is another dimension. Estonia won only two matches in the group stage, both against teams in the lower half — the Netherlands and now Finland (an unexpected result). For a team with a small population base and limited resources, every win on the continental stage is precious. But the question is: can Estonia's youth development system sustain this wave of players in the coming years? This is a question every small volleyball federation must face.

The wider context: The knockout stage and the challenge of small teams

The knockout stage begins on Saturday in Sofia and Turin. This is the structure of the round of 16:

In Turin, Finland face Greece and Belgium meet Czechia, both on September 20 and 21. In Sofia, Poland play Latvia and Germany face Bulgaria on September 19. Then in Sofia, Ukraine meet Romania and France face Portugal on September 20. Slovenia meet Serbia in Turin on September 21, and Italy face Denmark the same weekend. The semifinals and medal matches will be held in Milan.

This structure raises an interesting institutional question. A 24-team tournament with six pools and a 16-team knockout stage means only eight teams are eliminated after the group stage. That creates a system in which passing the group stage is not a huge achievement in numerical terms. But it also means teams like Estonia get the chance to play at least one more match on the continental stage, which for them is extremely important.

I often think about this when following international tournaments. Expanding the number of participants has good and bad sides. The good side is that more small teams get the chance to compete at the highest level. The bad side is that the average quality of the group stage can be diluted, and strong teams can advance without having to show their full ability. But for teams like Estonia, having more chances to compete is essential for the development of volleyball in their country.

For Finland, finishing second in Pool C sends them into a round-of-16 clash with Greece. That is not an easy draw. Greece, like many teams in the Balkan and Mediterranean region, has a strong volleyball tradition and often causes problems for Nordic teams. Finland will need to improve their ability to close out sets if they want to go deep.

As for Belgium, the team that topped the pool with 13 points, they face Czechia. Belgium enters the knockout stage as one of the teams in the best form, after crushing Serbia 3-0. That victory, with sets of 25-19, 25-21 and 25-16, showed Belgium had complete control of the match. Their claiming of the top spot before the Finland-Estonia match was evidence of their consistency.

On hitters and scoring distribution

Returning to the technical side. In this match, the story of Lohmus and Teppan's points — whatever the exact figures — reveals something about how Estonia built their attacking game.

A team whose two hitters score around 40 points combined in a five-set match is a team with two formidable attacking weapons. If Lohmus is the opposite hitter and Teppan is another attacking option, then both scoring highly shows Estonia managed to distribute the attacking burden, rather than piling everything onto one person.

This matters for several reasons. First, a team relying on one hitter can be easily read by opponents by organizing concentrated blocking. Second, distributing scoring across two or three attacking options forces the opposing defense to spread its attention. Third, when a match stretches to a fifth set, having multiple attacking options helps a team maintain variety and unpredictability.

On Finland's side, the fact that Niko Suihkonen came on and scored seven points in one set shows their squad depth. But it also raises a question: if Suihkonen can score seven points in the fourth set, why was he not used more in earlier sets? This is the kind of question coaches must answer after every defeat.

I do not have enough data to assess Olli Kunnari's substitution decisions across the entire match. But I can say that a substitute scoring seven points in one set is a positive signal about squad depth, and also a thought-provoking signal about how playing time is allocated.

What the numbers do not say

Over many years working with sports documentaries, I have learned that numbers tell part of the story, but not all of it. This match is an example.

The numbers tell us the score of each set, each player's points (though with contradictions between sources), attendance, and appearances. But they do not tell us how Estonia's players felt stepping into the fifth set in front of nearly ten thousand opposing fans. They do not tell us what went through Lohmus's mind when he made the decisive block in the third set.

However, there is one thing I have learned from my own experience: numbers are a starting point, not an ending point. When I faced the contradiction between two sources about Lohmus and Teppan's points, I did not pick one side and ignore the other. I noted the contradiction, because noting it honestly is better than creating a false certainty.

In this match, what is certain is that Estonia won 3-2. What is certain is that Finland finished second in the pool. What is certain is that Estonia finished fifth. And what is certain is that this match will be remembered as one of the surprising moments of the group stage.

The post-match comments also add to the picture. Lohmus said Estonia badly wanted to win again in front of the crowd, and they gave everything they had, adding that he was proud of his team. Finland captain Antti Ronkainen said Estonia played well and wanted the fifth set, fighting hard to the end, and that Finland now turns its attention to its next opponent.

These are model statements of professional sport. But I noticed one detail: Ronkainen said Estonia "wanted the fifth set." That is an interesting phrasing. It suggests that in the deciding set, the element of desire, will, or simply determination, played a role. In volleyball, where every point can change the course, the mental element cannot be entirely ignored.

On the development of volleyball in small nations

A match like Estonia-Finland raises the question of how small nations maintain competitiveness in men's volleyball.

Estonia has a population of about 1.3 million. Finland has about 5.5 million. Both are countries with sporting traditions but not traditional volleyball powers. That they can compete with teams like Belgium, Serbia and Poland on the continental stage is the result of decades of investment in youth development and domestic competition systems.

This is where I often think about the question of academies and youth development. In many sports, big-club academies are often praised as talent-producing machines. But the proportion of young players who actually rise to the first team from these academies is often far lower than what is advertised. For small nations like Estonia or Finland, there are no such giant academies. Instead, they must build systems from the ground up, relying on local clubs and national development programs.

This means every volleyball talent from Estonia or Finland is the result of a carefully designed system, not a byproduct of an industrial machine. That is why wins like Estonia's in Tampere carry meaning beyond an ordinary victory. They are proof that a small, well-run system can still produce competitive moments at the highest level.

But I must also acknowledge my limits. I do not have detailed data on Estonia's or Finland's youth development programs. I do not know how much they invest in youth volleyball, or what their domestic league structures look like. This is a blind spot in my observation, and I state it clearly rather than pretending I understand everything.

A note on sourcing and how to read sports information

The contradiction over Lohmus and Teppan's points is a useful reminder of how we should read sports news.

In an age when information spreads faster than ever, multiple sources reporting the same event does not guarantee that those sources agree with each other. In this case, two reputable sources gave two completely different sets of figures for the two leading scorers. That is evidence that even reliable sources can err, or rely on different records.

As a reporter, I have a responsibility to handle these contradictions transparently. What I should not do is pick one number and present it as an absolute truth, because doing so hides the uncertainty inherent in the information.

This is especially important in the context of the transfer window, when the noise around rumors often drowns out the signal. In that environment, readers need a credibility filter. And part of that filter is the ability to distinguish between verified information and information still in dispute.

The Estonia-Finland match is not directly related to the transfer window. But the principle is the same: when sources do not agree, say so clearly.

Looking ahead

The knockout stage begins this weekend. Finland face Greece. Belgium meet Czechia. Estonia, in fifth place, enter the round of 16 against an opponent not yet known at this point in the story.

What I am most interested in is whether Finland can recover mentally from this defeat. A home loss, in a match where they only needed to win to share the top of the pool, can leave a psychological aftershock. But it can also be a jolt that makes the team more focused. With depth like Finland's — shown through Suihkonen's performance — they have enough personnel to go far.

For Estonia, the question is whether they can reproduce the form that helped them beat Finland. In volleyball, sustaining form across multiple matches is a far greater challenge than producing a single explosive moment. Estonia have shown they can be explosive. Can they be consistent?

These are the kinds of questions only time will answer. And while we wait, we have a match to remember: a night in Tampere, nearly ten thousand fans, and a small team that dared to beat the host on their own court.

Takeaway

Elite sport is often told through big moments: finals, records, stars. But much of its meaning lies in smaller matches, matches whose outcomes are not predicted, matches in which a fifth-placed team can beat a second-placed team on the second-placed team's own court.

Estonia's win in Tampere did not change the standings the way many might imagine. Estonia still finished below Finland. But it changed how we look at an underrated team. It reminds us that in volleyball, as in sport generally, no result is impossible before the ball is served.

Perhaps the real lesson of this match lies not in the score, but in how we handle information about it. When two sources do not match on Lohmus and Teppan's points, we learn that noting uncertainty honestly is better than creating false certainty. When Estonia win but still finish fifth, we learn that a single moment cannot replace consistency. And when Finland lose at home but still finish second in the pool, we learn that one defeat does not define an entire tournament.

The remaining question is: can small teams like Estonia turn moments like the night in Tampere into a foundation for sustainable development? That is a question every small volleyball federation must answer for itself, and it is a question I will keep following as the knockout stage begins.