This was a classic case of sterile domination versus compact control. Fenerbahçe saw far more of the ball, with 63% possession and 511 passes at an 87% accuracy, clearly tasked with building patiently through their 4-2-3-1. Aston Villa, with only 37% possession and 290 passes (79% accuracy), were content to concede territory and protect central spaces. Villa’s approach focused on controlling depth and transitions rather than the ball itself. The early goal allowed Unai Emery’s side to double down on a mid-to-low block, while Fenerbahçe’s structure gradually tilted higher, especially after half-time, chasing an equaliser but repeatedly running into a disciplined defensive screen.
Offensive Efficiency
Despite their possession, Fenerbahçe struggled to turn control into high-quality chances. They produced 13 total shots to Villa’s 12, but the shot profile tells the story: 11 of Fenerbahçe’s attempts came from outside the box and only 2 inside, underlining how effectively Villa protected their penalty area. Their expected goals (xG) of just 0.89 confirms a lack of clear-cut openings. The home side did register 8 shots on target and 5 corners, suggesting volume and territorial pressure, but most efforts were low-probability efforts from range.
Villa, by contrast, were set up for clinical counter-attacking. With 9 of their 12 shots coming from inside the box and an xG of 1.45, they consistently reached dangerous zones despite limited possession. Their 4 shots on target were fewer than Fenerbahçe’s, but of higher quality. The equal number of corners (5–5) despite the possession disparity reinforces how Villa turned their rare attacks into set-piece and box entries. Two VAR-disallowed goals (one for each side) also reflect a game of fine margins, but the underlying shot locations show Villa’s game plan was more coherent in the final third.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
Defensively, Villa combined aggression with structure. They committed 15 fouls to Fenerbahçe’s 13 and collected 5 yellow cards, many in the second half, illustrating a disruptive strategy to break rhythm and slow transitions once ahead. Time-wasting bookings for Youri Tielemans and Evann Guessand in stoppage time further highlight game management as part of the plan. Fenerbahçe’s 4 yellow cards indicate growing frustration as they pushed higher and chased the game.
The goalkeepers’ numbers underline the pattern. Villa’s Marco Bizot made 8 saves, a high figure that shows Fenerbahçe’s territorial dominance but also his command of mostly manageable shots from distance. Fenerbahçe’s keeper needed only 2 saves, as Villa’s attacks were fewer but more selective. Both sides are credited with 1 goal prevented, indicating that each keeper produced at least one decisive intervention to keep the scoreline tight.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Aston Villa’s compact defensive block and clinical box entries (9 shots inside the area, 1.45 xG) outperformed Fenerbahçe’s possession-heavy but low-yield approach (63% possession, 11 shots from range, 0.89 xG). Efficiency and defensive control of space trumped sheer ball dominance.
