Dinamo Zagreb’s 4-1-4-1 was built to control space rather than the ball, and the stats confirm that balance. They ceded a narrow possession edge to FCSB (47% vs 53%) yet won 4–1, indicating a plan to be more vertical and direct once they recovered the ball. FCSB, with 465 total passes and an 81% completion rate compared to Dinamo’s 419 passes at 78%, tried to construct patiently from deeper zones. However, Dinamo’s structure, with a single pivot in front of the back four, compressed central spaces and funneled FCSB into less dangerous areas, turning nominal possession control into largely harmless circulation.
Offensive Efficiency
The attacking contrast is stark. Dinamo produced 16 total shots to FCSB’s 7, more than doubling their output while having less of the ball. Crucially, 10 of Dinamo’s attempts came from inside the box, versus only 3 for FCSB, underlining a game plan focused on penetrating into high-value zones rather than speculative efforts. With 7 shots on goal against FCSB’s 3, Dinamo consistently converted transitions and positional attacks into clear looks at goal.
Expected goals underline this superiority: Dinamo generated 2.35 xG compared to FCSB’s minimal 0.24, showing that the Croatian side’s chances were not only frequent but high quality. Four corner kicks for Dinamo against six for FCSB further highlight that the away side’s territorial phases did not translate into open-play danger; their set-piece advantage did not compensate for the lack of incisive attacks. Meanwhile, Dinamo’s 4 goals from 7 shots on target point to ruthless efficiency, turning a moderate volume of attempts into a decisive scoreline.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
Without the ball, Dinamo were aggressive and disruptive. Their 17 fouls compared to FCSB’s 11 suggest a deliberate readiness to break up play and prevent the Romanian side from gaining rhythm between the lines. Two yellow cards apiece indicate a competitive but not chaotic encounter, yet Dinamo’s higher foul count aligns with an intensity-first defensive approach.
Goalkeeping stats show that neither side relied on heroic shot-stopping: Dinamo’s keeper made 2 saves, FCSB’s 3. Instead, the defensive story is about shot suppression and shot quality. Dinamo allowed only 7 attempts and no blocked shots were recorded for FCSB, implying that most of FCSB’s efforts came from already-low-probability positions, consistent with their 0.24 xG. Dinamo’s 3 blocked shots at the other end highlight active protection of their own box when FCSB did manage to progress.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Dinamo Zagreb’s compact, foul-heavy defensive structure and direct, box-focused attacking translated superior chance quality (2.35 xG, 16 shots, 10 in the box) into a 4–1 win, while FCSB’s marginal possession advantage and cleaner passing never evolved into meaningful penetration or scoreboard pressure.
