Feyenoord imposed territorial and ball control from the outset and never really released it. Their 60% possession, built on 502 total passes at 82% accuracy, shows a clear plan to dominate the ball and advance through structured buildup in their 4-2-3-1. Sturm Graz, with 40% possession and only 342 passes at 75% accuracy, accepted a more reactive role, defending in a 4-4-2 block and hoping to spring forward when possible. However, with just 4 total shots and an xG of 0.10, they controlled almost no dangerous space. Feyenoord not only monopolized the ball but also pinned Sturm deep, forcing them to defend long stretches and rarely escape pressure.
Offensive Efficiency
Feyenoord’s attacking strategy was about sustained pressure rather than sporadic bursts. Their 18 total shots, including 11 from inside the box, underline how frequently they managed to penetrate Sturm’s defensive structure. Seven blocked shots further indicate that Sturm’s back line spent much of the game in emergency defending, throwing bodies in front of efforts rather than preventing entries into the area. With 6 shots on goal and 5 corners, Feyenoord created a steady stream of final-third actions, well supported by the 1.32 expected goals figure.
This was not sterile domination: the volume and location of chances point to well-constructed attacks, using the three attacking midfielders behind Ayase Ueda to overload pockets between Sturm’s lines. The goals turning a 1-0 half-time lead into a 3-0 full-time result reflect a side that gradually converted control into scoreboard separation. Sturm’s offensive output was minimal: only 4 shots (2 on target), and just 2 shots inside the box, mirroring their 0.10 xG. Their 2 corners and limited attempts suggest they struggled to transition, rarely sustaining attacks or forcing Feyenoord into repeated defensive phases.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
Despite their dominance, Feyenoord still showed an aggressive edge without losing control. They committed 13 fouls and collected 2 yellow cards, pointing to proactive counterpressing and occasional tactical fouls to stop the rare Sturm transitions. Sturm Graz, with 12 fouls and 1 yellow card, were similarly physical but more in a survival context, trying to disrupt Feyenoord’s rhythm rather than initiate pressing traps.
Goalkeeper involvement further underlines the balance of play. Feyenoord’s keeper made only 2 saves, consistent with Sturm’s negligible xG and shot volume, indicating a largely comfortable defensive evening. Sturm’s Khudyakov registered 3 saves, but with Feyenoord taking 18 shots and many being blocked before reaching goal, the main burden fell on the defensive line rather than the goalkeeper alone. The low offside count (0 for Feyenoord, 1 for Sturm) suggests neither side relied heavily on constant runs in behind; the game was more about positional attacks versus deep defending.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Feyenoord’s controlled possession, high shot volume (18 attempts, 11 in the box) and steady territorial pressure overwhelmed a passive Sturm Graz side that produced just 4 shots and 0.10 xG. Efficiency built on sustained dominance, rather than counters, turned their 60% possession into a comfortable 3-0 win.
