This was a territorial stalemate more than a classic domination story. Panathinaikos edged the ball with 53% possession and completed 353 of 463 passes (76%), but Ferencvarosi TC were not overwhelmed, matching the pass accuracy (also 76%) and staying close in volume with 308 of 407 completed. The formations explain the dynamics: Ferencvaros in a 3-4-2-1 tried to control central zones and attack with numbers, while Panathinaikos’ 5-4-1 under Rafael Benitez focused on protecting width and depth, then progressing through midfield. Space, rather than the ball, was largely controlled by Panathinaikos’ back five, who limited clear chances despite conceding some territory phases.
Offensive Efficiency
The attacking numbers underline a game of half-chances rather than constant threat. Panathinaikos finished with a slight edge in total shots (11 to 10) and shots on target (3 to 2), but their expected goals of just 0.61 show that most efforts were from lower-quality positions, supported by their higher volume from outside the box (6 shots outside vs only 5 inside). Ferencvaros, by contrast, focused their attacks closer to goal: 8 of their 10 attempts came from inside the box, reflected in a much higher xG of 1.49. That suggests their 3-4-2-1 structure was geared to create box presence and cutbacks rather than speculative long-range efforts.
Despite that, only 2 of Ferencvaros’ 10 shots were on target, pointing to a lack of cutting edge in the final action. Five blocked shots highlight how often Panathinaikos’ back line got bodies in front of attempts, consistent with a deep, compact approach. Corners were balanced (5–4 to Ferencvaros), again indicating neither side sustained overwhelming pressure. Overall, Ferencvaros produced the better-quality situations but could not convert territorial and xG superiority into a decisive lead, while Panathinaikos were more selective and conservative, waiting for few key moments rather than constant waves.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
The contrast in foul counts reveals the defensive strategies. Ferencvaros committed 17 fouls to Panathinaikos’ 9, showing a more disruptive, aggressive approach to stopping transitions and breaking rhythm, especially against a side set up to counter from a 5-4-1. Both teams received two yellow cards, but the home side’s late booking for Júlio Romão at 90+5’ underlines how they were forced into tactical fouls to protect their structure.
Goalkeeper involvement was limited: Ferencvaros’ keeper made 2 saves, Panathinaikos’ 1, confirming that many shots were blocked before reaching goal or were off target. With only 3 shots on target for Panathinaikos and 2 for Ferencvaros, both defensive units were more effective through positioning and blocking (5 blocks for Ferencvaros, 3 for Panathinaikos) than through spectacular goalkeeping heroics.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Ferencvaros’ higher xG (1.49 vs 0.61) and box-focused shot profile suggested the more coherent attacking plan, but Panathinaikos’ compact 5-4-1, lower foul count, and consistent blocking ensured that their control of space and moments neutralized the hosts’ possession phases, producing a balanced 1–1 outcome where efficiency and caution cancelled each other out.
