This was a classic clash between compact pragmatism and sterile domination. Real Betis controlled the ball with 57% possession and a cleaner passing profile (453 total passes at 83% accuracy), but PAOK dictated the spaces and the key moments. Lucescu’s 4-2-3-1 willingly ceded the ball, focusing on protecting central zones and springing forward once possession was regained. Despite having only 43% possession and fewer passes (332 at 77%), PAOK’s structure was geared towards verticality rather than circulation. Betis’ 4-3-3 tried to progress through midfield, but their territorial control rarely translated into penetration, reflected in a low 0.59 expected goals (xG) despite their statistical dominance in volume.
Offensive Efficiency
The attacking contrast is stark. Betis registered 19 total shots to PAOK’s 12, yet only 2 of those Betis attempts hit the target. Eleven of their efforts came from outside the box, underlining how often they were forced into low-quality, long-range shots by PAOK’s compact block. PAOK, by comparison, took 11 of their 12 shots from inside the area, a clear indicator of a game plan built around creating high-value chances in transition and after structured attacks.
The xG numbers confirm this: PAOK generated 2.86 xG from just 4 shots on goal, a sign of ruthless shot selection and incisive final-third play, especially once spaces opened after the hour mark. Their 5 corners versus Betis’ 8 also show they didn’t rely heavily on sustained pressure, but when they did reach the final third, they committed numbers and created clear-cut situations. The timing of substitutions – introducing Giannis Konstantelias and later Kiril Despodov – added fresh running and directness, reinforcing this vertical, efficiency-first approach rather than seeking more sterile control.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
Out of possession, PAOK combined aggression with structure. They committed 14 fouls to Betis’ 11, pointing to a slightly more disruptive approach, especially in midfield where Soualiho Meïté and Magomed Ozdoev were tasked with breaking rhythm. Four yellow cards for PAOK versus two for Betis further underline how much the home side were willing to push the physical edge to protect their lead and disrupt Betis’ combinations.
Despite Betis’ shot volume, PAOK’s goalkeeper was only required to make 2 saves, highlighting how effectively the defensive line and double pivot limited clear sights of goal, helped by 11 Betis shots being blocked. Conversely, Betis’ Pau López also made just 2 saves, but his defence allowed far higher-quality chances, reflected in the xG gap (2.86 vs 0.59). The offsides count – 6 against PAOK and 3 against Betis – suggests PAOK frequently tried to attack the depth quickly, accepting the risk of runs beyond the last line as part of their plan.
Conclusion
Ultimately, PAOK’s compact block and high-quality chance creation trumped Betis’ possession and shot volume. By forcing Betis into low-percentage efforts while maximizing their own xG from limited attacks, PAOK turned defensive solidity and ruthless efficiency into a controlled 2–0 home win.
