Real Madrid’s 2–1 win at the Bernabéu was built on controlled, rather than overwhelming, possession. With 56% of the ball against Benfica’s 44%, Madrid had a slight territorial edge but not the kind of dominance that forces the opponent into a low block for long spells. Instead, Arbeloa’s 4-4-2 used that extra possession to stabilize midfield and circulate through Aurélien Tchouaméni and Eduardo Camavinga, while Benfica’s 4-2-3-1 under Jose Mourinho focused on protecting central spaces and springing forward. The xG numbers (1.11 for Madrid vs 1.98 for Benfica) underline that, despite less of the ball, Benfica consistently found dangerous spaces in transition and between the lines.
Offensive Efficiency
Madrid’s attacking plan was about sustained pressure and territory rather than volume shooting. Their 14 total shots to Benfica’s 12 are close, but the distribution matters: Madrid took 10 shots inside the box, indicating a clear intent to work the ball into high-value zones rather than settle for hopeful efforts. However, with only 4 shots on target from those 14 attempts and an xG of 1.11, there was a degree of wastefulness and reliance on moments of quality rather than a steady stream of clear chances.
Benfica, with 12 shots and 4 on target, were more selective and direct. Their xG of 1.98 from fewer shots suggests they consistently engineered higher-quality situations, often arriving in the box (8 shots inside) after breaking Madrid’s midfield line. The 7 corner kicks to Madrid’s 4 show Benfica’s ability to turn transitions into set-piece pressure. Yet, with only 2 saves forced from Thibaut Courtois and no offsides recorded, their attacks were more about delayed, well-timed entries than constant runs behind. Overall, Madrid’s slightly higher volume and territorial control contrasted with Benfica’s more incisive but ultimately less rewarded attacking.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
Madrid’s 16 fouls versus Benfica’s 10 point to a more disruptive, intensity-based defensive approach. As the game progressed and Benfica’s transitions threatened, Madrid were prepared to break up play with tactical fouls, reflected in their two yellow cards. Benfica matched that card count with fewer fouls, suggesting more isolated, last-resort interventions rather than systematic pressing.
In goal, the numbers show neither keeper had a heroic shot-stopping night. Courtois made 4 saves to Anatoliy Trubin’s 2, consistent with Benfica’s higher xG and more dangerous chances. Madrid’s 4 blocked shots against Benfica’s 5 indicate both sides defended their box actively, but Benfica, under more late pressure, had to throw more bodies in front of efforts. The relatively modest card count and absence of reds point to a competitive but controlled physical battle.
Conclusion
Ultimately, Real Madrid’s blend of slightly higher possession (56%), territorial control, and box presence (10 shots inside) outweighed Benfica’s more dangerous but less rewarded attacking profile (1.98 xG). Madrid managed the spaces better, accepted fouls as a tool, and converted just enough of their pressure to edge a finely balanced tactical contest.
