Hradec Králové 0-1 Beşiktaş: High Production, Problematic Finishing

Hradec Králové 0-1 Beşiktaş: A Narrow Scoreline, a Much Bigger Story

Beşiktaş earned a valuable 1-0 away victory over Hradec Králové in the first leg of the UEFA Europa League third qualifying round.

The only goal arrived in the 80th minute, when substitute Semih Kılıçsoy converted the chance that finally separated the two teams.

The scoreline, however, does not fully reflect the match.

According to the StatsLook match report, Beşiktaş finished with 2.50 xG, 22 shots and 16 key passes, while Hradec Králové generated 1.04 xG and registered nine shots on target.

Beşiktaş created the greater overall attacking volume, but their failure to convert that superiority earlier kept the contest alive. In the closing stages, Alexander Nübel became increasingly important as the home side applied sustained pressure.

2.50 xG Shows Beşiktaş Did Create Enough

The first important point is that Beşiktaş did not struggle to generate attacks.

They recorded:

• 22 total shots

• 11 shots from inside the penalty area

• 11 shots from outside the box

• 5 shots on target

• 16 key passes

• 2.50 total xG

Those numbers suggest that the 1-0 result understates Beşiktaş’s attacking production.

The source of that xG is equally significant.

Of their 2.50 total:

• 1.49 xG came from open play

• 0.88 came from transitions

• 0.12 came from set pieces

Around 60% of their expected-goal production came from open play, while 35% was generated within transition situations after winning possession.

That matters because Beşiktaş were not dependent on one attacking mechanism. They created through established possession and also threatened when Hradec were not fully organised.

The Strongest Beşiktaş Period Came After Half-Time

The most dominant attacking spell arrived immediately after the break.

Between the 46th and 60th minutes, Beşiktaş produced:

• 9 shots

• 0.71 xG

It was their highest shot volume in any 15-minute period of the match.

The pressure-index data tells a similar story. Between the 50th and 70th minutes, Beşiktaş sustained a momentum window that produced nine shots and approximately 0.68 xG.

Yet they failed to score.

That was one of the central problems of the performance: Beşiktaş reached a period in which they were clearly generating enough pressure to take control of the tie, but the scoreboard remained 0-0.

Hyeon-gyu Oh: Seven Shots, 0.72 xG, One on Target

Hyeon-gyu Oh’s individual numbers illustrate the finishing issue.

The striker played 89 minutes and recorded:

• 7 shots

• 0.72 xG

• 1 shot on target

• 0.02 xGoT

Oh was comfortably Beşiktaş’s most frequent shooter.

The positive interpretation is that the team consistently found its centre-forward in shooting positions.

The negative one is the quality of the final execution.

Turning 0.72 xG into only 0.02 xGoT indicates that the majority of those attempts were not directed towards goal with sufficient quality.

The problem was therefore not simply getting the striker involved. It was converting promising shooting situations into genuinely dangerous efforts.

Semih Kılıçsoy Did the Opposite

Semih Kılıçsoy produced almost the exact opposite profile.

He played only 14 minutes, but recorded:

• 1 shot

• 0.70 xG

• 0.91 xGoT

• 1 goal

• 7.27 rating

Oh generated 0.72 xG from seven attempts. Semih generated 0.70 from a single opportunity.

The difference was not only the quality of the chance but the execution.

Semih turned that opportunity into a 0.91 xGoT finish and scored the decisive goal.

After Beşiktaş had spent most of the game creating without converting, the substitute needed only one high-value chance to solve the finishing problem.

Beşiktaş Scored Just as the Momentum Was Beginning to Shift

The goal arrived in the 80th minute.

But by then, the rhythm of the match had started to change.

StatsLook’s pressure index shows that the strongest late momentum belonged to Hradec Králové.

Between the 71st and 95th minutes, the hosts produced:

• 7 shots

• 0.77 xG

That accounts for a large majority of their total 1.04 xG.

The 15-minute splits reinforce the same point. From the 76th minute onwards, Hradec generated five shots and 0.62 xG.

So Semih’s goal did not arrive at the end of a period in which Beşiktaş were completely dominating the opposition.

It came during the phase when Hradec were becoming increasingly dangerous.

That is an important distinction ahead of the second leg.

Beşiktaş’s biggest issue was not a lack of attacking production. It was their inability to turn that superiority into an earlier lead, which allowed the opponent to stay in the match long enough to create a dangerous final phase.

Why Nübel’s Eight Saves Matter

Alexander Nübel finished with an 8.95 rating, the highest Beşiktaş score in the StatsLook report.

He made:

• 8 saves

• 6 saves from shots inside the box

• No goals conceded

• A clean sheet

Hradec Králové registered nine shots on target, meaning Nübel was repeatedly required to intervene.

There is also an important quality distinction.

The home side’s total xG was 1.04, while the xGoT of their shots on target was 0.97.

That means nine shots on target should not automatically be interpreted as nine major chances.

Not every attempt was highly dangerous.

Even so, eight saves in an away European qualifier represent direct scoreboard value. Nübel prevented Hradec’s late pressure from becoming an equaliser and preserved the advantage Beşiktaş had finally established.

The Defence Had to Finish a Lot of Attacks

Beşiktaş’s defensive totals also reveal something about the character of the match.

They recorded:

• 18 tackles

• 14 interceptions

• 22 clearances

• 62 ball recoveries

• 60% aerial-duel success

The 22 clearances are particularly informative.

Beşiktaş were not defending a match in which the opponent simply failed to reach dangerous areas. There were periods when the back line was required to actively end attacks around its own penalty area.

Hradec also delivered 16 crosses, five of which were accurate.

So the clean sheet should not be described as a game in which Beşiktaş completely eliminated the opposition threat.

A more accurate reading is that Hradec did create pressure, but the defensive line and goalkeeper consistently prevented that pressure from becoming goals.

Orkun Kökçü Was the Main Creative Link

Orkun Kökçü was one of Beşiktaş’s most influential attacking players.

In 76 minutes he recorded:

• 72 touches

• 58 attempted passes

• 50 accurate passes

• 86% pass accuracy

• 4 key passes

• 4 shots

• 0.28 xG

• 7.79 rating

His four key passes placed him at the centre of Beşiktaş’s creative production.

Junior Olaitan also produced four key passes, meaning the pair combined for eight of the team’s 16.

That is significant because it reinforces the idea that Beşiktaş were able to prepare attacks.

The larger issue came after those opportunities had been created.

The team’s build-up and chance creation produced enough volume. The final action did not consistently match the quality of the preceding play.

More Effective With the Ball, Despite Only 52% Possession

Possession itself was relatively balanced.

Beşiktaş had 52%, compared with Hradec’s 48%.

Yet the attacking output was significantly different:

• Shots: 22-12 Beşiktaş

• xG: 2.50-1.04

• Key passes: 16-11

• CSNT attacking threat: 13.0-10.0

The important point is therefore not that Beşiktaş monopolised the ball.

They did more with a relatively modest possession advantage.

Their transition output is particularly relevant. The 0.88 transition xG shows that Beşiktaş could become dangerous quickly after regaining possession.

Their average ball-recovery interval was also 15 seconds, compared with 20 seconds for Hradec.

That points to a team capable of recovering the ball regularly and turning those moments into attacking opportunities.

The Main Problem Was Failing to Kill the Game Earlier

Taken together, the data suggests that Beşiktaş’s main issue was not chance creation.

A team producing 2.50 xG and 22 shots has created enough to score more than once.

The problem was conversion.

Beşiktaş produced nine shots in the opening 15 minutes of the second half without scoring. Oh attempted seven shots and only one reached the target.

As a result, Hradec remained one moment away from taking the lead or changing the direction of the tie.

And because the match remained open, the hosts were able to generate seven shots and 0.77 xG during their late momentum window.

Semih’s goal arrived before that pressure could affect the scoreboard.

What Does the First Leg Say About the Return Match?

There were several positives for Beşiktaş.

They generated strong attacking volume, created chances through multiple mechanisms, produced meaningful transition threat and defended decisive moments successfully.

But two areas stand out for improvement.

The first is finishing efficiency.

Producing 2.50 xG but scoring only once unnecessarily prolonged the contest.

The second is late-game control.

Allowing Hradec to produce most of their attacking threat in the final phase shows that Beşiktaş were unable to fully close the match after their strongest periods.

In the return leg, repeating the attacking volume while converting chances earlier would significantly reduce that risk.

Conclusion: A Good Result, but the Data Says More Than 1-0

Beşiktaş returned with the result they wanted.

But the StatsLook data gives the performance a more nuanced interpretation.

The visitors created enough to win through 22 shots and 2.50 xG, but their finishing prevented them from establishing a comfortable lead.

Semih Kılıçsoy solved that problem with a single high-quality opportunity after coming off the bench.

At the other end, Alexander Nübel made eight saves and ensured that Hradec’s strongest period of the match did not change the score.

The clearest summary of the first leg is therefore simple:

Beşiktaş created enough to win comfortably, failed to finish efficiently, kept the opponent alive and eventually needed both Semih’s finishing and Nübel’s goalkeeping to secure the 1-0 advantage.