WSG Tirol 1-1 Sturm Graz Match Analysis: Plenty of Chances, No Finishing

WSG Tirol 1-1 Sturm Graz: Creation Wasn't Enough for a Win

Sturm Graz drew 1-1 away to WSG Tirol in their first match of the season in the Austrian Bundesliga.

Sturm Graz took the lead in the 29th minute through Szymon Wlodarczyk, but couldn't prevent Michael Olakigbe's equalizer in the 42nd minute. However, the key data of the match shows a more significant difference in creation than the score suggests.

Sturm Graz finished the match with:

58% possession

20 shots

6 shots on target

12 key passes

4 clear chances

2.11 xG

WSG Tirol produced 0.92 xG from nine shots and converted their only shot on target into a goal.

Sturm Graz's problem wasn't settling into the opponent's half or creating chances. The team created opportunities that could have led to a win, but they couldn't convert those opportunities with sufficient efficiency.

Switch from 4-4-2 to 3-4-2-1

Fabio Ingolitsch, who had preferred a 4-4-2 formation in the Hearts matches, fielded his team in a 3-4-2-1 formation against WSG Tirol.

Jürgen Heil, Albert Vallci, and Paul Koller formed the three-man defense, while Emran Soglo and Belmin Beganovic played as wing-backs. Ryan Fosso and Jon Gorenc Stankovic played in the center. Simon Seidl and Jacob Peter Hödl were positioned behind the lone striker Wlodarczyk.

This formation gave Sturm Graz more passing options when building from the back line. The team completed the match with 410 attempted passes and a 73% pass accuracy rate.

The shift from 222 and 270 passes in the Hearts matches to 410 passes against WSG Tirol highlights the change in the nature of their play. This time, instead of leaving the ball to the opponent and looking for gaps, there was a team that tried to circulate the ball and push the opponent back into their own half.

A Different Game Scenario from the Hearts Matches

In the two matches against Hearts, Sturm Graz scored six goals despite having only 33% and 36% possession.

Against WSG Tirol, however, possession increased to 58%.

This change wasn't just numerical. While in the Hearts matches Sturm Graz threatened through second balls, set pieces, and spaces left by the opponent, this time they had to produce attacks against a settled defense.

The team's achievement of 20 shots, four clear chances, and 2.11 xG showed that they weren't dependent on low ball possession. Sturm Graz was able to reach the opponent's goal regularly even in a match where they had to control the game.

However, this performance shouldn't be directly interpreted as a stronger or weaker game than the Hearts matches. The opponents' approach and the match scenario were different. The key point was that Sturm Graz was able to create chances in another style of play as well.

2.06 of 2.11 xG Came from Open Play

The most striking detail in Sturm Graz's offensive performance was the source of their production.

Of the team's total 2.11 xG:

2.06 came from open play

0.06 from set pieces

0 from transition attacks

This distribution shows that Sturm Graz didn't find their chances by waiting for turnovers or relying on set pieces. The team produced chances through organized attacks against WSG Tirol's established defense.

In the first game against Hearts, 1.39 of the 2.77 xG came from set pieces. Although this contribution almost completely disappeared against WSG Tirol, Sturm Graz's total xG remained at 2.11.

This is a positive development in terms of open play. However, the team's loss of the complementary set-piece threat they had in previous matches was one of the factors contributing to the 1-1 draw.

Wlodarczyk Was the Reference Point of the Attack

Szymon Wlodarczyk acted as both a finisher and a link-up player in the center of the 3-4-2-1 formation.

The striker, who was on the field for 72 minutes, produced:

2 shots

0.57 xG

2 clear chances

2 key passes

1 goal

Wlodarczyk's performance wasn't limited to his goal in the 29th minute. His two key passes showed that he could create opportunities for his teammates by linking up with Seidl and Hödl.

He didn't remain isolated in the lone striker formation. He took on a role of holding the ball, ensuring the continuation of the attack, and becoming a target player in the penalty area.

Despite producing a total of six shots and 0.71 xG in Hearts matches, Wlodarczyk, who hadn't scored, found the net for the first time this season against WSG Tirol. This shows that the striker doesn't have a problem getting into scoring positions; he can remain in the center of the attack in the new system.

The Turning Point of the Match Was Simon Seidl's Opportunities

Simon Seidl's missed opportunities were decisive in Sturm Graz's failure to win.

Seidl finished the match with:

5 shots

0.73 xG

1.15 xGoT

2 missed clear chances

1 key pass

Seidl was the player with the most shots and the highest xG for the team. His total xGoT of 1.15 shows that he wasn't just making low-quality attempts; he was also finding shots that could challenge the goalkeeper.

Despite this, he couldn't contribute to the score.

The problem here wasn't Seidl being out of the game. On the contrary, he got into the right positions and was at the heart of Sturm Graz's most important opportunities. The missing piece was not the offensive structure, but the quality of the finishing.

This distinction is important from the perspective of opponent analysis.

Important. While a player who can't get into a scoring position points to a structural problem, the performance of a player who gets into a scoring position but can't capitalize on it should be evaluated in terms of finishing.

Wingbacks Provided Width

In Sturm Graz's three-man defense, Soglo and Beganovic weren't just parts of the defensive line. Both players played a key role in providing width in attack.

The team made 17 crosses throughout the match, six of which were accurate. They also completed 15 successful dribbles.

However, the width didn't come solely from the wingbacks.

Jürgen Heil was Sturm Graz's most touched player with 83 touches. He completed 37 of his 46 passes and produced two key passes. The fact that the right-sided center-back achieved such a high pass volume and creative contribution showed that the team actively used the defensive line in building attacks from the back.

On the left side, Soglo also played a significant role with 58 touches and two key passes. Sturm Graz attempted to widen the opposing defense not only with players on the wing but also with support from the wide central defenders pushing forward.

Advantage Couldn't Be Maintained After Taking the Lead

Sturm Graz, who took the lead with Wlodarczyk's goal, could only maintain their advantage for 13 minutes.

One of WSG Tirol's limited attacking opportunities resulted in a goal by Olakigbe, and the first half ended 1-1.

Sturm Graz didn't completely lose control of the game after the goal. However, they couldn't prevent the opponent from getting back into the game.

The fact that WSG Tirol's only shot on target resulted in a goal eliminated Sturm Graz's margin of error. Daniil Khudyakov finished the match without making a save.

Given the opponent's 0.92 xG output, it wouldn't be accurate to consider the conceded goal a purely coincidental action. However, the fact that only one of nine shots was on target doesn't necessarily mean that Sturm Graz's defense consistently gave away high-quality opportunities.

Second Half Pressure Didn't Translate into a Result

Sturm Graz maintained control of the game in the second half. Especially from the 70th minute until the end of the match:

8 shots

0.89 xG

Prolonged pressure on the opponent's half.

The team completed 85 passes in the last 15 minutes. There was no noticeable physical decline or playmaking problems during this period.

Sturm Graz pushed their opponent back into their own half, but unlike the Hearts matches, they couldn't find goals in quick succession.

In the first match against Hearts, three goals came between the 50th and 59th minutes, and in the second match, two goals came between the 64th and 68th minutes. Against WSG Tirol, periods of pressure were created, but the second goal couldn't be found.

The missing element wasn't the pressure itself, but the ability to finish the pressure.

Defensive Performance Was More Balanced Than the Score

The fact that Sturm Graz conceded a goal doesn't mean they had a bad defensive performance.

WSG Tirol match:

9 shots

1 shot on target

0.92 xG

1 clear chance

5 key passes

Sturm Graz finished with these.

Sturm Graz produced 11 more shots, seven more key passes, and three more clear chances than their opponent.

The three-man defense didn't result in a match where WSG Tirol consistently entered the penalty area or created consecutive high-quality opportunities.

However, their defensive behavior differed from the Hearts matches. Sturm Graz's number of tackles dropped from 27 in the previous two matches to seven against WSG Tirol. The average recovery interval also increased from 15 and 17 seconds to 66 seconds.

This change shouldn't be interpreted as a direct defensive weakness. Because Sturm Graz had more possession, they had to make fewer defensive actions.

The team's control method in this match was less about aggressive pressing and more about limiting the opponent's attack time by circulating the ball.

Why was set-piece production important?

Despite taking six corners, Sturm Graz generated only 0.06 xG from set pieces.

In the two matches against Hearts, their total set-piece xG was 1.69. Against WSG Tirol, this channel was almost completely ineffective.

The 2.06 xG generated from open play prevented the lack of set pieces from hindering their attack. However, in a closed game where a second goal couldn't be scored, additional set-piece threats could have been crucial.

Sturm Graz didn't have a problem with creating chances in this match. Nevertheless, the failure to create a second set-piece to compensate for missed opportunities was one of the reasons for the points lost.

Did Sturm Graz play badly?

The data answers this question negatively.

Sturm Graz had more possession, took 20 shots, created four clear chances, reached 2.11 xG, and held their opponent to only one shot on target.

The team also exerted significant pressure in the final part of the match.

The problem wasn't that their game plan didn't work. The attacking structure created chances, the defense limited the opponent's opportunities, and the 3-4-2-1 formation worked in a possession-based scenario.

The missing piece was converting those chances into goals.

Result: Loss of Score, Not Loss of Game

The draw against WSG Tirol carries two different messages for Sturm Graz.

On the positive side, the team was able to be productive in a scenario different from their low-possession and more direct play in the Hearts matches. With the 3-4-2-1 system, they controlled the ball, generated 2.06 xG from open play, and kept their opponent pinned in their own half for a long time.

On the negative side...

On the other hand, only one of the four clear chances was converted into a goal. Simon Seidl's missed opportunities, the decline in set-piece production, and the failure of the pressure in the second half to yield a goal led to the loss of two points.

The main takeaway from the match is clear: Sturm Graz's game plan created chances, but their finishing performance couldn't translate that into a victory.