Real Madrid’s 2–1 win at the Bernabéu was built on controlled initiative rather than overwhelming dominance. With 56% possession against Benfica’s 44%, Madrid had slightly more of the ball but not to a sterile extent; Benfica stayed sufficiently in the game to threaten throughout. Madrid’s 568 passes at 90% accuracy versus Benfica’s 440 at 86% show a home side dictating tempo and circulation, especially through a 4-4-2 midfield line. Yet Benfica’s lower possession did not mean passivity: their 7 corners to Madrid’s 4 indicate they frequently advanced into the final third and forced territorial pressure, using their 4-2-3-1 to attack spaces rather than hoard the ball.
Offensive Efficiency
The shot profile reveals a finely balanced attacking contest. Madrid finished with 14 total shots to Benfica’s 12, and both sides registered 4 shots on goal. That parity in shots on target, despite Madrid’s slight edge in overall attempts and box entries (10 shots inside the box versus Benfica’s 8), suggests neither team was simply padding numbers with speculative efforts. However, the expected goals data flips the narrative: Benfica posted a higher xG at 1.98 compared to Madrid’s 1.11, implying the visitors created the clearer chances. Madrid’s 4 blocked shots against Benfica’s 5 underline a mutual commitment to closing shooting lanes rather than allowing free efforts from central areas.
Madrid’s “ruthlessness” came more from game management than pure finishing overperformance: scoring 2 goals from 1.11 xG is efficient but not wildly clinical, while Benfica’s 1 goal from 1.98 xG marks them as the more wasteful side in front of goal. The 7 Benfica corners show a deliberate plan to exploit set pieces and wide overloads, but their inability to convert that territorial platform into goals proved decisive. Madrid’s 4 corners and slightly higher shot volume point to a more balanced attack, mixing controlled possession with selective surges rather than constant bombardment.
Defensive Discipline & Intensity
The match carried a notable physical edge, especially from Madrid. The hosts committed 16 fouls to Benfica’s 10, consistent with a disruptive element in their 4-4-2: frequent interventions to halt Benfica’s transitions and protect central spaces. Both teams received 2 yellow cards, reinforcing the idea of a competitive but not reckless encounter. In goal, neither keeper produced a spectacular rescue act; Courtois made 4 saves versus Trubin’s 2, aligned with Benfica’s higher xG and slightly better chance quality. The similar number of blocked shots (Madrid 4, Benfica 5) highlights compact defensive blocks on both sides, with defenders stepping out to contest shots rather than relying solely on their goalkeepers.
Real Madrid’s blend of modest possession control (56%), slightly higher shot volume, and greater efficiency in front of goal outweighed Benfica’s superior chance quality (1.98 xG) but poorer finishing. Benfica controlled dangerous moments and set-piece territory, yet Madrid’s more clinical exploitation of key opportunities and disruptive fouling tilted the tie in their favor.
