Trendyol Süper Lig Analyse

Dušan Vlahović put four of five shots on target against Çorum, scoring three times in 71 minutes. One target and one goal came from a penalty. The higher target count therefore combined a larger opportunity supply with accurate finishing, rather than simply a longer appearance. At Amed, he played the full 90 minutes but took only three shots, with a corner goal followed by two misses. More time on the pitch did not restore the Çorum shooting volume or accuracy.

The two-target performances at Alanyaspor and Fenerbahçe had different scoring implications. At Alanyaspor, Vlahović put both attempts on target in only 33 minutes, but the chances totalled about 0.21 xG and both were saved. Against Fenerbahçe, he again took two accurate shots, with one chance worth approximately 0.78 xG producing a goal. The same target count therefore did not mean the same chance of scoring. For the next Beşiktaş match, multiple targets are better supported when Vlahović receives several shooting opportunities, as at Çorum, while the goal question additionally depends on their quality. His Amed performance shows why a full match and a goal do not automatically imply a large target count.

Mason Greenwood took three shots against Beşiktaş and four at Gaziantep across full 90-minute appearances, but neither match brought a shot on target. The attempts were worth only about 0.09 and 0.24 xG respectively. Against Beşiktaş, one was blocked and two missed; at Gaziantep, the return included two misses, a block and a free kick against the post. He remained willing to shoot, but the attempts were not consistently reaching goal or creating strong scoring opportunities.

Eyüpspor supplied a different environment: Greenwood took six shots, four on target, with 1.78 xG. A converted penalty and a valuable fast-break goal accounted for much of the chance quality, while two further targets were saved. His four attempts in a 31-minute substitute appearance at Gençlerbirliği also show why a short spell can be busy without being especially dangerous: three were blocked and the other missed. For the next Fenerbahçe fixture, distinguish the number of shooting opportunities from what they are likely to produce. A match that invites blocked or speculative attempts may still sustain his shot count, while targets and goals need cleaner opportunities and better execution. The Eyüpspor return should not be projected without accounting for its penalty and clear break.

Adrian Benedyczak scored against Amed and Gençlerbirliği, then failed to score against Konyaspor, despite almost identical chance totals of approximately 0.23, 0.22 and 0.23 xG. He played 82, 90 and 88 minutes respectively, so neither playing time nor a large change in opportunity explains the different outcomes. The goals against Amed and Gençlerbirliği came from individual chances worth roughly 0.12 and 0.09 xG; converting those opportunities again is possible, but cannot be assumed from the recent scoring sequence.

His five-shot blank at Başakşehir showed another limitation: four efforts missed and one was blocked, leaving no target despite 0.55 xG. Against Trabzonspor, the larger 1.26-xG total included a converted penalty, while a valuable non-penalty chance was missed. The goal at Çorum came from only 0.06 xG across two attempts. For the next Kasımpaşa match, the stronger scoring setup would be Benedyczak receiving more clear chances and turning them into accurate attempts, rather than merely completing another long appearance. His minutes have generally provided opportunity to participate; the quality and execution of the chances have varied much more than the scoring record suggests.

Qazim Laci made 68 passes against Samsunspor, including 58 in the opposition half, across a full 90 minutes. Against Göztepe, Rizespor again held 60% possession, but Laci made only 33 passes in 68 minutes, with 20 beyond halfway. Shorter playing time explains part of the fall, while the much smaller advanced contribution and a lower team total—418 rather than 520 passes—explain why the same possession percentage did not create the same workload.

His full-match comparison at Gaziantep brought 45 passes with 32 in the opposition half, well below the Samsunspor level despite identical minutes. At Eyüpspor, however, Laci reached 46 in only 71 minutes, even though Rizespor lost Valentin Mihăilă in the 44th minute. That performance cautions against assuming every numerical disadvantage or shorter appearance suppresses his number in the same way. For the next Süper Lig match, the strongest basis for a larger total is a long appearance combined with sustained team circulation through Laci in advanced areas. Possession share alone is too coarse: it does not reveal how many passes the team makes or how much of that work reaches him.

Mohamed Salah scored three against Galatasaray while making 30 passes in 89 minutes, fewer than in each of his four other full-length starts in the recorded Süper Lig sample. The difference was concentrated beyond halfway: he made 19 opposition-half passes against Galatasaray, compared with 35 against Başakşehir and 31 against Amed. His own-half contribution remained similar, at 11, 11 and 12. The hat-trick therefore reflected finishing involvement rather than a broad increase in his passing activity.

Trabzonspor’s team circulation also changed, with 376 passes against Galatasaray compared with 477 against Başakşehir and 526 against Amed. Yet more possession was not a guarantee of Salah’s highest total: against Konyaspor, Trabzonspor held 71% and attempted 575 passes, while Salah made 39, below his 46 against Başakşehir. The 13 passes at Kasımpaşa belong to a different minutes context, a 32-minute substitute appearance. For the next fixture, a larger Salah passing count needs a full role and repeated participation in advanced circulation, not simply an expectation that he scores or that Trabzonspor control the ball. His Galatasaray performance is a clear example of a highly productive attacker without a high passing total.

Victor Osimhen took 15 shots against Göztepe but scored only from the penalty spot. His 1.70 xG included that penalty, while many other attempts were headers, blocked efforts or modest chances. At Erzurumspor, he scored twice from only four shots, with the two goals coming from chances worth approximately 0.54 and 0.86 xG. The smaller shot count therefore included much clearer opportunities, making volume alone a poor guide to how many goals his attack was likely to produce.

The 12-shot performance against Çorum brought two goals and 1.17 xG, with one goal before and one after Çorum’s dismissal. At Başakşehir, Osimhen recorded four attempts and three targets in only 33 minutes before leaving the match. The available sample contains no later recorded appearance, so those earlier full matches should not be treated as confirmation of his present playing time or availability. If selected for the next Galatasaray fixture, the useful distinction is whether he receives clear chances like those at Erzurumspor or mainly a high volume of more difficult attempts. His shooting involvement can be substantial in either case, but the scoring expectation and required finishing efficiency are different.

Ernest Muçi took no shot in 59 minutes against Galatasaray even though Trabzonspor scored four. The team’s attacking success therefore did not translate into a shooting opportunity for him. Against Gençlerbirliği, he took six shots in only 63 minutes but put two on target, with four blocked. That performance offered much greater personal shooting volume, while also showing how blocks can prevent a busy attacking role from producing a similarly large target count.

Muçi also recorded two targets at Amed, but from only two attempts, both in the 59th minute following corner situations. Their combined chance value was approximately 0.06 xG, so the accurate shooting was not evidence of two especially dangerous scoring chances. Against Başakşehir, three attempts brought one target; against Konyaspor, two brought one. For the next Süper Lig fixture, first establish whether Muçi is receiving opportunities to shoot and whether defenders are allowing those efforts through. His recorded appearances lasted between 59 and 71 minutes, making playing time relevant, but the variation from zero to six shots within that range shows that role and opportunity matter at least as much. Trabzonspor scoring freely is insufficient evidence on its own.

Václav Černý put all three attempts on target against Eyüpspor: an assisted goal, a header from a corner and a direct free kick that was saved. All three attempts came before Eyüpspor’s 68th-minute dismissal, so the high target count cannot be attributed to the later numerical advantage. It was a combination of accurate execution and opportunities from both ordinary attacking play and restarts.

The same target return did not follow simply from more minutes elsewhere. Černý played 90 at Alanyaspor but missed both low-value attempts. Against Erzurumspor, three shots in 71 minutes brought one target, while his only attempt against Çorum was a valuable corner header that he scored. At Fenerbahçe he did not shoot in 64 minutes; at Amed, a 45-minute appearance brought one late saved effort and a blocked corner attempt, with Amed reduced to ten in the 84th minute. For the next Beşiktaş match, several targets require both enough personal shooting opportunities and those efforts reaching goal. A goal from one clear chance, or a long appearance with little involvement, does not reproduce the range of accurate attempts seen against Eyüpspor.

Orkun Kökçü attempted 55 passes in 70 minutes against Erzurumspor, almost matching his 57 across 90 minutes at Amed. Beşiktaş’s circulation was especially strong against Erzurumspor, with 74% possession and 686 team passes, and Kökçü made 46 passes in the opposition half. The high personal total was therefore supported by a busy passing environment while he was on the pitch, rather than requiring him to complete the match.

Against Fenerbahçe, a full 90 minutes produced only 39 passes as Beşiktaş’s team total fell to 419 and Kökçü’s opposition-half passes to 27. The Çorum appearance was shorter at 71 minutes and brought 37 passes, with 30 beyond halfway. Eyüpspor and Alanyaspor produced 56 and 53 in full matches, although Eyüpspor lost a player in the 68th minute. For the next Süper Lig fixture, a high Kökçü total has a clearer foundation when Beşiktaş can sustain circulation and involve him repeatedly beyond halfway. Longer minutes help, but cannot compensate automatically for the lower passing tempo and advanced involvement seen against Fenerbahçe.

Kacper Kozłowski attempted 50 passes against Rizespor, 40 of them in the opposition half. In another 90-minute appearance at Kocaelispor, he made 36, including 24 beyond halfway. His own-half passing barely changed, from ten to 12; most of the difference came from reduced advanced circulation. Gaziantep’s team volume also fell from 489 to 433, but Kozłowski’s personal participation declined more sharply than that team change alone.

The 26-pass performance at Göztepe provides a different warning: Kozłowski scored twice, yet his passing remained modest, with only 16 opposition-half passes. An effective finishing game does not require him to be a constant passing link. Against Fenerbahçe he also made 26, but in 82 minutes with Gaziantep on only 32% possession and 254 team passes. The same personal total therefore arose in two different team environments. For the next Süper Lig fixture, a larger Kozłowski count is better supported when Gaziantep circulate enough and repeatedly involve him in the opposition half. His goals, or the team’s expected result, are weak substitutes for that specific pattern of touches and passes.

Vedat Muriqi scored four against Eyüpspor in 69 minutes, converting all four shots on target from six attempts. Two early goals came from chances worth approximately 0.92 xG each, giving the performance a substantial foundation before two further goals from corners. The team supplied unusually clear opportunities, but four goals from 2.30 xG still required strong finishing. The result should not become a normal expectation simply because his minutes were similar to other starts.

Against Beşiktaş, Muriqi played 68 minutes and recorded only one low-value shot, which was saved. Against Konyaspor, 69 minutes brought two attempts and a goal from a set piece. At Samsunspor, he took five shots in 63 minutes, scored once and hit the post with a header. Those comparisons show that playing time alone cannot explain the Eyüpspor surge: the quantity and quality of service changed sharply. His 26-minute appearance at Gaziantep produced no attempt, adding a separate exposure limit. For the next Fenerbahçe match, the strongest scoring case is repeated access to clear chances and useful restart service. Another four-goal return would also require unusually efficient finishing, even if the opportunity improves.

Juan Santos da Silva took three shots against Rizespor, more than in any of his other recorded Göztepe appearances, but they totalled only about 0.11 xG. Two were blocked and the other was saved. His two-shot performances against Gaziantep and Alanyaspor generated 1.42 and 0.82 xG respectively, with a penalty contributing in each. The higher shot count therefore marked more attempts at low-value opportunities, not an improvement in his scoring position.

Against Gaziantep, Juan also finished a valuable assisted chance before converting the late penalty, giving that double a stronger non-penalty component than the Alanyaspor goal. At Alanyaspor, his only other attempt was a low-value header. His goal at Galatasaray came from a throw-in set piece during a 26-minute appearance, while a good chance at Samsunspor was saved in another short outing. For the next Süper Lig match, playing time and the source of the opportunities both matter. A longer appearance can increase his chance to participate, but the Rizespor game shows that several blocked or modest attempts may still offer little scoring threat. The recent goals should be separated into penalties and chances created through the attack before projecting another finish.

Deian Sorescu attempted 18 passes in 90 minutes at Kocaelispor, compared with 50 in a full match against Rizespor. Gaziantep’s team passing fell from 489 to 433, but Sorescu’s own decline was much larger. His share of the team total dropped from about 10% to 4%, and his opposition-half passes fell from 34 to nine. The change therefore cannot be explained by playing time or a modest reduction in team circulation alone; much less of that circulation involved him.

The two 69-minute appearances show a different combination of limits. Sorescu made 23 passes at Göztepe but only 13 against Fenerbahçe, when Gaziantep held 32% possession and attempted 254 passes. Against Alanyaspor, he reached 46 in 86 minutes with 26 in the opposition half. The Eyüpspor total of 28 also needs the context of Gaziantep losing Juninho Bacuna to a red card in the 64th minute. For the next Süper Lig match, a higher Sorescu passing total needs both sufficient minutes and a larger personal role in circulation. Restoring 90 minutes alone did not do it at Kocaelispor; sustained involvement beyond halfway is the more specific feature of his higher-volume games.

Yunus Akgün attempted 40 passes in 77 minutes against Kocaelispor, more than his 32 in 90 minutes at Başakşehir or 34 in 90 at Trabzonspor. Galatasaray’s team passing was higher against Kocaelispor, at 481 compared with 434 and 431, but Yunus also participated more actively while on the pitch. His 29 opposition-half passes against Kocaelispor exceeded the 25 in each of those full appearances, so the larger personal total was not just extra deep circulation.

The Göztepe match offers a similar pattern, with 39 passes and 31 beyond halfway in 81 minutes. At Erzurumspor, Galatasaray attempted 536 team passes, yet Yunus made only 25 in 66 minutes, including 13 in the opposition half. A high team total can therefore coexist with limited individual volume when exposure and involvement are lower. His 43-pass Çorum performance included 38 beyond halfway, although Çorum played the closing stages with ten men. For the next Süper Lig fixture, Yunus’s passing case is stronger when he is a regular participant in advanced circulation. A full 90 minutes or an expected Galatasaray possession advantage alone does not guarantee his highest range.

Gift Orban scored three against Başakşehir from 2.64 xG, with two of the goals coming from chances worth approximately 0.92 and 0.98 xG. He also missed a substantial opportunity before half-time. That was a genuinely rich supply of chances, not simply a run of difficult shots finding the net. His two goals at Kasımpaşa came from only two attempts and 0.42 xG, with both going in. The smaller goal return actually required more exceptional conversion relative to the opportunities.

Minutes also changed: Orban played 45 at Kasımpaşa, 80 against Başakşehir and 76 against Beşiktaş. The Beşiktaş goal came from a very low-value chance, while a later fast-break effort worth about 0.30 xG was saved. Against Erzurumspor, he failed to register a target despite a good corner opportunity, and at Kocaelispor he had only one modest attempt across 90 minutes. For the next Amed fixture, the strongest scoring evidence is repeated access to clear chances in a substantial appearance, as against Başakşehir. A short scoring burst or a full match alone does not establish that supply, and another hat-trick should not be inferred simply from the recent goal count.

Dia Saba made 21 passes in 90 minutes during Amed’s five-goal win over Başakşehir, compared with 37 in another full appearance against Trabzonspor. Amed’s total passing was almost unchanged, at 355 and 350. Saba’s opposition-half passes, however, fell from 24 to 13, and his touches from 53 to 37. The lower workload was therefore a change in his personal involvement rather than a simple consequence of the team having less possession or him leaving early.

At Kasımpaşa, Saba reached 42 passes in 86 minutes, with 26 beyond halfway and six key passes. That game combined a larger team circulation total of 495 with a more active creative contribution. At Kocaelispor, Amed still attempted 472 passes, but Saba made only 25 in 85 minutes. Team volume alone therefore does not settle his number. The Beşiktaş appearance brought 22 passes in 86 minutes, with Amed holding only 30% possession and losing a player late. For the next Süper Lig fixture, the stronger passing setup is one in which Saba remains a regular link in advanced circulation. An expected Amed win, or a productive attacking scoreline, does not by itself establish that role.

Gabriel Sara made only 22 passes in 73 minutes against Göztepe despite Galatasaray holding 67% possession. Against Kocaelispor, he made 34 in just 59 minutes with the team on 61%. The shorter appearance was busier because Sara was more involved, particularly beyond halfway: 27 opposition-half passes against Kocaelispor compared with 16 against Göztepe. A high possession forecast alone therefore misses an important part of his passing workload.

The full-match comparisons reinforce that point. Sara made 41 passes at Erzurumspor and 54 at Başakşehir even though Galatasaray’s team total was higher at Erzurumspor, 536 versus 434. His larger Başakşehir contribution included 24 own-half passes, compared with 17 at Erzurumspor, as well as more advanced passes. His 58 against Çorum came with 46 beyond halfway, although Çorum played the closing portion with ten men. For the next Süper Lig match, both minutes and where Galatasaray’s circulation runs matter. The higher total has a stronger basis when Sara participates throughout the buildup and advanced possession; a team dominating the ball can still route much of its passing elsewhere, as the Göztepe match demonstrated.

Eldor Shomurodov took only one shot in 83 minutes at Amed, missing a chance worth about 0.09 xG in the third minute. He recorded no further attempt. That blank was therefore fundamentally different from a striker repeatedly getting good chances and failing to convert them. Against Gençlerbirliği, Shomurodov scored with both of his two attempts in 77 minutes, from assisted chances worth approximately 0.67 and 0.29 xG. The improvement was in the opportunity itself as well as the finishing.

His earlier scoring sequence also needs separating by route. The goals against Trabzonspor and Galatasaray were penalties, while the Kocaelispor goal came from a valuable assisted opportunity. Against Kasımpaşa, he scored from a much smaller chance and later hit the post, finishing with five attempts but only one target. For the next Başakşehir fixture, the most relevant sign is whether the attack can regularly find him in valuable shooting positions without relying on a penalty. An Amed-like match in which he barely shoots is a substantive limitation; a Gençlerbirliği-like supply is more encouraging, although scoring with every attempt is not a normal rate to project forward.

Trabzonspor’s 2–1 win over Başakşehir contained 4.22 combined xG, compared with 3.16 in the 4–0 win over Galatasaray. Both attacks contributed substantially against Başakşehir, while Trabzonspor converted all four targets against Galatasaray. The larger winning score therefore did not mean a larger underlying chance environment. It combined useful opportunities with especially efficient finishing.

The 5–0 against Gençlerbirliği contained 4.07 combined xG, with Trabzonspor supplying 3.21 and a penalty contributing to the score. At Amed, the 2–1 defeat contained 3.62 combined xG and a missed Amed penalty, while the 1–1 at Kasımpaşa contained 2.71. The 1–0 defeat at Konyaspor was quieter at 1.84 combined xG, with Trabzonspor creating only 0.83 despite dominating possession. For the next fixture, identify whether both attacks can sustain danger or whether Trabzonspor must carry the total alone. A high goal expectation needs more than extending the Galatasaray conversion rate, and a possession advantage does not guarantee the valuable chances needed to reproduce the Gençlerbirliği output.

Trabzonspor led both Gençlerbirliği and Galatasaray 3–0 at half-time, but created 2.30 xG against Gençlerbirliği and 1.52 against Galatasaray. The Gençlerbirliği half included a penalty and 13 shots with six targets. Against Galatasaray, Trabzonspor scored with all three targets from only five attempts, including a valuable early Salah fast break and two more efficient finishes. The same interval lead therefore required different amounts of chance supply and conversion.

The 1–1 first half against Başakşehir contained 2.37 combined xG, more than the 2.33 in the Galatasaray first half, despite one fewer goal. At Amed, Trabzonspor’s first-half goal came from their only attempt, while Amed supplied most of the chance quality and missed a penalty before equalising. Konyaspor’s early goal led to a 1–0 interval with no Trabzonspor target. For the next fixture, multiple first-half goals need either repeated valuable Trabzonspor chances or a credible opposing contribution. A previous 3–0 lead does not establish the pace automatically, especially when every accurate attempt was converted. The balance and timing of opportunities are the more useful conditions.

Trabzonspor kept Gençlerbirliği and Galatasaray scoreless while conceding 0.86 and 0.96 xG respectively. Gençlerbirliği put six shots on target and Galatasaray three, so the clean sheets did not come from eliminating all accurate attempts. Galatasaray’s threat did fall sharply after half-time, from 0.81 xG to 0.14, but the full-match blank still needs to be distinguished from an opponent generating almost nothing throughout.

Amed created a much stronger 2.69 xG against Trabzonspor, including a saved penalty and two valuable set-piece goals. Kasımpaşa also reached 1.86 xG, with a penalty equaliser and a good late corner chance missed. Those performances show why the route and quality of opposing chances matter more than the recent clean-sheet count. Trabzonspor’s own attack is not guaranteed to answer either: they failed to score at Konyaspor from 0.83 xG despite 71% possession. For the next fixture, assess whether the opponent can create clear opportunities through restarts or other attacks, and whether Trabzonspor maintain meaningful shooting quality of their own. A recent heavy win is insufficient evidence for both sides of the scoring question.