Hapoel Beer Sheva Dominates Sabah FA in UEFA Champions League Play-offs

Hapoel Beer Sheva’s 2-1 win over Sabah FA at Rapid-Giulesti Stadium was built on territorial dominance and structural control rather than pure cutting edge. In a UEFA Champions League Play-offs tie that finished 1-1 at half-time and 2-1 at full-time, Ran Kozuch’s 4-3-3 gradually suffocated Valdas Dambrauskas’ 4-2-3-1, turning sustained pressure and field position into a deserved second-half winner.

Hapoel Beer Sheva’s game model was clear: long-possession, position-based football with a high defensive line and full-backs pinning Sabah FA deep. Their 67% ball possession and 659 total passes, with 595 accurate at 90%, underline a side comfortable circulating under minimal pressure. The 4-3-3 structure was stable: Miguel Vitor and I. Rotman formed a ball-playing central pairing, with P. Amador and G. Mizrahi stretching the width from full-back. In midfield, N. Yehoshua and Lucas Ventura acted as the double pivots in build-up, with E. Peretz as the higher, connective eight, often stepping between Sabah FA’s midfield and defensive lines.

This platform allowed the front three to play high and narrow. Z. Ahmed and J. East started from the flanks but repeatedly moved into the half-spaces, leaving the touchline for overlapping full-backs. I. Zlatanovic, as the central reference, occupied the centre-backs and offered a constant target for crosses and cut-backs. The shot map reflects that territorial advantage: 18 total shots, with 16 from inside the box and 5 blocked, show how often Hapoel Beer Sheva were able to establish presence in Sabah FA’s penalty area.

Sabah FA’s 4-2-3-1 was reactive from the early stages. With only 33% possession and 305 passes (237 accurate, 78%), they accepted a low-to-mid block, aiming to spring forward through the vertical lanes. I. Lepinjica and U. Rakhmonaliyev sat as a screening double pivot, trying to protect the central corridor against Hapoel Beer Sheva’s interior runs. Ahead of them, V. Simic, A. Isayev, and X. Severina (before his substitution) looked to break in transition behind the home full-backs, with J. Mickels as the single striker working channels rather than holding the ball up for sustained phases.

The early goal from V. Simic reflected Sabah FA’s plan: attack quickly and directly once possession was won. However, their inability to retain the ball meant long stretches without meaningful attacking sequences. Eight total shots, only five on goal and none blocked, suggest a team that reached the final third in quick, isolated bursts rather than through structured pressure.

Defensively, Sabah FA were compact centrally but vulnerable when forced to shift laterally. Hapoel Beer Sheva repeatedly overloaded one flank, then switched play to the far side, dragging Sabah FA’s back four across and opening gaps between full-back and centre-back. This is where the 4-3-3 showed its value: the three midfielders maintained rest defence positions to counter Sabah FA’s transitions, while the front three and full-backs committed numbers into the box, contributing to those 16 shots inside the area.

The second half accentuated these patterns. Sabah FA’s substitutions, such as O. Mbina and later C. Nwachukwu, aimed to add fresh running and counter-attacking threat, but the structural problem remained: too little ball, too far from Hapoel Beer Sheva’s goal. With only two corner kicks to Hapoel Beer Sheva’s three and six fouls committed, Sabah FA defended more by retreating space than by aggressive duels, which allowed the home side to settle into a rhythm around the box.

Hapoel Beer Sheva’s discipline issues in the back line – yellow cards for Miguel Vitor and I. Rotman – were the by-product of a high line and occasional late recovery challenges when Sabah FA did break. Yet overall, the defensive unit limited Sabah FA to low-volume, situational chances. The home side’s ability to compress the field after losing possession, supported by the work of Lucas Ventura and N. Yehoshua, prevented Sabah FA from turning those transitions into sustained pressure.

In the final phase, Kozuch’s changes in the front line, including the introduction of A. C. Ganah and H. Kanaan, kept the intensity high against a tiring Sabah FA defence. The continued stream of entries into the box, combined with precise passing and rotations, eventually yielded the decisive second goal. That winner was less a sudden twist and more the logical outcome of cumulative pressure and territory.

From a statistical lens, the match’s tactical story is coherent. Hapoel Beer Sheva’s overwhelming possession, high pass volume and accuracy, and heavy concentration of shots inside the box describe a side that controlled both tempo and territory. Sabah FA’s limited passing, low shot count, and reliance on quick breaks illustrate a reactive plan that nearly held but ultimately could not withstand the sustained structural superiority of the 4-3-3. In the context of a Champions League Play-offs tie, Hapoel Beer Sheva’s approach looked repeatable and robust; Sabah FA’s, while dangerous in moments, depended too heavily on efficiency in rare attacking phases to overturn such a territorial deficit.