Dynamo Kyiv vs PAOK: Tactical Analysis of a 2-3 Defeat

Dynamo Kyiv’s 2-3 defeat to PAOK at Valeriy Lobanovskyi in the UEFA Europa League 2nd Qualifying Round was defined by contrasting interpretations of broadly similar structures. Dynamo’s 4-3-3 under Igor Kostyuk sought to dominate the ball and progress methodically, while Alessio Lisci’s PAOK used a 4-2-3-1 that was compact without the ball and incisive when it recovered it. The statistical profile — 58% possession and 524 passes for Dynamo versus 42% and 380 passes for PAOK — underlines a match where the hosts controlled territory but the visitors controlled the decisive spaces.

Dynamo’s 4-3-3 was built on a clear positional framework. The back four of T. Kedziora, K. Bilovar, T. Mykhavko and V. Dubinchak stayed relatively orthodox, providing width and circulation rather than constant overlapping. In front of them, V. Brazhko, O. Pikhalyonok and M. Shaparenko formed a technical midfield three intended to progress through short combinations. The front line of N. Voloshyn, M. Ponomarenko and E. Guerrero was tasked with stretching PAOK’s back four horizontally, with Guerrero often acting as the reference point between the lines.

First Half

The early goal at 4' from V. Brazhko, assisted by E. Guerrero, was a textbook execution of this plan: central overload, quick lay-off from the forward, and a midfielder arriving in a finishing zone. It came from Dynamo’s capacity to pin PAOK in their defensive third and recycle possession until a shooting lane opened — reflected in their 10 total shots, 7 inside the box. However, with only 5 shots on goal and 4 of them saved by J. Pavlenka (PAOK), the hosts lacked the clinical edge to match their territorial dominance.

Defensively, Dynamo’s structure showed its flaws in transition. With the full-backs involved in build-up and the midfield three often positioned ahead of the ball, PAOK found space to attack once they bypassed the first press. The visitors’ 14 total shots, 11 of them inside the box, speak to how frequently they managed to reach high-value areas. Even though R. Neshcheret (Dynamo Kyiv) made 3 goalkeeper saves, the volume and quality of PAOK’s entries into the penalty area eventually tilted the tie.

PAOK’s Tactical Approach

PAOK’s 4-2-3-1 was less about possession and more about verticality. The double pivot of B. Santamaria and C. Zafeiris protected the back four and served as launchpads for quick counters. Ahead of them, A. Zivkovic, G. Konstantelias and T. Ali supported A. Mythou as the lone striker. When PAOK regained the ball, the first pass was usually forward, targeting the half-spaces where Konstantelias and Zivkovic could turn and drive.

The equaliser at 13' from G. Konstantelias, assisted by A. Zivkovic, highlighted PAOK’s ability to exploit Dynamo’s rest defence: a quick combination through the right half-space, a vertical run from the No. 10, and a composed finish. The second goal at 38' by C. Zafeiris further underlined PAOK’s comfort in striking from central areas once Dynamo’s midfield line was broken. By half-time, despite having only 42% possession overall, PAOK had already turned the match into a contest on their own terms: fewer but more dangerous attacks.

Second Half

The second half followed the same tactical logic. PAOK’s third goal at 51', scored by B. Santamaria and assisted by substitute Taison, came after a period where Dynamo were pushing higher to chase the game. With Dynamo’s structure stretched, PAOK’s double pivot stepped into more advanced positions, and Santamaria arrived from deep to finish. The fact that PAOK registered 7 shots on goal and forced 4 saves from R. Neshcheret (Dynamo Kyiv) shows how often they converted their limited possession into clear attempts.

Kostyuk’s response from the bench was aggressive and coherent with the game state. At 55', J. Lonwijk (IN) came on for O. Pikhalyonok (OUT), and B. Redushko (IN) replaced N. Voloshyn (OUT), injecting fresh legs and more direct running from midfield. Later, at 68', A. Yarmolenko (IN) for E. Guerrero (OUT) and V. Buyalskyy (IN) for M. Shaparenko (OUT) added creativity and experience between the lines. These changes immediately altered Dynamo’s attacking profile: more vertical passes, more crosses, and more late arrivals into the box.

The 78' goal by J. Lonwijk, assisted by A. Yarmolenko, was a direct product of this reshaped structure. Yarmolenko’s ability to receive under pressure and play the decisive pass created a higher-tempo dynamic around the edge of the area. Dynamo’s shot map in this phase — still within the 7 shots inside the box — suggests they were finally turning possession into sustained pressure. Yet PAOK’s defensive block, even after multiple substitutions (A. Jeremejeff for A. Mythou, M. Camara for C. Zafeiris, A. Elustondo for P. Hatzidiakos, D. Chatsidis for A. Zivkovic), remained compact enough to limit clear-cut chances.

Discipline and Game Management

Discipline and game management also played into the tactical picture. Dynamo committed 10 fouls to PAOK’s 13, reflecting the visitors’ willingness to disrupt rhythm, especially as the match wore on. The yellow card count — 1 for Dynamo, 3 for PAOK — aligns with a PAOK side that accepted more risk in duels to protect their lead. Both teams were caught offside only once, indicating that most of the attacking play was constructed in front of the defensive lines rather than through repeated runs in behind.

Set pieces were a minor but telling subplot. Dynamo earned 2 corner kicks to PAOK’s 1, another indicator of territorial dominance that did not translate into goals. Both sides had similar free-kick counts (13 for Dynamo, 10 for PAOK), but PAOK’s superior execution in open play made those dead-ball situations less decisive.

From a pure statistical verdict, Dynamo Kyiv’s 58% possession, 524 total passes and 456 accurate passes underscore a team comfortable circulating the ball and controlling tempo. PAOK’s 380 passes with 305 accurate show a more economical approach, prioritising progression over retention. Dynamo’s 10 shots (5 on goal) versus PAOK’s 14 shots (7 on goal) capture the core tactical truth: the visitors created more and better chances despite seeing less of the ball.

In the penalty areas, PAOK’s edge was clear. With 11 shots inside the box to Dynamo’s 7 and 2 blocked shots to Dynamo’s 1, Lisci’s side consistently found ways to penetrate the most dangerous zones. Goalkeeper performance aligned with this pattern: J. Pavlenka (PAOK) made 4 saves, often preserving the lead under late pressure, while R. Neshcheret (Dynamo Kyiv) registered 3 saves but faced a higher volume of high-quality attempts.

Overall, the numbers confirm what the tactical shapes suggested: Dynamo controlled the match in terms of structure and possession, but PAOK controlled it in terms of verticality, box entries and finishing. In a two-legged European context, Dynamo’s underlying dominance in possession and passing offers some optimism, but the immediate lesson is clear — their 4-3-3 must become more secure in transition and more ruthless in the final third if it is to outplay a compact, counter-oriented 4-2-3-1 like PAOK’s.