PAOK Dominates Dynamo Kyiv in Tactical Display

PAOK’s 2–0 win over Dynamo Kyiv at Toumba Stadium was built on a clear structural superiority in and out of possession rather than on volume metrics, which are largely absent from the data. Both sides lined up in a 4-2-3-1, but Alessio Lisci’s version was far more cohesive between the lines, allowing PAOK to control territory, compress the game into Dynamo’s half, and strike with well-timed runs from the second line.

Without possession figures or shot counts, the tactical story is best read through shape, event timings, and personnel usage. PAOK’s back four of J. Kenny, P. Hatzidiakos, G. Michailidis and Jogo supported a double pivot of C. Zafeiris and B. Santamaria, with A. Zivkovic, G. Konstantelias and Taison underneath A. Mythou. The key was the vertical connection between the left side and the No. 10 zone: Jogo and Michailidis repeatedly stepped into advanced lanes, allowing Konstantelias to receive between Dynamo’s midfield and defence.

First Goal

The opening goal at 45' encapsulated PAOK’s attacking idea. Konstantelias finished after a contribution from Jogo, indicating an overload on the flank and a diagonal penetration into the half-space. With both teams nominally in a 4-2-3-1, PAOK’s advantage came from how their wide players and full-backs rotated: Zivkovic and Taison narrowed to draw Dynamo’s full-backs inside, freeing the outer lanes for Jogo and Kenny and stretching the visitors’ back four horizontally. This created pockets for Konstantelias to exploit as a free playmaker rather than a fixed No. 10.

Second Goal

The second goal at 48', again by Konstantelias and this time involving Michailidis, suggests a deliberate targeting of Dynamo’s right side immediately after half-time. That timing points to a half-time adjustment from Lisci: PAOK came out aggressively, using early second-half pressure and quick combinations down their left to force Dynamo’s defensive line to turn towards their own goal. With Dynamo unable to reset their block, Konstantelias’ double put the game into a state where PAOK could manage rather than chase.

Defensively, PAOK’s only card – P. Hatzidiakos booked for “Tripping” at 35' – shows the centre-back stepping into midfield to break a transition. That foul, coming before any goals, underlines PAOK’s commitment to counter-pressing high and preventing Dynamo from attacking into open space. The subsequent substitution at 76', with A. Elustondo (IN) for Hatzidiakos (OUT), was a classic game-state decision: Lisci protected a booked centre-back and refreshed the back line to maintain concentration with a two-goal lead.

Igor Kostyuk’s Dynamo Kyiv also set up in a 4-2-3-1, with V. Brazhko and J. Lonwijk as the double pivot, N. Voloshyn and B. Redushko wide, V. Buyalskyy as the central creator, and M. Ponomarenko up front. However, the event pattern indicates they struggled to progress cleanly through midfield. Ponomarenko’s yellow card for “Tripping” at 50' is symptomatic of a forward chasing back into deeper zones after turnovers rather than receiving in advanced, stable positions. Later, M. Shaparenko’s booking for “Foul” at 78' – shortly after he came on – further reflects Dynamo’s reactive, chasing posture rather than one of territorial control.

Kostyuk’s substitutions at 67' – A. Yarmolenko (IN) for N. Voloshyn (OUT) and M. Shaparenko (IN) for V. Buyalskyy (OUT) – were clearly an attempt to inject creativity and experience between the lines. Moving from the starting trio of Voloshyn–Buyalskyy–Redushko to a structure featuring Yarmolenko and Shaparenko hinted at a shift towards more central combination play and diagonal balls from the half-spaces. Yet the fact that PAOK conceded no goals and that Dynamo’s subsequent changes (V. Kabaev (IN) for B. Redushko (OUT) at 80', K. Bilovar (IN) for A. Thiare (OUT) and P. Mounguengue (IN) for J. Lonwijk (OUT) at 86') came late suggests these adjustments never truly destabilised PAOK’s block.

On PAOK’s side, Lisci’s changes were tightly aligned with game management. D. Chatsidis (IN) for Taison (OUT) at 69' shifted the balance slightly towards midfield solidity and fresh legs in the pressing structure. The triple change at 76' – A. Baba (IN) for Zivkovic (OUT), Elustondo for Hatzidiakos, and M. Camara (IN) for Zafeiris (OUT) – effectively rearmed all three lines: new energy at full-back to handle any late Dynamo width, a fresh centre-back to manage aerial and depth threats, and a new midfielder to maintain compactness and ball retention. Finally, D. Pelkas (IN) for Konstantelias (OUT) at 83' both rewarded the match-winner and ensured that the No. 10 role remained occupied by a player capable of holding the ball and drawing fouls, slowing Dynamo’s attempts to build momentum.

With no recorded data for shots, possession, passes, xG or goalkeeper saves, the statistical verdict must rest on the hard outcomes and discipline profile. PAOK led 1–0 at half-time and closed the match 2–0, scoring at tactically significant moments: right on the interval and immediately after the restart. That pattern strongly implies they controlled the key phases and imposed their rhythm on the tie. The card distribution – PAOK 1 yellow, Dynamo Kyiv 2 yellows, total 3 – supports the visual of a home side dictating play and an away team increasingly forced into corrective, often late, defensive actions.

Within the broader context of a UEFA Europa League 2nd Qualifying Round fixture, this was a mature, structurally sound performance from PAOK. They extracted maximum value from their positional play, particularly via Konstantelias between the lines and their left-sided overloads, while managing risk intelligently once ahead. Dynamo’s shape mirrored PAOK’s on paper, but their inability to convert mid-game substitutions into territorial or chance-creation dominance left them chasing shadows, committing tactical fouls, and ultimately leaving Thessaloniki without an away goal or a clear foothold in the tie.