Beşiktaş face their first real test after the end of the transfer window, and the atmosphere around the club is anything but calm. Under the guidance of Sergen Yalçın, the Black Eagles will host Alanyaspor in the Süper Lig, a match that is already being viewed as a benchmark for whether the latest squad reshuffle has actually strengthened the team or simply created new doubts.
The first exam after the transfer window
The close of the transfer period has left Beşiktaş with a squad full of question marks. The club’s management spent weeks knocking on doors in the market — reportedly approaching ten, even eleven options — only to eventually bring in a goalkeeper who has not played a competitive match for 257 days. That decision alone has sparked debates: is this really the profile of a reinforcement for a club with title ambitions?
Against Alanyaspor, every new face and every tactical choice from Sergen Yalçın will be examined in detail. The fans want to see whether the team looks more balanced, more aggressive, and mentally sharper than before the window closed. The result is crucial, but so is the performance: it will be the first indicator of whether the “new Beşiktaş” can erase the memory of the departures.
Has Beşiktaş truly become stronger?
One of the hottest talking points is simple: did Beşiktaş actually get stronger, or is the “new” squad just different on paper? The key issue is whether the incoming players can make supporters forget those who have left. When your biggest late move is an inactive goalkeeper and your primary defensive target, Murillo, is already being described as “lacking desire” and “unmotivated,” the optimism naturally fades.
Inside the club, there are claims that some signings were made largely due to Sergen Yalçın’s insistence, only for him to now be unconvinced by what he sees on the training ground. This creates a dangerous dynamic: players who arrived feeling wanted might now sense doubt from the very coach who supposedly pushed hardest for them.
Sergen Yalçın’s dilemma
For Yalçın, this Alanyaspor match is more than a routine league game. It is a tactical and psychological exam. On one hand, he must integrate the new arrivals quickly, giving them minutes and responsibility. On the other, he cannot afford to sacrifice results while “testing” the squad.
The question is how he will set up his midfield and defensive line. Will he trust the newly arrived names immediately? Will he shake up the starting XI dramatically, or opt for minimal changes and gradual adaptation? If Beşiktaş look disjointed, the narrative will be that the window was mishandled. If they look organized and intense, the same moves will be praised as smart, pragmatic business.
Murillo and the “Beşiktaş level” debate
Among the most controversial names is Murillo, a defender widely discussed in terms of whether he is “worthy” of Beşiktaş. The harsh early assessment — “no hunger, no desire” — has already done reputational damage before he has even truly settled in.
For a club that demands high intensity, passion, and warrior-like mentality from its players, labels like “unmotivated” are toxic. The Alanyaspor game will be an early chance for Murillo, if he plays, to prove that those descriptions are wrong. Strong duels, good positioning, and visible fighting spirit could quickly change the conversation. A shaky performance, however, would deepen the crisis of confidence around him.
A fragile structure behind the scenes
Beşiktaş’s transfer period did not unfold in a vacuum. While they were scrambling for signings, rivals were going through their own chaos — and that makes the club’s situation even more complex. The picture across the league shows miscalculations, last-minute panics and missed opportunities among all the traditional giants, which both raises the stakes and slightly softens the criticism: almost everyone stumbled.
Yet for Beşiktaş, the narrative is specific: ten doors knocked, an eleventh opened, and in came a goalkeeper who hadn’t played in 257 days. That is not a move that screams long-term planning. Instead, it looks like a rushed, reactive decision, and that impression will only change if the player quickly proves his value on the pitch.
Fenerbahçe: from “light-speed” operations to a striker crisis
While Beşiktaş prepare for their first post-window test, Fenerbahçe are still trying to make sense of a striker saga that turned into a public embarrassment. At one point, the club reportedly held talks with seven different forwards in just 24 hours — a “light-speed operation” that grabbed headlines. Yet when the dust settled, the balance was brutal: zero success out of 26 striking options explored.
The result: the centre-forward crisis remains unsolved. The narrative around Fenerbahçe is that they either did not truly want a striker or could not bring themselves to finalize a deal. This has fuelled accusations that the board wavered at the decisive moment, and calls for accountability have grown louder — with particular pressure directed towards key figures in the hierarchy and those responsible for the transfer strategy.
“13th Friday”, pressure and calls for resignation
The atmosphere turned especially toxic around what many describe as a “13th Friday” for the club, when criticism of the management peaked. There have been vocal calls for president Ertuğrul Doğan to consider resignation, with fans arguing that the repeated failure to solve the striker problem undermines the team’s chances in both the league and European competitions.
In this context, the future of Fenerbahçe’s sporting direction is under heavy scrutiny. The idea that “the bill will be handed to Sadettin Saran” and a figure of 53 million euros being associated with transfer mistakes or missed opportunities has turned the debate into one not only about sporting results but also about financial responsibility.
Galatasaray: Boey’s announcement and the “number 8” problem
Galatasaray, meanwhile, have had their own turbulent window. The club revealed Sacha Boey with fanfare, emphasizing the importance of the signing. However, the spotlight quickly shifted to what they did not do: strengthen the central midfield with a top-class number 8.
President Dursun Özbek is now being reminded that, across 33 potential options or scouting attempts, the club effectively finished with “0 out of 33” in the quest for that key midfield profile. The failure to land a player capable of replacing or rivaling Lemina’s historical impact has been framed as a major strategic mistake. Instead, Juventus secured Kaan Ayhan for their plans, while Galatasaray’s midfield remains a patchwork solution.
With a tough away fixture ahead, labelled as “Galatasaray’s exam on the road,” the shortcomings in midfield balance may be exposed. Without the right number 8, transitions can become sluggish, and control in the centre of the pitch can be easily lost — a risk that could prove costly against strong opposition.
High-risk scouting and the case of Renato Nhaga
One of the more unusual stories of the window revolves around Renato Nhaga, whose path to European football was essentially blocked by three separate tests that reportedly pushed him out of contention for a move to a top league. This case underlines how modern recruitment is not only about talent and highlight clips, but also about physical, psychological and analytical testing.
For clubs, this type of scouting is a double-edged sword: on the one hand, it protects them from risky investments; on the other, it sometimes leads to passing up players who might have blossomed in the right environment. The Nhaga example serves as a reminder that not every transfer failure is purely about money or negotiations — sometimes, science and data-driven assessments close doors before they even open.
“The big four exploded in the market”
When you look at Beşiktaş, Fenerbahçe, Galatasaray and their major rivals as a group, a pattern emerges: the so-called “big four” appear to have collectively mishandled large parts of this transfer window. Beşiktaş ended up with a heavily questioned goalkeeper and doubts about Murillo’s mentality. Fenerbahçe failed to solve their striker crisis despite talking to an almost comical number of forwards. Galatasaray missed out on the number 8 they publicly needed. Across the board, there were missteps and incomplete plans.
This has shaped a perception that, despite huge financial outlays, the overall quality of transfer work was disappointing. “They exploded in the market” is less a compliment and more a suggestion that plans imploded under pressure. Now, all these decisions will be judged not on social media or in press conferences, but on the pitch.
Tactical consequences for the coming fixtures
In the immediate future, several key matches will serve as real tests for these incomplete projects. Beşiktaş–Alanyaspor will show whether the Black Eagles can hide their structural gaps with cohesion and tactical discipline. Galatasaray’s away challenge will test whether their midfield can cope without the ideal number 8. Fenerbahçe, without a true solution at centre-forward, will have to creatively adjust their attacking patterns to mask the absence of a natural finisher.
Coaches like Sergen Yalçın, and others facing similar structural issues, may turn to flexible systems: hybrid formations, false nines, inverted full-backs, and more reliance on pressing to win the ball high rather than building sterile possession. How quickly the new signings adapt to these tactical demands will be decisive.
Sergen Yalçın’s real challenge starts now
For Beşiktaş specifically, everything circles back to that “first exam” after the transfer window. The Alanyaspor match is not just about three points; it is about sending a message that, despite the chaos, the team can still compete at the top level.
Yalçın’s biggest challenge will be psychological. He must rebuild confidence in a dressing room where some players know they were nearly replaced and others sense that their arrival has been questioned. If he can turn that tension into internal competition and hunger, Beşiktaş may yet emerge stronger than the pessimists expect.
If, however, the team looks hesitant and fragmented, the criticism of the transfer period — the 257 days without football for the new goalkeeper, the doubts around Murillo, the sense of improvised planning — will only intensify. For now, everything hinges on that first whistle against Alanyaspor, and on whether Beşiktaş can finally give a convincing, on-pitch answer to the question: did the transfer window really make this team better?