Three Points in the Bag, But Beşiktaş’s Real Question Is the Football Itself
Beşiktaş opened the new Süper Lig season with exactly the kind of result every big club wants: a win, a clean sheet, and a stadium that left happy. The 1-0 victory over Eyüpspor, sealed by Vaclav Cerny’s goal in the 25th minute, put three points next to the black‑and‑white name on the table and filled Dolmabahçe with the familiar soundtrack of celebration.
But for a club like Beşiktaş, history is not written by scoreboards alone. This is a team whose legacy is built as much on *how* it plays as on *what* it wins. That is why the real issue after this match is not “Did Beşiktaş win?” but “How did Beşiktaş play, and how far can this level of football carry them across a long season?”
The narrow scoreline and the way it was achieved suggest one thing very clearly: this is a Beşiktaş still under construction. There is a visible idea, a recognizable attempt to impose a style, yet that idea is not consistently sustained over 90 minutes. The season will show whether this is a transitional phase or a structural limitation.
The Most Promising Sign: A Sense of Control
One of Beşiktaş’s most encouraging traits on the night was the team’s relationship with control. There were stretches in which they refused to surrender the initiative, even when the ball belonged to Eyüpspor. The distances between lines were more compact than in recent seasons, and the gap between midfield and defense, so often a recurring weakness, appeared noticeably reduced.
This matters enormously in the context of Vincenzo Italiano’s football. His model is not built just on sterile possession or scattered pressing; it is about orchestrating what happens *after* the ball is lost. The moment Beşiktaş turned it over, there were repeated attempts to reorganize instantly rather than scatter into chaos. Players tried to recover their zones, close passing lanes, and move as a block.
Is it flawless? Not at all. Rotations are sometimes late, pressure angles are not always coordinated, and especially in the final quarter of an hour the structure wobbled. Yet the key point is this: what Beşiktaş did was not random defending. It was the early stage of an organized defensive framework, still rough around the edges but clearly based on a defined idea.
Cerny: More Than Just a Winning Goal
Vaclav Cerny’s goal will naturally dominate the highlight reels, but his importance to this match went far beyond the ball he put in the net. In a game where Beşiktaş often struggled to find variety in the final third, Cerny was one of the few players capable of tipping the balance when facing a set defense.
Whenever he took the ball to feet, there was a noticeable shift in tempo. He could change the direction of play, challenge his marker one‑on‑one, and disrupt the geometry of Eyüpspor’s defensive block. His free‑kick in the 51st minute, which cannoned off the post, underlined how he can threaten from dead‑ball situations as well.
However, there is an obvious risk embedded in this bright performance: over‑reliance. If too much of Beşiktaş’s attacking logic is built around Cerny’s inspiration, the team becomes fragile. When the opponent neutralizes him, or when he has an off‑day, the entire attacking setup risks suffocating. The next step in the development of this side must be to turn the spaces Cerny creates into shared property-zones that other attackers can also exploit.
In other words, Cerny should be a key, not the entire lock. Beşiktaş need patterns of play that allow runners to attack the half‑spaces when he drags defenders out, midfielders arriving late to shoot from the edge of the box, and full‑backs overlapping into the lanes he opens. Only then does his individual quality become part of a collective system rather than its sole engine.
Olaitan’s Energy and the Search for Identity
Another bright note was the influence of Olaitan. His contribution cannot be measured solely by distance covered or the number of sprints. What stood out was the way his intensity fed directly into the rhythm of the game. He chased second balls, pressed with conviction, and constantly tried to tilt the field toward the opponent’s goal.
Modern football has a specific category of players whose main value is not just goals or assists, but their ability to accelerate or decelerate the game’s tempo. Olaitan showed signs that he could become this kind of catalyst for Beşiktaş. He made Eyüpspor’s build‑up uncomfortable and gave the home side emotional energy at moments when the match risked drifting.
That said, raw energy is never enough at the highest level. For Olaitan to evolve into a truly decisive figure, he must refine his sense of timing: when to trigger the press, which passing lane to close first, when to hold his position instead of charging forward. On the ball, he needs to improve his continuity-making safer choices when necessary, recognizing when to recycle possession instead of forcing the play.
If he manages that development, Olaitan can become more than just a runner. He can turn into a symbol of the new Beşiktaş identity: aggressive, intense, but also intelligent and measured.
The Big Shortcoming: Attacking Continuity
Despite the win, the match exposed a serious flaw that cannot be overlooked: Beşiktaş struggled to sustain pressure in the attacking third for long stretches. There were phases where they advanced with purpose and tempo, but the intensity almost never extended across the full 90 minutes.
When Eyüpspor’s defense had time to set itself, the circulation of the ball slowed down. Passes became predictable, movements off the ball were insufficient, and the synchrony between midfield and the forward line often broke down. As a result, Beşiktaş’s offense drifted toward the wings and isolated dribbles instead of structured, multi‑layered attacks.
The pattern repeated itself frequently: build‑up starts from the back, the ball reaches midfield, but with limited movement in the final third, the action gets reset instead of progressing. Possession resumes, but without penetration. This might look like control from a distance, yet it brings little danger when there are no runs behind the defense or clear connections between the lines.
The Missing Piece at Number 9
This is exactly where the question of the centre‑forward becomes critical. A quality number 9 is not only a finisher. He is the focal point around which an attack breathes. A good striker pushes the defensive line deeper, forces centre‑backs to make choices, opens corridors for wingers, and creates passing angles for midfielders.
Right now, Beşiktaş lack a forward who can consistently serve as this reference point. Without that figure, attacks often fail to have a clear destination. Crosses are delivered into areas with no dominant target, cutbacks lack a natural finisher, and through balls become rarer because there is no striker constantly threatening the space behind the defense.
Recruitment and tactical adaptation will decide how this issue is resolved. Either a proper number 9 arrives and the whole attacking structure molds around his presence, or Italiano must manufacture a solution through a “false 9,” rotating wingers into central zones, and asking midfielders to attack the box more aggressively. In both cases, the current version of the attack is not sustainable if Beşiktaş truly aim to compete at the top.
What Italiano Is Trying to Build
One of the most revealing conclusions from the Eyüpspor match concerns the direction of Italiano’s project. This is not a coach who wants a stereotypical “sit deep, steal, and counter” team. Instead, Beşiktaş are being guided toward a model that seeks to control both the ball and the space simultaneously.
To make that model functional, three fundamental conditions must be met:
1. A carefully calibrated defensive line. The back four need to know when to step up aggressively and when to retreat, maintaining compactness without forfeiting territory.
2. A two‑way midfield. Central midfielders must be capable of pressing and covering ground, but also of handling the ball under pressure, breaking lines with passes, and arriving near the opponent’s box.
3. An intelligent attack. Forwards and wingers must transform sterile possession into meaningful situations-runs behind defenders, positional rotations, overloads in key zones.
Against Eyüpspor, there were promising hints of the first two elements. The defense was generally organized, and the midfield worked hard defensively while occasionally setting up play. The third requirement, however, is still incomplete. The offensive unit has yet to translate volume of possession into a steady flow of clear chances.
Solid at the Back, But the Alarm System Must Improve
Defensively, Beşiktaş gave the impression of a team that has taken a step forward, but still cannot relax. The structure in settled defense looked relatively solid, with full‑backs more disciplined and centre‑backs better covered by midfielders dropping into the right spaces.
Yet the real test for any defensive system is how it reacts when something goes wrong: a lost duel, a misplaced pass, a broken press. In several transitions, Beşiktaş were slow to activate their “alarm system.” The first player to lose the ball did not always apply immediate counter‑pressure; teammates behind him sometimes hesitated between stepping forward or dropping back.
These small delays can be fatal against stronger opponents. The distance between defenders and midfielders must shrink instantly when possession is lost, and the nearest player must be ready to foul smartly when necessary to stop dangerous breaks. If Italiano’s side can sharpen these reactions, their defensive line will not just be solid in calm phases but resilient under stress.
Physical Condition and Game Management
Another element that surfaced during the match was physical readiness. For a team built on pressing, compactness, and constant repositioning, fitness is not a detail; it is the foundation. There were moments, especially in the latter stages, when Beşiktaş’s intensity dropped and distances expanded, inviting Eyüpspor further up the pitch.
Game management also linked to this. When the legs get heavy, wise use of the ball becomes crucial. Instead of rushing forward at every opportunity, the team needs to know when to slow the tempo, string passes together, and rest with the ball. Italiano’s approach demands a blend of aggressiveness and patience-something that can only develop as players internalize the system and build match fitness.
If the coaching staff manage the rotation intelligently and the physical work continues to be well‑planned, Beşiktaş can transform these current 60-70 minute performances into full 90‑minute control.
Tactical Flexibility Will Be Essential
Eyüpspor provided one particular type of challenge: a team comfortable defending in a block and trying to exploit moments in transition. Over the season, Beşiktaş will face a wide range of styles-some opponents will press high, others will park deep, and a few will try to dominate possession themselves.
For Italiano’s project to succeed, Beşiktaş must develop tactical flexibility without abandoning their core principles. That may mean:
– Switching between a more conservative and a more aggressive defensive line depending on the rival.
– Alternating between three‑man and two‑man midfield structures to gain numerical superiority where it matters.
– Using different attacking profiles-sometimes pairing a physical striker with a mobile winger, sometimes loading the half‑spaces with playmakers.
The fundamental idea-controlling ball and space-can remain unchanged while the tools and shapes adapt. What we saw against Eyüpspor is likely just the first version of several tactical blueprints that will appear as the season progresses.
Transfers, Squad Depth, and Internal Solutions
No tactical plan exists in a vacuum; it depends on the players available. The Eyüpspor match underlined certain gaps in the squad. The obvious one is the number 9 role, but there are also questions about creativity from deep midfield and the ability of full‑backs to contribute consistently in attack without destabilizing the defensive balance.
The club has two paths: reinforce externally in key positions or push internal solutions. Young players can be integrated gradually, particularly in roles where energy and pressing are fundamental. Experienced names might be repurposed in slightly different positions to suit Italiano’s system better. In either scenario, depth will be vital when the calendar tightens and injuries, suspensions, and fatigue begin to bite.
If Beşiktaş can align transfer strategy with the coach’s footballing philosophy, the gaps shown in this first match can be narrowed significantly.
Patience, Expectations, and the Road Ahead
Ultimately, the Eyüpspor game delivered a paradox that will likely repeat many times this season: a positive result wrapped around a performance that raises as many questions as it answers. For a club with Beşiktaş’s stature and impatient expectations, this tension between process and outcome will be a constant theme.
Three points are already in the bank, and that matters. But the more important currency for the future is the evolving game model. There is the beginning of an identity: a team that wants the ball, that tries to react collectively when losing it, that has a few players capable of breaking games open. At the same time, there are visible shortcomings in attacking continuity, final‑third coordination, and high‑pressure defensive reactions.
If Italiano and his players can turn these early signs into a coherent, 90‑minute performance on a regular basis, Beşiktaş will not only win matches-they will also answer the bigger question that hovers over this new era: not “Did they win?” but “Did they play in a way that can carry them to where they want to be?”
For now, the scoreboard says victory. The football, however, still insists on asking more.