Sports Writers’ Reactions to the Beşiktaş-Fenerbahçe Derby
Beşiktaş defeated Fenerbahçe 2-1 at Kadıköy in the fourth week of the Trendyol Süper Lig. Although Fenerbahçe took the lead on home soil, Beşiktaş gradually imposed its tempo, improved after the interval and eventually secured a significant away victory.
The match was defined by midfield intensity, tactical adjustments and the contrasting physical condition of the two teams. Beşiktaş looked more coordinated as the game progressed, while Fenerbahçe struggled to create consistent danger once its initial advantage disappeared.
Beşiktaş improved after halftime
Cem Dizdar emphasized that Beşiktaş entered the second half with a clearer understanding of how to control the rhythm. The black-and-white side created several promising opportunities, even when goalkeeper Ederson prevented them from becoming goals. More importantly, Beşiktaş demonstrated that it could accelerate the game when necessary and slow it down when control was required.
The build-up to Dusan Vlahovic’s goal was considered a clear example of this maturity. Beşiktaş moved the ball through six or seven passes from the defensive line before finding the space behind the opposition defense. The sequence reflected both the team’s preparation and its ability to adapt during the match.
Dizdar also praised Vincenzo Italiano’s tactical plan. According to this assessment, the Beşiktaş players followed the initial strategy successfully and responded effectively to developments on the pitch. Their superiority in the second half made Fenerbahçe look increasingly uncomfortable and helped Beşiktaş claim another important reward for its structured work.
Trossard and Kante shaped the tempo
Uğur Meleke described the derby as a match controlled by two experienced midfield figures: Trossard and Kante. Kante operated almost like a classic number eight for Fenerbahçe, especially in the first half, contributing to the connection between midfield and attack.
Trossard, however, produced his most impressive performance in a Beşiktaş shirt so far. He registered an assist, entered two clear scoring positions and played four important passes that created opportunities for teammates. His movement and decision-making repeatedly unsettled the Fenerbahçe defense.
The performances of Olaitan, Trossard and Rıdvan were highlighted among Beşiktaş’s most influential contributions. Meleke also pointed to the strong partnership between Salih and Orkun. As the pair continue to dominate midfield matches for Beşiktaş, questions remain about why they were not used together more effectively in the national team.
Physical superiority became decisive
Güntekin Onay focused on Olaitan’s all-round influence. The midfielder won possession, covered ground, carried the ball forward and attempted passes behind the defensive line. He was also involved in the move that led to Vlahovic’s goal by finding Orkun in a dangerous area.
Trossard was dangerous whenever he received the ball, while Vlahovic continued to demonstrate his instinct for scoring despite a demanding physical battle with Skriniar. Beşiktaş’s superiority became especially clear in the second half, when its players appeared stronger in duels and more capable of maintaining intensity.
The visitors were also more disciplined and cooperative. Their defensive support, collective positioning and willingness to work for one another allowed them to control the decisive periods of the derby.
Fenerbahçe, meanwhile, showed an obvious lack of pace in runs behind the defense. Vedat was viewed as too slow for this role, while Lukaku, who replaced him, offered even less speed. Irfan Can was also considered short of full fitness. The team’s attacking options appeared limited, with Greenwood seen as the only player capable of consistently threatening opponents when receiving the ball.
Criticism of Fenerbahçe’s substitutions
Ömer Üründül argued that İsmail Kartal’s preparation for the derby was insufficient. In his view, Beşiktaş possessed a settled squad filled with athletic players suited to the demands of modern football. Trossard’s individual quality added another important dimension to the visitors’ game.
The first half was relatively balanced, but Beşiktaş’s courage and superior conditioning were already visible. Üründül believed Fenerbahçe should have reacted more decisively when Irfan Can left the field. If Kerem was to be introduced, Greenwood should have been substituted instead, particularly because of his reluctance to fulfill defensive responsibilities.
He suggested that both İsmail and Kerem should have entered, with Greenwood and Irfan Can making way. In his opinion, this adjustment was necessary before Beşiktaş scored. Ederson’s outstanding saves kept Fenerbahçe in the match until that point, but the goalkeeper’s performance could not compensate for the team’s tactical shortcomings.
Italiano exploited the defensive gaps
Bülent Timurlenk praised Italiano for identifying the vulnerable areas behind Semedo and Skriniar. Beşiktaş repeatedly targeted that zone and created problems throughout the game.
He also argued that Fenerbahçe could have made better use of Greenwood by keeping him centrally, where he had already shown the ability to contribute. Moving Nene to the right wing after Irfan Can’s departure might also have provided greater balance.
Once Olaitan became more active in the second half, Beşiktaş took control of central midfield. Fenerbahçe’s shape became less stable, almost resembling a 4-4-2 after Kerem’s introduction, while İsmail remained on the bench despite the team needing additional balance.
Trossard’s outstanding performance allowed Beşiktaş to dominate key phases. Timurlenk described Fenerbahçe’s attempts to change the match with Lukaku and Nene as ineffective responses to Italiano’s decisions. He also predicted that Fenerbahçe may continue to experience productivity problems until Asensio returns.
The midfield battle changed direction
Mert Aydın described the opening 45 minutes as a fierce midfield contest. Kante played with remarkable energy and controlled much of the central area, while Orkun was less influential than usual.
Despite Orkun’s quiet first half, Olaitan and Salih maintained Beşiktaş’s competitiveness through their work rate. Their pressing, movement and ability to support both defense and attack prevented Fenerbahçe from establishing complete control.
After the break, Beşiktaş increased the pace and began winning more second balls. This allowed its full-backs and attacking players to move higher up the pitch, forcing Fenerbahçe’s defensive line to retreat.
What the result means for both teams
The victory is particularly valuable for Beşiktaş because it came at Kadıköy and followed a match in which the team had to recover from falling behind. Winning under those circumstances can strengthen confidence and reinforce the belief in Italiano’s system.
The result also confirms that Beşiktaş has several different routes to goal. The team can build patiently from the back, attack through the wings or exploit quick passes into the spaces behind the defense. Vlahovic provides a focal point in the penalty area, while Trossard adds creativity and unpredictability.
For Fenerbahçe, the defeat exposes several issues that need attention. The team requires faster attacking movement, more effective transitions and greater balance in midfield. Having two primarily defensive midfielders on the pitch may protect the back line, but it can also reduce creativity when the team needs to chase the game.
Another concern is the limited contribution from the forwards. A side competing for the title must have players capable of stretching the defense, making diagonal runs and creating chances without relying entirely on individual moments.
Tactical lessons from the derby
The match showed how important in-game management can be in a high-pressure derby. Beşiktaş did not panic after conceding and gradually changed the character of the game through better ball circulation and stronger pressing.
Fenerbahçe, on the other hand, failed to respond quickly enough when Beşiktaş began taking control. The substitutions arrived without producing the necessary tactical impact, and the team struggled to maintain its early momentum.
The most important lesson is that energy alone is not enough. A team must combine physical strength with intelligent positioning, coordinated pressing and clear attacking patterns. Beşiktaş managed to bring these elements together more successfully and deserved the three points.
Ultimately, the derby was won by the side that displayed greater collective strength. Beşiktaş was more disciplined, more effective in midfield and more prepared to adapt. Fenerbahçe’s early advantage could not conceal its problems in attack, defensive transitions and match management.