Porto had the pressure; Maritimo had too little threat

Maritimo took the lead, but FC Porto came back to win 2-1 with a goal in the 84th minute. The scoreline stayed close; the chance count did not. Porto had 19 shots and 2.19 expected goals, while Maritimo managed seven shots and 0.27 expected goals. That gap makes this look more like a deserved win than a narrow escape.

Maritimo made the first clear mark on the score. Gábor Szalai scored in the 16th minute, assisted by Maxime Dominguez, and gave the home side a lead to defend. FC Porto had more of the ball and more attempts, but its first goal did not arrive until Victor Mow Froholdt scored in the 42nd minute. The teams went into half-time level.

The second half remained level until Oskar Pietuszewski scored for Porto in the 84th minute, assisted by Jakub Kiwior. That was the decisive change in a match where Porto had created far more, even if Maritimo had kept the score balanced for long spells. Porto made three substitutions by the 55th minute, then changed two more players before the winner. Maritimo’s first changes came at 66 minutes, while the score was still 1-1. The late goal turned Porto’s persistent pressure into points.

Maritimo’s opener came from Gábor Szalai, with Maxime Dominguez providing the assist. It arrived in the 16th minute and gave Maritimo an early lead, but the score did not reflect the balance of the chances for long. Porto had the larger share of possession and kept producing shots. The reply came six minutes before the break, when Victor Mow Froholdt scored to make it 1-1.

Porto’s winner was also built through a named link: Oskar Pietuszewski finished the move, with Jakub Kiwior credited with the assist. It came in the 84th minute, after Pietuszewski had entered the match at 79 minutes. Maritimo had made four substitutions by then, but the score remained level until Porto’s goal. The goal was confirmed after a VAR review, leaving the home side with little time to find another equaliser. The sequence matters: Maritimo’s early lead did not become control, while Porto kept its attacking threat alive into the closing minutes.

Maritimo did one thing better than in any of their other eight matches so far: they put four shots on target, their highest total. Gábor Szalai’s goal gave that accuracy an immediate reward, and Fran Vieites made seven saves to keep the contest close. Maritimo also had 41 per cent possession, below their average of 44.5 per cent and fourth among their eight matches. The home team did not simply fold under pressure; it found a way to score and had a goalkeeper who kept Porto from pulling clear.

The bigger concern is what those four shots on target came from. Maritimo’s seven attempts were their second-lowest total of the eight matches, and only two came from inside the box; that was their lowest count. Their expected goals figure of 0.27 was below their average of 0.9 and ranked fifth across the six matches compared. Two corners were also below their 2.88 average. Maritimo had a better-than-usual return in shots on target, but too few dangerous chances behind it. That is why the goal and the saves do not make the defeat look unlucky.

FC Porto’s 59 per cent possession was above their average of 54.75 per cent and ranked third across their eight matches. Their 19 shots were also above the average of 16.25, while nine shots on target were their second-highest total in those eight matches. Most tellingly, 15 attempts came from inside the box, the second-highest count for Porto in that span. The visitors’ pressure was not just a matter of holding the ball. It produced repeated chances from close range and forced Fran Vieites into seven saves.

There was a small gap between Porto’s output and its usual level: 2.19 expected goals sat below the 2.35 average, ranking fourth across the six matches compared. Six corners were also below the 6.75 average, and Porto’s 15 fouls were above their 13.88 average. Even so, the attacking case was strong. Porto’s 19 shots and nine on target exceeded Maritimo’s figures by a wide margin, and the visitors found the late goal after changes brought Oskar Pietuszewski into the game. The numbers support the win, while the timing explains why it stayed in doubt so long.

Gábor Szalai scored Maritimo’s goal, and Fran Vieites made seven saves. Their season ratings are not supplied, so those contributions are the clearest measure of their nights. Maxime Dominguez assisted the opener, though his match rating cannot be judged against an own-season average here. The comparisons that are available show a tougher evening for some Maritimo players: Raphael Guzzo’s 6.06 rating was 0.68 below his 6.74 season average. Martín Tejón rated 6.05, a full 0.95 below his average of 7.

For Porto, Victor Mow Froholdt scored and rated 7.1, 0.14 above his season average of 6.96. Jan Bednarek’s 7.54 was 0.13 above his own average, while Jakub Kiwior assisted the winner but rated 7.26, 0.22 below his 7.48 average. Oskar Pietuszewski scored after coming on, but there is no season rating comparison to judge his display against. On Maritimo’s side, Igor Julião’s 5.07 was 1.26 below his average of 6.33. Those comparisons point to a mixed individual picture, but the late substitute supplied the decisive action.

Expected goals strongly favour Porto. Maritimo finished on 0.27 against Porto’s 2.19, an expected margin of minus 1.92 for the home team; the actual margin was minus one. That difference says the final score was closer than the chance quality suggested, not that Maritimo were denied a result their performance merited. Their four shots on target were a season high, but the low expected goals figure shows those efforts did not add up to many strong opportunities.

The market measure points the same way: its away-win probability was 0.989, with one bookmaker counted. FC Porto won, matching that expectation. The two measures therefore agree on the direction of the result, while expected goals make the contest look less one-sided than the market probability did. Maritimo’s goal and Vieites’s saves kept the score close; the chance balance says Porto still had the stronger claim to the win.

For Maritimo, the useful sign was a season-best return of four shots on target. The warning is that those efforts came from only two shots inside the box and an expected goals total of 0.27. Better accuracy alone will not answer the question raised here: whether Maritimo can create more close-range chances while keeping the defensive work that let them stay level until late. Porto, by contrast, have evidence that sustained pressure can carry a match even when the winning goal comes near the end. Their 2.19 expected goals and 15 attempts inside the box made the late finish less of a fluke than the final score might suggest.

The next useful comparisons are about chance quality and how the teams respond when a game is level. Maritimo’s season comparisons cover eight matches for most measures and six for expected goals; Porto’s figures are drawn from the same comparison spans. The areas to watch are specific:

• Whether Maritimo can raise its shots inside the box above the two recorded here.
• Whether Maritimo’s shots on target remain high while its expected goals move closer to its 0.9 average.
• Whether Porto can keep creating close-range attempts at a rate near the 15 recorded here.