Porto match their worst UEFA league or group-phase opening

At the Dragão on 20 October, Esmir Bajraktarević struck the post and Guus Til followed the rebound to score PSV’s only goal. Porto had to chase the match, and André Silva and Victor Froholdt both came close to an equaliser. Neither found one: the 0-1 defeat left Porto with no points from their first three Champions League matches.

Porto’s poor start is not simply the cost of facing strong opponents. Jan Bednarek said they reacted too late and failed to press effectively, while Francesco Farioli said PSV’s movement made that pressure difficult; after the break Porto improved, but their chances still went unconverted. The opening slate was severe—two Pot 1 sides and one Pot 2 side, Farioli noted—but the three defeats leave no margin for another slow start. Porto’s play-off route remains open with five league-phase matches left, beginning at home to Napoli on 4 November.

The defeat completed a run that began with a 0-2 home loss to Manchester City on 8 September, followed by a 2-3 defeat away to Real Betis. PSV made it three from three on 20 October. Porto had now matched their worst opening to a UEFA league or group phase, with no points from their first three matches, according to Maisfutebol, Observador and CNN Portugal.

The sequence was not just about the final scores. Bednarek said Porto had been slow to read PSV’s play and too reactive to win the ball back. Communication and the noise around the match also made it harder to adjust during the game, he said, as reported by Record and O Jogo.

I think the problem was that our reaction to what was happening on the pitch was not proactive. When we missed a touch or a decision to win the ball, that is not good enough; we have to be better. It was difficult to adjust, but after half-time it was better.

Farioli described the first half as an especially hard test of Porto’s pressing. PSV moved several players around and drew Porto into repeated one-on-one duels, the coach said; at the break, he changed the approach and saw an improvement. The difficulty was unusual even by his own measure: in 64 matches as Porto coach, he said, this was the one in which his team had found it hardest to press, particularly before half-time.

Porto’s improved pressure after half-time still did not produce a goal. In three Champions League matches, they had scored twice and conceded six, according to Maisfutebol, CNN Portugal and UEFA. That return puts the missed chances against PSV in a wider pattern: creating openings has not yet translated into enough goals to take points from this campaign.

Farioli credited PSV’s defending, its goalkeeper’s important saves and a player’s block on a Froholdt shot, as Record and O Jogo reported. Dutch press accounts cited by O Jogo also judged PSV the better side: De Telegraaf said they controlled much of the match, while Volkskrant called them the better team throughout. Bednarek’s assessment was blunt: at this level, chances like those have to become goals. The difference between a near miss and a goal was the difference between Porto leaving the match with something and leaving empty-handed.

There were two or three situations when we should have punished them. We did not.

The home record adds another mark to the poor start. Porto failed to score in either of their first two home Champions League matches this season, against Manchester City and PSV. A Bola reported that the club had managed that only once before: in 2004/05, when Víctor Fernández’s Porto drew 0-0 at home to CSKA Moscow and Paris Saint-Germain. Then, as now, the first two home nights brought no goal; this time, the second shut-out also left Porto with three defeats from three.

Porto’s opening opponents help explain why points have been hard to find. Francesco Farioli noted that the first three included two teams from Pot 1 and one from Pot 2, the top two seeding groups. He described them as the toughest opponents in theory, while acknowledging that difficult matches still lay ahead. The schedule offers context for the three defeats, but not a complete account of them.

In theory, we faced the toughest opponents, although demanding matches still lie ahead.

There is a separate concern at the other end. Farioli said Porto had conceded in seven consecutive matches, the longest such run since he joined the club. He did not put that sequence down to the quality of the opposition alone: stronger teams had contributed, he said, but Porto had also allowed goals in situations they could have prevented.

That distinction matters. A demanding run of opponents can make defensive mistakes more costly, but it does not make every goal inevitable. Farioli’s account leaves Porto with two problems to address: coping with the movement of elite opponents and cutting out the avoidable concessions that have followed them across seven matches.

The criticism is not only about Porto’s points in Europe. Former player Albertino called the PSV performance very poor and said the team had not clearly played to win. Jurist and supporter José Fernando Rio was more specific: he said Porto had not shown their Champions League identity, and placed responsibility on Farioli rather than the players.

It is hard to swallow, because Porto did not embrace their Champions League DNA. Farioli has to look at our history in this competition; he made PSV look like a giant. I will not blame the players.

Farioli’s answer was to set Europe against Porto’s domestic form. His side had won all eight league matches, including a 3-1 victory over Benfica, and sat top of the table. He rejected the idea of a general crisis on that basis, but acknowledged a longer development gap: Porto had returned to the Champions League after two years away, he said, and could not close the distance to Europe’s top level in 15 months.

It is very interesting to talk about a crisis in a team that is top of the league, with eight wins in eight matches and a Clássico won a few weeks ago. It is a very peculiar way to frame the question.

The closest warning comes from 1997/98. Under António Oliveira, Porto lost their first three group matches, 1-0 at Olympiacos, 2-0 at home to Real Madrid and 2-0 at Rosenborg. They had scored none and conceded five; they finished the group with four points, a 3-11 goal difference and no place in the next round, behind all three opponents.

But the league-phase format, introduced in 2024/25, offers a different route back. Benfica are the only team reported to have reached the play-off after losing their first four matches. In 2025/26, they began their recovery with wins over Ajax and Napoli, lost to Juventus, then beat Real Madrid 4-2 on the final matchday. Goalkeeper Anatoliy Trubin headed the decisive goal in the 98th minute, securing their play-off place. Porto’s past shows how a poor opening can end; Benfica’s recent run shows it need not.

After the final whistle, whistles rang around the Dragão as Jan Bednarek and Jakub Kiwior exchanged words with dissatisfied supporters, Maisfutebol reports. Bednarek later said he valued the exchange as a sign that players and fans cared about Porto.

I loved it. It shows our passion, the club’s, the people around the club. I am happy about that because it shows that we care and the supporters do too.

The night began with Bajraktarević’s shot against the post and Til’s finish. Porto’s next chance to change the mood comes against Napoli.

• Napoli at home on 4 November: Porto’s next chance to earn points.
• Feyenoord away on 24 November, followed by Liverpool away on 9 December.
• Slavia Prague at home on 19 January 2027, then LASK away on 27 January.