Fenerbahce defeated Bodrum FK 2-0 in the 10th week of the Trendyol Super League, with goals by Youssef En-Nesyri and Edin Dzeko. Our writers Ugur Meleke and Firat Aydinus evaluated the victory of the yellow-navy blues.
In the match held at Ulker Stadium Sukru Saracoglu Sports Complex, Fenerbahce secured a 2-0 win over Bodrum FK. The home team’s goals were scored by Youssef En-Nesyri in the 15th minute and Edin Dzeko in the 55th minute.
In a week when Galatasaray and Besiktas are set to face each other, Fenerbahce, avoiding any mistakes, raised its points to 20 and took the 3rd spot. Bodrum FK, with 10 points, ranked 13th.
Ugur Meleke: Not removing the striker after reaching 2-0 is positive
Fenerbahce is in a period of 6 matches in 22 days. We cannot expect Mourinho to play four league and two European games with the same starting 11. Due to this, he likely left Szymanski and Tadic on the bench yesterday. By starting Dzeko and Nesyri together, he tried the 4-4-2 formation.
However, Mourinho probably had other reasons for this radical change beyond the fixture congestion. In the first 8 matches, Fenerbahce gave a poor performance three times after scoring (against Goztepe, Kasimpasa, and Samsun), dropping points in two of them. Yesterday, perhaps wanting to show they had a game beyond pragmatism, he maintained the 4-4-2 formation even after introducing four new players with the score at 2-0 in the 70th minute, proving he had learned from the Goztepe-Kasimpasa games.
QUALITY GAP EMERGED
Bodrumspor is one of the most modest teams in the league. Only three players in their starting 11 (Ajeti, Seferi, and Puscas) were not in the second division last season. They struggled to hold on until 2-0, which can be explained by the quality of their squad.
THREE MAIN GAINS FOR FENERBAHCE
We can say there are three main takeaways for Fenerbahce from this match:
1. Considering Dzeko’s ability to drop deep and play-make, Fenerbahce can well try a 4-4-2 formation at home in the league. The Bosnian forward frequently shifted centrally and to the right yesterday, ensuring they didn’t lack numbers in playmaking.
2. Mourinho had been hesitant for months with the Djiku-Becao pairing. Finally, he used this duo in three of the last four official matches (against Twente, Samsun, and Bodrum). This pair appears to be more effective than the options with Caglar in pushing the defensive line forward and regaining possession.
3. Among the central pairing, Amrabat and Ismail, the Turkish national player took on a more advanced role. He seemed a bit nervous and had some confidence issues in a couple of clear chances, but I find it positive to consider Ismail as an option for the number 8 role.
Firat Aydinus: If only all referees had Turkmen’s luck
After the black-and-white error in the Galatasaray-Alanya match, Mehmet Turkmen was assigned to the Sivas-Hatay match; he missed two penalties that should have been awarded to the home team. He even showed a yellow card to the Sivas player for “diving” in one of them. Fortunately, the match ended in favor of Sivas, so the mistakes weren’t highlighted much. Seven days later, the referee Turkmen, praised by Mourinho at an opening ceremony where he expressed his gratitude, was assigned to the Fenerbahce-Bodrum match. This is his 8th match this season and his 5th for one of the big clubs. Coincidentally, like the first 4, he was again assigned to a match where a big team was the home team (Besiktas-Antalya, Fenerbahce-Alanya, Trabzon-Kayseri, Galatasaray-Alanya, Fenerbahce-Bodrum). Is this truly a coincidence? A side note: Mehmet Turkmen is a referee from the Istanbul region.
SAMET’S MOVE WAS A PENALTY
In the 10th minute, Samet Yalcin wraps his arms around Amrabat from a corner, preventing him from moving to the ball’s drop zone. VAR should have intervened because it was a penalty. Turkmen should have positioned himself to view this incident from an angle before the play. · The 13th-minute challenge by Kostic on Seferi during his shot attempt is debatable for a penalty, but I support the continuation call. · The yellow cards shown to Amrabat and Samet Yalcin in the 25th and 30th minutes were incorrect.
THAT MOVE WASN’T INNOCENT
In the 88th minute, Amrabat’s shove on Cenk wasn’t entirely innocent; the referee should have awarded a penalty here (similar to Fenerbahce’s penalty claims in the Rize and Goztepe matches). Besides the incorrect cards given, Turkmen also missed a few cards he should have given. We observed management lacking in fouls and serious offenses under Rule 12. These deficiencies are becoming more noticeable with each game. My advice to Turkmen, who is expected to become a FIFA referee soon, is to improve in technical and disciplinary applications.
