0-0 FT: Olympiacos Escapes First Leg, But NEC Reveals Structural Issues | OneFootball

Olympiacos began their Champions League qualification campaign expecting to establish control at Karaiskakis.

Instead, they finished the night grateful that the tie remained level. A 0–0 home draw does not place José Luis Mendilibar’s team in a desperate position. Olympiacos require one victory in Nijmegen to progress, and their greater individual quality can still decide the return match.

The performance nevertheless exposed problems that cannot be dismissed as preseason rust alone.

NEC did not survive through a goalkeeper’s extraordinary resistance or a sequence of fortunate blocks. The Dutch side generated the better chance profile, moved through Olympiacos’ pressure with increasing confidence and frequently reached dangerous attacking positions.

The underlying numbers reflect the balance accurately. NEC produced 1.32 xG to Olympiacos’ 0.62, led 28–24 in penalty-area touches and attempted one more shot despite playing away at a nearly full Karaiskakis.

Olympiacos had more possession. NEC had the more threatening possession.

NEC exposed the space behind Olympiacos’ first press

Mendilibar selected an aggressive right side, with Manolis Saliakas at full-back and Rodinei operating higher. On the opposite flank, Joel Roca was given his first European start.

The intention appeared to be territorial pressure, width and a high-energy opening.

NEC’s three-defender structure complicated that plan.

When El Kaabi and the attacking midfield line pressed, NEC could circulate across the back three until an outside defender found the free wing-back or a midfielder dropped beyond the initial pressure. Once that first line was broken, Olympiacos often lacked the compactness to close the next receiver.

This was where Santiago Hezze’s absence became particularly visible.

Dani García and Christos Mouzakitis offered passing control, but neither could consistently cover the large spaces created when the front four pressed forward. Mouzakitis was one of Olympiacos’ better performers and progressed the ball intelligently, yet the partnership was required to solve too many defensive transitions in open space.

The problem was not simply a lack of running. It was distance.

Olympiacos’ front line, midfield and defence were not always moving as a single unit. NEC could therefore escape one pressure action and immediately face defenders retreating toward their own goal.

Popović turned selection surprise into a match-saving performance

Balša Popović’s inclusion ahead of Stefan Ortega was one of the major pre-match stories. By full time, it looked like Mendilibar’s best decision.

Popović made several important interventions, including a difficult save from Jamiro Monteiro shortly before half-time and another major second-half stop that prevented NEC from taking the lead. FotMob rated him as Olympiacos’ highest-performing player and the match’s standout goalkeeper.

His performance carried significance beyond the clean sheet. Olympiacos had already altered their UEFA list to make Stefan Ortega available. That created an expectation that the former Manchester City goalkeeper had immediately become first choice.

Popović’s display ensures that decision can no longer be treated as automatic. Mendilibar now has a genuine selection question before the second leg. Stefan Ortega may offer greater experience and buildup quality, but replacing a goalkeeper immediately after he preserved the tie would require a powerful tactical justification.

Olympiacos’ possession lacked penetration

Olympiacos recorded 54% possession and spent significant periods in NEC’s half. The ball circulation rarely translated into high-quality service for El Kaabi.

The Moroccan striker was frequently positioned between three centre-backs without enough supporting movement around him. Chiquinho struggled to receive consistently in the spaces behind NEC’s midfield, while the wide attacks produced crosses and entries without repeatedly destabilizing the defensive line.

Olympiacos’ best attacking phases tended to come from individual actions or second balls rather than constructed overloads. That is reflected in the low expected-goals total. Twelve shots can suggest attacking activity. An xG figure of 0.62 indicates that most of those attempts came from difficult locations or under defensive pressure.

The central issue was not finishing. It was chance creation.

Mendilibar changed personnel, but not the direction of the match

Gelson Martins replaced Joel Roca at half-time. Ten minutes later, Mendilibar introduced Jota Silva, Pablo Maffeo and Lorenzo Pirola for Chiquinho, Saliakas and Carmo. Zinedin Smajlovic subsequently replaced Retsos.

Those changes significantly altered the team.

They did not create a sustained attacking breakthrough.

Jota added forceful running and Gelson offered more direct one-versus-one threat, but Olympiacos still struggled to connect the attacking line. The repeated defensive substitutions also prevented the back four from developing rhythm during the second half.

There may have been physical-management considerations behind some changes, particularly with several players still integrating after the summer window. Until Mendilibar explains them, it would be wrong to assign injuries or tactical dissatisfaction as confirmed causes.

The observable outcome is simpler: Olympiacos used substantial bench depth but failed to improve the quality of their chances.

NEC’s performance was more mature than merely courageous

NEC deserve more credit than the familiar description of an underdog “playing without fear.” Dick Schreuder’s team showed a coherent plan.

They used the width of their structure to stretch Olympiacos, trusted their defenders to circulate under pressure and attacked the spaces created when the home side committed players forward. Darko Nejašmić provided control in midfield, Philippe Sandler organized the defensive line and goalkeeper Gonzalo Crettaz matched Popović with an assured clean-sheet performance. FotMob rated Nejašmić and Crettaz among the match’s best players.

NEC also demonstrated restraint.

They did not turn every recovery into a reckless counterattack. At times they slowed possession, forced Olympiacos to press again and waited for a cleaner route forward.

That patience made them more dangerous.

The second leg requires adjustment, not simply greater intensity

The temptation will be to argue that Olympiacos need to play with more energy in Nijmegen.

Energy without structural improvement could make the situation worse. The return leg requires several specific corrections.

Olympiacos must press NEC’s back three with clearer directional triggers. El Kaabi cannot be asked to cover the entire first line alone, and the attacking midfielder must block the pass into Nejašmić rather than jumping indiscriminately toward a centre-back.

The midfield must remain closer to the press. The full-backs cannot both advance without protection behind the ball.

Most importantly, Olympiacos need another player closer to El Kaabi. Whether that comes through Chiquinho, Jota Silva, Gustavo Sá or Fortounis, the striker cannot again spend long periods isolated among three defenders.

The solution may be a more aggressive 4-4-2 shape when Olympiacos have the ball, with one attacking midfielder moving alongside El Kaabi and the opposite winger narrowing toward the penalty area.

A goalless draw leaves the tie open—but changes the psychological balance

Olympiacos remain capable of winning in Nijmegen. They also no longer possess the security of a home advantage or an aggregate lead. The return becomes a single elimination match in NEC’s stadium.

NEC will enter with greater belief than before the first leg. They have now experienced Olympiacos’ press, survived the Karaiskakis atmosphere and created enough chances to know they can hurt Mendilibar’s team.

Olympiacos’ greater European experience still matters.

So does the warning from Piraeus.

This was not a night in which Olympiacos dominated and lacked only a goal. They were second-best in the most important measure: the quality of the opportunities created.