599 passes to 346. Possession: 61% to 39%. Krylia Sovetov also had more shots, 17 to 14. Stop there and you could imagine a match in which Baltika sat deep, suffered and eventually received two gifts.
But the next line changes the picture. Goalscoring chances: 3-10. To the visitors.
Samara had more of the ball. Baltika more often turned possession into genuine danger. Two goals stood, two more were disallowed, and there were enough other chances in between to finish the contest earlier.
Golenkov scored against his hometown club — and kissed the turf
Yegor Golenkov opened the scoring in the 10th minute. This was a trip back to his hometown and a match against his former club. After scoring, the striker kissed the pitch.
From the outside it might have looked like a refusal to celebrate. Golenkov explained it differently: "I was celebrating the goal — I kissed the turf as a mark of respect for Samara soil." Very football: take points from your old club, but leave a declaration of love behind.
Golenkov did not come out for the second half, by his own account for medical reasons. Yet in 45 minutes he managed five shots, hit the target twice and accumulated 0.95 xG. Almost a third of Baltika's total expected-goals figure in half a match.
He won only 38% of his duels. A useful reminder: a striker does not have to beat every defender in every battle. It also matters how often he gets into positions from which goals can be scored.
Two goals on the scoreboard, two more outside it
Baltika's advantage did not mean Lyubakov had a quiet evening. In one dangerous first-half sequence the goal was defended in turn by the goalkeeper and Kirsh.
Before half-time Eduardo Anderson put the ball in the net, but the goal was disallowed for an attacking foul. In the 68th minute Brian Gil also scored, only for offside to rule it out. Those moments add nothing to the final score, but they help explain why Baltika's attacking performance felt richer than two successful finishes.
Kirsh finally doubled the lead in the 77th minute, heading in Ilya Petrov's corner for his first Baltika goal. There was another debut too: German Iva made his first senior appearance, starting the match and playing 59 minutes at the age of 19.
Fourteen shots were more dangerous than seventeen
Shots on target were level at 6-6. The quality of the opportunities was not.
The sum of individual xG in the RuStat export is 3.30 for Baltika against 1.09 for Krylia. The average Baltika shot was worth roughly 0.24 expected goals; the hosts' average was around 0.06.
That does not mean Baltika "should" have scored three. It does show how different the locations and circumstances of the teams' attempts were.
Passes into the penalty area are revealing: 37 attempts each, but Baltika delivered more accurately. Inside the opposition box they recorded 56 technical-tactical actions to Krylia's 31.
Not all of those actions were successful. But together with the chances and xG they form a clear picture: with less possession, the visitors reached dangerous work around goal more often.
Baltika's shape changed as well. The starting 3-5-2 became a 3-4-3 late on, while out of possession the team dropped into a 5-4-1. The roles matter here: the wide players fell into the defensive line, one striker stayed high and a midfield four formed behind him. That compacted the space in front of Baltika's box, although regaining possession then required quick support for the lone forward.
Petrov connected the play, Offor created
The scorers got their names in the official record. Ilya Petrov deserves to sit beside them.
He made both assists, for Golenkov and Kirsh, plus created two more chances and played two passes leading to shots. Not everything came off: only 33% of his 12 passes into the penalty area found a teammate. But Petrov kept trying to put the ball where it could do the most damage.
Chinonso Offor replaced Golenkov after the break and did not score. RuStat still credited him with four chances created — more than any other Baltika player in this dataset. He also had two chances of his own, two shots and 0.59 xG.
Matches like this are worth analysing precisely because of players who do not appear on the scoresheet. No goal or assist does not mean no value.
Kirsh contributed in both boxes
One shot, one goal. For a defender, excellent accounting.
There was a backstory. A month earlier in Kaliningrad, in the first cup meeting with Krylia, Kirsh had a goal ruled out by VAR for handball and Baltika then lost the shootout. In Samara, the defender got his reward.
He would have deserved a high mark without the goal: 13 interceptions, two successful tackles from two attempts and 67% of all duels won. His defensive-duel figure was a more modest 55%, so this was not a flawless performance.
Still, the combination of heavy defensive work and a decisive attacking contribution matters. At 1-0, one mistake could still have changed the mood of the evening. Kirsh's goal gave Baltika the cushion they had been missing.
What the win should not hide
First of all, finishing. Ten goalscoring chances produced two goals.
The standout line here belongs to Kovač: two shots, 1.07 xG, no goals. That is the highest individual expected-goals total in the Baltika squad. Getting into those positions is a positive. Failing to finish them is a fair criticism.
It was not spotless in Baltika's own half either: 13 losses of possession to Krylia's 8. Successful tackles: 19 of 36 (53%), compared with 16 of 26 (62%) for the hosts.
Add 18 fouls to the hosts' six and four yellow cards to Krylia's none. The win was convincing in terms of chance creation, but certainly not sterile.
Baltika player ratings
These are my own ratings on a ten-point scale, informed by RuStat data and confirmed match events. They are not a copy of the service's index and do not replace a full video review.
Yegor Lyubakov — 7.5
A clean sheet with genuine work to do. Also 31 completed passes from 35. RuStat records no major or goal-leading errors. A goalkeeper's composure is especially valuable while the second goal refuses to arrive.
Ilya Kirsh — 8.0 ⭐
My man of the match. The same score as Petrov and Golenkov, but Kirsh was decisive in both penalty areas. Thirteen interceptions, help in a dangerous defensive sequence and his first goal for the club. A defender who first helped preserve the lead and then extended it himself.
Sergey Varatynov — 6.0
Four interceptions, 83% pass accuracy, half of his duels won. Neat overall numbers, but one major error in RuStat holds the mark down.
Eduardo Anderson — 6.5
Seven interceptions and four successful dribbles from four. Won 65% of his duels overall and half of his defensive duels. There was a disallowed goal and also a major error recorded by the service. A busy match with plenty of both good and bad.
Mikhail Ryadno — 7.0
The best RuStat Index in the team: 201. Four accurate passes into the penalty area from five and involvement in a scoring attack. Less successful in duels and dribbles, but useful in progressing the ball.
German Iva — 6.5
A substantial 59 minutes on debut: 67% of duels won, four interceptions and one chance created. Passing was tougher at 60% accuracy. There is room to improve, but also plenty to show from a first senior match.
Andrey Mendel — 7.0
Ten interceptions, five recoveries, 87% pass accuracy. The kind of work that is easy to underrate if you watch only the finishing. His low duel-success percentage came from a sample of just five duels.
Ilya Petrov — 8.0
Two assists — both Baltika goals began with his pass. There was waste in his distribution, but his work turned territorial advantage into chances and goals. One of the main co-authors of the victory.
Stefan Kovač — 6.0
Six interceptions and six recoveries: a good workload. But his best chances went unfinished, and he won only 40% of his duels. He could have made the evening much calmer.
Yegor Golenkov — 8.0
Five shots and a goal in one half. He kept finding finishing positions and created two chances for teammates. He paid respect to Samara soil — and gave the Samara defence a finishing lesson.
Brian Gil — 6.0
One officially recorded shot, 0.34 xG, one chance created. He did put the ball in the net, but from an offside position. Otherwise more attacking output was needed: 44% of duels won and 63% pass accuracy.
Chinonso Offor — 7.5
Four chances created and two accurate key passes from two attempts. A very useful attacking cameo. He lacked a goal of his own, but reducing his performance to the missed chance would be unfair.
Nathan Gassama — 7.0
Won seven of eight duels and made four interceptions in 39 minutes. A convincing spell in the battles. The yellow card makes the report slightly less tidy, but does not cancel the work done.
Eldar Civic — 5.5
Nine completed passes from twenty, none of three crosses found a teammate. He helped defensively with three interceptions and two successful tackles, but his work on the ball was clearly off, and a late yellow card made the evening worse.
Fahd Moufi — 6.5
Five interceptions and three recoveries in 35 minutes, with 81% pass accuracy. No standout attacking line, but useful work in his spell.
Konstantin Shiltsov — no rating
Sixteen minutes and only six technical-tactical actions. All four passes were completed, but RuStat also records one major error. Too little material for a fair numerical mark.
Now we can complain about the quality of a win
Baltika left Samara with a victory for which they created enough chances and moved up to second place in Group C. Golenkov scored in his hometown, Kirsh opened his account for the club, and Iva gained his first senior-team experience.
There is still work for next time: use chances more clinically, lose the ball less often near your own goal, and do not leave the opponent alive for so long.
But discussing those flaws after a 2-0 win is a particular pleasure. At last, we can complain about the quality of a victory.
