Celje's Tactical Dominance in 2-0 Victory Over Ararat-Armenia
Celje’s 2-0 win over Ararat-Armenia at Arena Z’dezele was built on a clear structural plan in and out of possession, executed from a 4-3-3 that gradually squeezed the visitors into their own third. With both sides officially sharing 50% possession, the decisive difference lay in how Celje used their time on the ball: 8 shots on goal to Ararat-Armenia’s 3, and a 12–9 edge in corners underline a territorial and chance-creation advantage that only truly translated into goals in the final 10 minutes.
Vitor Campelos kept Celje in a classic 4-3-3 on paper, but the shape functioned more like a 2-3-5 in settled attack. Full-backs Leonardo Koutris on the left and P. Sirvys on the right pushed high to pin the Ararat-Armenia wingers, while the midfield trio of M. Kvesic, Mark Zabukovnik and S. Seslar controlled central zones. With M. Ivansek and M. Avdyli joining from wide/half-space positions, Celje regularly had five players on the last line. That density in advanced zones explains the 8 shots on goal and particularly the 7 blocked shots: Celje repeatedly forced shooting situations around the box, with Ararat-Armenia’s compact low block often getting a body in the way but rarely springing into threatening transitions.
Defensively, Celje accepted a relatively high foul count (16 fouls, 5 yellow cards) as the cost of aggressive counter-pressing. The bookings for Koutris, Artemijus Tutyškinas, Avdyli, Zabukovnik and later Benjamin Verbič all stemmed from “Foul” or “Unsporting behaviour”, but tactically they reflect a deliberate effort to stop Ararat-Armenia’s first pass after regains. The structure behind the ball was usually a 4-1-4-1, with one midfielder screening and the wingers collapsing in to deny central progression. That approach limited Ararat-Armenia to just 3 shots on goal and 1 shot off goal despite their 9 corners, suggesting that Celje were comfortable defending set pieces and deep deliveries, even when conceding territory late on.
Ararat-Armenia also lined up in a 4-3-3, but their use of the shape was more conservative. The back four, with E. Grigoryan and Hugo Oliveira as full-backs, rarely advanced in tandem, and the midfield of K. Muradyan, Alwyn Tera and A. Tera focused on screening rather than pressing high. Their 13 fouls and 3 yellow cards, including early cautions for Tera (“Foul”) and Oliveira (“Unsporting behaviour”), indicate a reactive, containment-first plan: break Celje’s rhythm, compress central areas, and rely on moments from Sandro Lima and Z. Banjaqui on the counter. However, with only 3 shots on goal, Ararat-Armenia struggled to connect their defensive work to sustained attacking phases.
Second Half Adjustments
The substitutions in the second half sharpened the tactical contrast. At 46', B. Verbic (IN) came on for L. Koutris (OUT), a move that shifted Celje’s left flank from a more balanced full-back–winger dynamic to a winger-dominated channel. This effectively turned Celje’s shape into something closer to a 3-4-3 in possession, with the left side now oriented around 1v1 and combination play higher up the pitch. Later, at 69', Y. Dukuly (IN) came on for P. Sirvys (OUT) and M. Poplatnik (IN) came on for A. Kucys (OUT), adding fresh legs and directness across the front line. These changes directly influenced the decisive phase: Dukuly scored the 83' opener, assisted by Avdyli, and Verbic added the 85' second goal, validating Campelos’s choice to overload with attacking substitutions rather than protect the 0-0.
Ararat-Armenia’s changes were more about energy than structure. Benny (IN) replaced A. Tera (OUT) at 55', then M. Carlier (IN) for Oliveira (OUT) and Franca Carlos (IN) for A. Serobyan (OUT) at 73', with A. Ndour (IN) for Z. Banjaqui (OUT) at 89' and J. A. Balanta (IN) for Muradyan (OUT) at 90'. These moves refreshed the midfield and wide areas but did not fundamentally alter the team’s cautious posture. Even with these substitutions, they could not convert their 9 corners into high-quality chances, reflecting a lack of variety and presence in the box against Celje’s disciplined back line.
In goal, Z. Leban (Celje) and Joao Bravim (Ararat-Armenia) both operated behind back fours that were more effective than the raw shot counts alone might suggest. While the exact number of goalkeeper saves is not specified, the 3 shots on goal conceded by Celje indicate that Leban (Celje) had a relatively controlled evening, protected by a defence that allowed few clean looks. Conversely, Bravim (Ararat-Armenia) faced 8 shots on goal, and the fact that the score remained 0-0 until the 83rd minute implies that Ararat-Armenia’s goalkeeper and central defenders, particularly B. R. Wilson Valdez and A. Malis, absorbed significant pressure before finally being breached.
Set pieces were another key battleground. Celje’s 12 corner kicks to Ararat-Armenia’s 9 show how much time the hosts spent pinning the visitors deep. Celje used these corners both to generate direct chances and to sustain pressure by keeping Ararat-Armenia locked in their own third. The visitors, by contrast, were less efficient with their dead balls: despite a similar volume of corners, they could not turn those situations into a consistent threat, in part because Celje’s zonal and man-oriented hybrid defending in the box limited free headers and second balls.
Overall, the tactical story of this 3rd Qualifying Round tie is of a home side that used a proactive 4-3-3, aggressive counter-pressing, and attacking substitutions to turn territorial control into late goals, against an Ararat-Armenia team whose conservative 4-3-3 and set-piece reliance produced too little threat to justify a more expansive approach. Celje’s willingness to accept disciplinary risk for structural dominance, combined with their bench impact in the final 25 minutes, ultimately defined the 2-0 scoreline.
