The tactical setup for this Conference League clash pitted Oliver Glasner’s high-octane, vertically-inclined Crystal Palace against Pipa Vanoli’s more traditional, control-oriented Fiorentina. Glasner sought to weaponise Selhurst Park’s atmosphere by implementing a relentless mid-to-high block, designed to force turnovers in the central third and transition with maximum speed. The objective was clear: unsettle the Fiorentina build-up and isolate Jean-Philippe Mateta against a backline that has historically struggled with physical, direct runners.
Vanoli, conversely, aimed to engage in a technical duel, utilising horizontal ball circulation to manipulate the Palace wing-backs and create overloads in wide areas. By deploying a 4-3-3, the Italian manager hoped to outnumber the Palace midfield pivot and sustain pressure through long spells of possession. However, as the data suggests, Fiorentina’s possession (51%) proved largely sterile, lacking the penetrative triggers required to break down a well-disciplined three-man defensive unit that remained compact throughout the contest.
Crystal Palace's tactical setup
Glasner opted for a robust 3-4-2-1 formation, which effectively transitioned into a 5-4-1 during defensive phases. The primary pressing trigger was the pass into Fiorentina’s holding midfielder, Nicolo Fagioli; as soon as the ball entered the central corridor, Ismaila Sarr and Daichi Kamada jumped from their half-space roles to collapse the passing lanes. This forced Fiorentina into uncomfortable lateral passes or long balls into a Palace backline that dominated the aerial duels, winning 62.5% of headed challenges.
In the build-up, Palace utilised Adam Wharton as the primary 'metronome', often dropping between the centre-backs to create a 4v3 advantage against Fiorentina’s front line. This allowed Daniel Munoz and Tyrick Mitchell to push aggressively high, pinning the opposition full-backs deep. The second goal exemplified this perfectly: Mateta held the ball up, attracting the centre-backs, which allowed Mitchell to ghost into the box from a wide position. Palace’s efficiency was notable; despite having fewer passes overall (240 vs 220), their xG per shot was significantly higher, reflecting a plan predicated on high-value chance creation rather than volume. Defensively, the trio of Lacroix, Canvot, and Richards maintained a high line, successfully narrowing the pitch and leaving Fiorentina with no room to exploit between the lines.
Fiorentina's tactical setup
Vanoli’s 4-3-3 looked to exploit the spaces behind Palace’s marauding wing-backs, with Dodo and Robin Gosens encouraged to overlap. Tactically, the plan revolved around creating 3v2 overloads in the wide areas with the help of the interior midfielders, Fabbian and Ndour. However, Fiorentina’s build-up play was frequently plagued by a lack of verticality. They recorded 220 passes but generated just 0.51 xG, indicating a failure to progress the ball into the 'zone 14' effectively. Their pressing was also disjointed; while they attempted to press high, Palace’s ability to bypass the first line with direct passes to Mateta rendered the Italian side's pressure redundant.
The defensive line, led by Pongracic and Ranieri, struggled with the speed of Palace's transitions. By committing their full-backs high, Fiorentina left their centre-backs exposed in 1v1 situations against Sarr and Mateta. This tactical vulnerability led to the early penalty and constant pressure in the first half. Furthermore, the lack of a traditional 'number six' with high-level defensive transitions meant that every time Palace reginned possession, Fiorentina’s midfield was bypassed with ease. They were often caught in a 'no-man's land' between trying to maintain a high line and fearing the pace of Palace's front three, resulting in a defensive shape that lacked both depth and compactness.
The tactical chess match
The game was decided by the mismatch between Palace’s verticality and Fiorentina’s slow, horizontal circulation. Glasner effectively 'baited' Fiorentina into possession in their own half. By allowing the visitors to have the ball, Palace created the very spaces they wanted to attack on the counter. The decisive battle was won in the half-spaces; Kamada and Sarr’s positioning between Fiorentina’s midfield and defence caused constant confusion. Fagioli was unable to track both, and the Fiorentina centre-backs were hesitant to step out of the defensive line for fear of leaving Mateta unmarked.
Glasner’s decision to prioritise central density over possession won the tactical battle. Palace’s 15 fouls were a calculated part of this strategy—stopping Fiorentina from building any rhythm through 'tactical fouling' in the middle third. Vanoli had no answer to this disruption. The data-driven reality was that Palace created 16 shots to Fiorentina’s 7, with 5 on target. The mismatch wasn't just physical; it was a conceptual failure by Fiorentina to adapt to a team that thrives on chaos rather than order. Glasner’s setup ensured that even when Fiorentina had the ball, they never had the control.
In-game adjustments
Recognising the lack of incision, Vanoli attempted a double substitution in the 78th minute, introducing Fazzini and Balbo. He shifted Fiorentina into a more desperate 4-2-4, pushing an extra man into the forward line to challenge the Palace back three. However, this adjustment backfired. By removing a midfielder, he surrendered even more control in the centre of the pitch, allowing Palace to transition with even greater freedom. This directly led to the late third goal from Sarr, as Kamada found ample space where the third midfielder should have been to provide the assist.
Glasner’s adjustments were more preservation-focussed but no less effective. In the 66th minute, bringing on Yeremy Pino for Guessand refreshed the energy in the high press. Later, the introduction of Jefferson Lerma for Mateta in the 84th minute saw Palace shift to a functional 5-3-2, consolidating the midfield and effectively 'killing' the game. These tweaks ensured that while Fiorentina threw more bodies forward, Palace became increasingly difficult to penetrate. The substitutions reflected a manager in total control of the match’s tempo, reacting to the opposition's desperation with calculated defensive reinforcements that maintained the integrity of the original tactical plan.
Conclusion
Ultimately, the mismatch in transition efficiency decided the outcome. Crystal Palace were clinical, converting a high xG into three goals by exploiting the space behind Fiorentina’s high-positioned full-backs. Glasner’s 3-4-2-1 masterclass prioritised directness and high-pressure triggers, whereas Vanoli’s 4-3-3 lacked the tactical flexibility to deal with a team that refused to be drawn into a slow-tempo game. The stats do not lie: 3.45 xG versus 0.51 xG tells the story of a game where one team had the ball, but the other had the plan. Palace’s verticality and physical dominance were the definitive factors.