1. Main Players Comparison
FC Utrecht
- Core: El Karouani (34 apps, 2A, 8G), Viergever (33 apps, 3A, 1G), Barkas (GK, 31 apps).
- Midfield/Attack: Paxten Aaronson (8G, 4A – left), Yoann Cathline (6G, 5A – left), Oscar Fraulo (3G, 3A – left), Toornstra (1G, 4A – left). Loss of multiple creators.
- Attack: Sébastien Haller (15 apps, 4G, 1A), David Min (3G, 0A), Noah Ohio (5G, 0A).
- Output: ~25 goals, ~20 assists, but many contributors have left, weakening balance.
- Stability: Defense anchored by Viergever + van der Hoorn, but midfield has lost key creativity.
Excelsior Rotterdam
- No full appearance data provided, but squad underwent a major rebuild.
- Departures: Lost attacking options like Lance Duijvestijn (AM), Donkor (LW), Uddenäs (RW), Omorowa (CF). This removes much of last season’s forward line.
- Core Replacements: Stan Henderikx, Rick Meissen, Lewis Schouten (CBs) – defensive reinforcement; Mathijs Tielemans & Adam Carlén (CM/DM) – midfield stability; Do-young Yoon & Gyan de Regt (wings) – young attacking signings.
- Stability: Defense looks more covered, but frontline is inexperienced with reliance on new wingers.
Verdict: Utrecht have the more proven top-end players (Haller, El Karouani), but Excelsior are in transition, losing their previous attacking threats and depending on young reinforcements.
2. New Players Comparison
FC Utrecht
- In: Derry Murkin (LB), Dani de Wit (2G, 1A in 1145 mins), Gjivai Zechiël (2A in 253 mins), Neville Ogidi (CB), Miguel Rodríguez (7G, 3A in 1249 mins – strong signing).
- Impact: Rodríguez stands out as the key addition in attack (direct goal threat + creativity). De Wit adds depth but modest output.
- Total new arrivals output (so far): ~9 goals, ~6 assists.
Excelsior Rotterdam
- In: Multiple defenders (Henderikx, Meissen, Schouten), midfield balance (Tielemans, Carlén), wings (Yoon, Gyan de Regt), GK van Gassel.
- Impact: Mostly structural reinforcements. Attacking arrivals are unproven at top level, with little statistical backing.
Verdict: Utrecht’s new signings already bring attacking production, while Excelsior’s are mostly developmental and defensive.
3. Substitutes Comparison
FC Utrecht
- Impact players from bench: Noah Ohio (5G), Victor Jensen (2G, 3A), Ole Romenij (2G), Adrian Blake (3G, 2A in just 458 mins).
- Totals: ~12 goals, ~7 assists from substitutes.
- Depth: Bench shows real impact, particularly Blake and Ohio.
Excelsior Rotterdam
- With squad turnover, no detailed sub stats yet. Depth will rely on new academy graduates + recent signings.
Verdict: Utrecht has the far stronger and more proven bench impact.
4. Consolidated Quality Scorecard
Category | FC Utrecht | Excelsior Rotterdam |
Main Players | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (25G, 20A but lost key creators) | ⭐⭐ (major departures, untested replacements) |
New Players | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (Rodríguez key impact, 9G, 6A) | ⭐⭐ (mostly defensive & youth signings) |
Substitutes | ⭐⭐⭐⭐ (12G, 7A, productive bench) | ⭐ (unproven bench) |
Overall Depth | Solid attacking core + bench | Thin, transitional squad |
Key Weakness | Lost creative midfield (Aaronson, Cathline, Fraulo gone) | Lost entire attack, relying on youth/unknowns |
5. Predicted Outcome
- Momentum & Depth: Utrecht hold the edge with proven scorers (Haller, Ohio, Rodríguez) and strong bench depth.
- Excelsior’s Challenge: Defense reinforced, but lack of proven attackers means goal creation will be difficult.
- Utrecht’s Weakness: Lost several midfield creators – chance creation may rely heavily on Rodríguez and El Karouani’s overlaps.
Likely Result: Utrecht dominate possession and attack, Excelsior sit deep and counter but lack cutting edge.
Expected Scoreline:
- FC Utrecht 2 – 0 Excelsior Rotterdam
