Where each EHF FINAL4 participant has to improve to win the title

As we all know, little things can make all the difference in sport. That's why the four participants in the EHF FINAL4 Women 2024 need to eliminate their last remaining weaknesses before the semi-finals in order to finish on top. We therefore take a closer look at each team’s biggest downsides.

Team Esbjerg: Defence in general

Esbjerg's strong attack has already been written about in more detail here. Currently they rank third with 27.9 goals per 50 possessions. However, their defence as a whole is a constant source of concern. Per 50 possessions, they have conceded 25.6 goals this season, which is ninth overall in the EHF Champions League Women and the worst among the EHF FINAL4 participants.

Using these statistics that are adjusted for possessions played is significantly more meaningful than just the raw number of goals conceded, because it makes the teams genuinely comparable, since the raw number of goals is not only influenced by efficiency but also by the number of possessions (whether a team and their opponents play rather fast or slow). Since a game has around 50 possessions on average (56.8 this season), the values here are calculated on 50 possessions so that they roughly reflect those of a game.

The Danish side’s biggest problem is forcing turnovers. Just 8.5 times per 50 possessions their opponents lost the ball, which is the lowest among all 16 participants in the EHF Champions League this season. As a result, they naturally miss out on many counter-attacking opportunities, which actually makes their offensive stats even more impressive.

In all three of their losses this season they had more turnovers than their opponents. In their 13 wins they had fewer turnovers than their opponents six times, more than their opponents six times and once both teams had the same amount. So, winning the turnover battle will be crucial for them.

Györi Audi ETO KC: Penalty shooting

With 27.3 goals per 50 possessions (fifth, third among EHF FINAL4 teams) and 22.8 goals conceded per 50 possessions (third, best among EHF FINAL4 teams) Györi Audi ETO KC are one of three teams (along with Metz and Odense) that rank in the top 5 in both attack and defence. However, in attack they had problems from the seven-metre line again and again.

They scored on just 71.9 per cent of their goals from penalty throws, which is the worst among all participants at the EHF FINAL4 2024. Just Sävehof, Lubin and Buducnost (who were all eliminated in the group stage) and Krim Mercator Ljubljana, who were well-beaten in the play-offs against CSM Bucuresti, had worse penalty throw percentages this season.

Six players have already attempted at least two penalty throws for them. Only Lubin (seven) were more insecure over who should take the penalty throws.

In the four games that Györ did not win this season, only in the loss in the second leg against Vipers Kristiansand did they score more than twice from penalty throws. A little more precision here could therefore be decisive for them.

Metz Handball: Their opponent’s penalty throws

Metz Handball are very strong offensively as well. Their attacking rating of 27.9 goals per 50 possessions is second best of the EHF Champions League and best among the EHF FINAL4 participants. But they don't shy away defensively either; 23.8 goals conceded per 50 possessions is the fourth-best number in the competition. Only Györ is better among the semi-finalists.

Nevertheless, their achilles heel lies in their defence. Only MKS Zaglebie Lubin, who were eliminated in the group stage without winning a point, have conceded more seven-metre penalties this season than Metz's 4.2 per 50 possessions. In addition, their goalkeepers have just saved 17.6 per cent of their opponent’s seven-metre throws, which is clearly the worst among the EHF FINAL4 participants, who are all in the top five.

In all of Metz’s losses this season their opponents had more attempts from the seven-metre line than the team from Grand Est. Even in their 15 wins, just four times they received more penalties than their opponents. Emmanuel Mayonnade's team must therefore be more careful in defence.

SG BBM Bietigheim: Second halves

Bietigheim are the big surprise in the EHF FINAL4. While the other three teams finished among the top two in their group and did not have to go through the play-offs, Bietigheim sneaked into the knockout rounds, finishing in sixth place in their group and then making it to Budapest anyway. Accordingly, they are of course the clear underdogs in terms of numbers and their weaknesses are somewhat greater.

Among all teams that participated in the EHF Champions League this season they have the ninth best attack with 25.9 goals per 50 possessions (fourth among the EHF FINAL4 participants). In defence, they rank eighth with 25 goals conceded per 50 possessions (third among the EHF FINAL4 participants).

However, the Swabians usually start their games very well. They score 1.5 goals more than their opponents in the first half based on 25 possessions, which is the sixth-best figure. In the second half, however, they concede 0.8 more goals per 25 possessions than they score, which is the third worst. The difference in defence is especially remarkable. In the first half, they conceded just 11.2 goals per 25 possessions, which is fourth best, while in the second half it’s 13.8, which is fourth worst.

The difference of -2.3 from the second half compared to the first is the second worst in the league. Only CSM Bucuresti had a bigger difference, with -2.6.

In Bietigheim’s nine wins this season they lost the second half just once. However, in their eight losses they won the second half just once as well. So, they have to find a way to carry the momentum from the first half into the second half.

More from data analyst Julian Rux can be found at Handballytics.de. There you can read his latest articles, in which he analyses all kinds of handball topics from new, data-based perspectives. You can also find him on Instagram, Facebook, X/Twitter, Threads and WhatsApp Channels.

Photos © Marco Wolf, Aniko Kovacs