Before their late collapse in a draw against St Pauli, Borussia Dortmund was criticized for a tactical move that was described as “absolute disaster.”

Before their late collapse in a draw against St Pauli, Borussia Dortmund was criticized for a tactical move that was described as “absolute disaster.”

 

Borussia Dortmund, one of Germany’s most storied football clubs, has rarely been far from the spotlight in recent years. Whether it be for their exhilarating attacking play, their talent factory that continues to produce or attract some of Europe’s brightest prospects, or their frustrating inability to maintain consistency at the highest level, the Black and Yellows are constantly under scrutiny. Their recent 2-2 draw against St. Pauli—where they squandered a late lead—was emblematic of their ongoing struggles. Yet, intriguingly, the collapse was not the first point of criticism that day. Even before Dortmund faltered late, pundits, fans, and former players were already lambasting a tactical adjustment by head coach Edin Terzić that some labeled an “absolute disaster.”

 

This sequence of events provides a window into the current state of Borussia Dortmund: tactically uncertain, mentally fragile, and caught in the tension between tradition and transition. To fully understand why the criticism was so fierce, one must look not only at the match itself but also at the context surrounding the club’s recent performances, the managerial decisions at stake, and the broader tactical identity crisis plaguing the side.

 

The fixture against St. Pauli was supposed to be straightforward. Dortmund entered the match as heavy favorites, facing a team from the second division that, while spirited and tactically organized, lacks the depth and individual quality of a Champions League regular. On paper, it should have been a routine win—a chance to rotate players slightly, consolidate confidence, and sharpen their approach for bigger challenges ahead.

 

For much of the game, Dortmund appeared in control. They dominated possession, created chances, and at times overwhelmed St. Pauli’s back line with their quick transitions and combinations. Goals from their attacking stars seemed to set the team on course for a comfortable win. However, football is rarely linear, and St. Pauli’s resilience kept them in the contest. By the closing stages, Dortmund found themselves holding a narrow advantage, and the atmosphere in the stadium carried the familiar nervous energy that often surrounds them in such situations.

 

The eventual 2-2 scoreline, sealed by St. Pauli’s late equalizer, drew headlines primarily for the collapse. But the more subtle and perhaps more concerning story was what happened earlier: a tactical adjustment by Terzić that shifted Dortmund’s structure in midfield, which many argued destabilized the team long before the final whistle.

 

So what exactly was this tactical maneuver that attracted such criticism? Reports from analysts and fans point to Terzić’s decision to alter Dortmund’s midfield setup midway through the second half. With Dortmund holding a slender lead, the coach introduced a defensive-minded midfielder, effectively moving from a balanced 4-2-3-1 shape to a more rigid 4-3-3. The intention, presumably, was to provide greater control, shore up defensive spaces, and manage the game toward a professional finish.

 

In practice, however, the change backfired dramatically. The insertion of the extra midfielder disrupted Dortmund’s rhythm in possession. The creative outlets—players like Julian Brandt and Marco Reus—found themselves more isolated, with fewer passing lanes and less freedom to operate between the lines. The attack became blunt, while the defense, paradoxically, became more vulnerable because the team’s pressing intensity dropped. Instead of closing out the match with calm authority, Dortmund retreated, invited pressure, and allowed St. Pauli to grow in confidence.

 

Commentators were swift in their condemnation. Former players described the decision as “an absolute disaster,” not because the idea of defensive reinforcement is inherently flawed, but because the timing and execution revealed a lack of trust in the team’s natural game. Rather than doubling down on what had worked, Terzić seemed to overthink the situation, opting for conservatism in a context where proactive control would have been the safer route.

 

The harsh reaction to this single tactical adjustment speaks to a broader frustration with Borussia Dortmund. For years, the club has oscillated between different styles and managerial philosophies, never quite settling into a coherent identity. Under Jürgen Klopp, Dortmund had a clear blueprint: gegenpressing intensity, vertical attacks, and relentless energy. Since Klopp’s departure, however, the team has shifted through various iterations—sometimes prioritizing possession, sometimes leaning on counterattacks, and often struggling to strike a balance.

 

Terzić, though popular with many fans for his passion and connection to the club, has often been accused of tactical indecision. His willingness to adjust in-game, while admirable in theory, too frequently results in muddled performances. Against St. Pauli, the attempt to “manage” the game highlighted this tension. Should Dortmund lean into their attacking DNA, trusting their talent to overwhelm opponents? Or should they adopt a more pragmatic, control-oriented style, especially against disciplined underdogs? The lack of clarity breeds vulnerability.

 

Moreover, Dortmund’s mental fragility compounds the tactical uncertainty. Even when they are in strong positions, there is an air of anxiety that seems to grip the team. Fans and pundits alike sense it, and opponents exploit it. A conservative tactical switch in such moments can inadvertently send the wrong psychological message to players: instead of reinforcing confidence, it signals fear of losing. Against St. Pauli, that fear appeared to manifest palpably in the final minutes.

Unsurprisingly, the fallout from the match was fierce. German media outlets ran headlines highlighting both the collapse and the tactical misstep. Social media buzzed with frustration from Dortmund supporters, many of whom accused Terzić of “coaching scared.” Some fans drew comparisons to previous seasons, where cautious or reactive decisions cost the team crucial points in the Bundesliga title race. The sense of déjà vu was hard to escape.

 

Within the club, the official line was predictably more measured. Players defended their coach publicly, emphasizing that the team had enough chances to win and that lapses in concentration, not solely tactics, explained the result. Yet, reading between the lines, there seemed to be acknowledgment that the team lacked the ruthlessness and composure expected at this level. In private, one suspects that the staff must have recognized the tactical gamble had not produced the intended outcome.

What, then, are the lessons for Dortmund moving forward? Firstly, the episode underscores the importance of tactical consistency. While flexibility is valuable, a team must also know its strengths and trust them, especially in high-pressure moments. Dortmund’s greatest weapon has always been their attacking flair and ability to put teams on the back foot. Retreating into defensive shells is not their natural state, and it rarely yields positive results.

 

Secondly, game management must be reframed. Protecting a lead does not always mean adding defenders or sacrificing creativity. In modern football, the best way to control a match is often to keep the ball and continue applying pressure. By denying opponents momentum, teams can suffocate hope. For Dortmund, this means empowering their midfield creators rather than isolating them.

 

Finally, there is the psychological dimension. Until Dortmund conquers their mental fragility—this recurring fear of collapse—they will remain vulnerable to late twists. Confidence comes from clarity: if players understand and believe in the plan, they are less likely to panic. Tactical choices, therefore, carry symbolic weight, communicating whether a team is playing to win or merely trying not to lose.

 

—

 

## Conclusion

 

The 2-2 draw against St. Pauli will likely be remembered for the late collapse, but the real story lies in the tactical controversy that preceded it. Edin Terzić’s decision to alter the midfield balance was intended as a stabilizing measure but instead destabilized the team. The “absolute disaster” tag, though harsh, reflects the frustration of fans and analysts who see a team rich in talent yet short on direction.

 

Borussia Dortmund stands at a crossroads, as it so often has in recent years. To fulfill their potential and challenge consistently at the highest level, they must rediscover a clear tactical identity and cultivate the psychological resilience to match it. Until then, nights like the one against St. Pauli will continue to haunt them—not as isolated accidents, but as symptoms of deeper structural issues.