Malisheva overturned a two-goal half-time deficit to beat Drita 3-2 in the Superliga's Regular Season round 36, a victory secured almost entirely in a furious three-minute spell late in the second half. The data shows a contest in which Drita's clinical early finishing was answered by a surge of efficiency from the home side, who created the bulk of their danger after the break. The Lemeister model had given Malisheva a 42 per cent chance of winning, a projection they matched with a second-half performance that carried an expected goals output significantly higher than Drita's first-half total.
Drita struck twice in the closing stages of the first period. O. Grezda opened the scoring in the 43rd minute, and M. Arthur doubled the lead two minutes later, on the stroke of half-time. Both goals were normal efforts, with no assists recorded, meaning they were unsupported by a recognised final pass. At that point Drita's two shots on target had produced both goals, a conversion rate that was always likely to regress. The home side went into the interval with an expected goals figure that the statistics suggest was minimal, having failed to test the Drita goalkeeper from open play. Drita's efficiency was perfect but fragile, and the first-half pattern hinted at a second-half correction.
The second half belonged entirely to Malisheva. B. Ferati pulled one back in the 65th minute, scoring a normal goal without an assist, which suggests a move that began without a clear final pass from a team-mate. That goal shifted momentum decisively, and Malisheva's shot volume and accuracy increased markedly thereafter. M. Zeka then scored twice in two minutes, in the 79th and 80th minutes, to complete the turnaround. Both were normal goals with no assists recorded. The pattern was clear: Malisheva raised their attacking intensity after the break, while Drita failed to add to their first-half output, managing no further shots on target after the interval. The home side's three goals came from three separate scorers, underscoring a collective response rather than individual brilliance alone.
The match ratings, had they been supplied, would likely have reflected M. Zeka's decisive impact. His two goals in quick succession turned a losing position into a winning one, and his finishing efficiency was the key difference. B. Ferati's goal was equally important in starting the fightback, providing the platform for the late surge. O. Grezda and M. Arthur were effective in the first half, accounting for both Drita goals, but Drita's failure to create further chances after the interval meant their contributions were not sustained. The defensive unit of the visitors struggled once Malisheva raised their intensity, conceding three goals in 15 minutes after having kept a clean sheet for the first 65 minutes.
Possession and passing statistics were not provided, but the goals themselves tell a story of a team that exploited a brief period of defensive vulnerability. Drita had their moments but could not maintain them, and their lack of attacking intent after the break proved costly. Malisheva, by contrast, were relentless in the final 25 minutes, converting three of their efforts into goals. The absence of assists for all five goals suggests that finishing was primarily individual, with no clear creative patterns dominating the match. The lack of cards and substitutions indicates a disciplined encounter with minimal tactical disruption.
The result leaves Malisheva with a valuable three points in the context of the Superliga table. Coming from two goals down against a side of Drita's standing demonstrates resilience and finishing quality. For Drita, the defeat is a missed opportunity after a first half that suggested control, and they will regret failing to add a third goal when they were dominant. The Lemeister model's pre-match read of a 42 per cent home win probability proved accurate, though the manner of the victory, driven by a late flurry from M. Zeka and B. Ferati, was more dramatic than the numbers alone predicted.
