How Dortmund Recovered From 13:22 to Beat CSM

BV Borussia Dortmund trailed CSM Bucuresti by nine goals early in the second half of their women’s EHF Champions League match on 19 September 2026, but recovered to win 35:32. The comeback erased a 13:22 deficit through a decisive 11:2 run and produced a 12-goal swing in the score state, from nine behind to three ahead.

Enter the low-point score and final margin to measure the comeback’s full swing.

The Nine-Goal Comeback Was Not a Nine-Goal Win

The phrase “nine-goal comeback” refers to Dortmund’s largest deficit, not the final margin or the total change in goal difference. CSM led 22:13 shortly after half-time, putting Dortmund nine behind. Dortmund then outscored CSM 22:10 over the remainder of the match to win by three.

Those figures describe three related but different measurements:

• Largest deficit erased: nine goals, from 13:22 back to level.
• Final winning margin: three goals, because Dortmund won 35:32.
• Total score-state swing: 12 goals, moving from minus nine to plus three.

Calling it a 12-goal victory would therefore be wrong. Dortmund won by three. Calling it only a nine-goal swing would also leave out the move from level to the final three-goal advantage.

The comeback itself had two phases. Dortmund first had to recover the nine goals needed to reach 24:24. They then had to win the remaining section 11:8 to turn the draw into a 35:32 victory.

Four Scores Show How Dortmund Reversed the Match

Match Point	Score	Meaning
Half-time	13:20	CSM led by seven
Early second half	13:22	CSM’s lead reached nine
46th minute	24:24	Dortmund completed an 11:2 run
Full-time	35:32	Dortmund won the last phase 11:8

The half-time score alone does not capture the full scale of the recovery. Dortmund were seven behind at the interval, but CSM scored the first two goals represented in the second-half progression and stretched the advantage to 22:13.

Dortmund’s response between the 33rd and 46th minutes was the match’s decisive sequence. An 11:2 run changed 13:22 into 24:24, according to the EHF’s round-three review.

The arithmetic of that run is direct. Dortmund added 11 goals while CSM added two, so Dortmund gained nine goals relative to CSM. That was exactly the amount required to eliminate the deficit.

Reaching 24:24 did not complete the result. It only returned the match to an even score. Mareike Thomaier subsequently made it 27:26, giving Dortmund their first lead. From the 24:24 tie to full-time, Dortmund scored 11 and CSM scored eight.

That closing 11:8 section matters because a comeback can reach level without producing a win. Dortmund not only caught CSM but also maintained enough scoring advantage to finish three goals ahead.

The Second-Half Split Produced a 17-Goal Reversal

The game contained 33 goals in the first half and 34 in the second. The combined scoring pace therefore changed very little. The distribution of those goals changed sharply.

Team	First Half	Second Half	Change
Dortmund	13	22	+9
CSM Bucuresti	20	12	-8
Combined	33	34	+1

Dortmund increased their output from 13 goals to 22. That is a rise of about 69%, calculated as the nine-goal increase divided by the first-half total of 13.

CSM moved in the opposite direction, falling from 20 goals before half-time to 12 afterward. That eight-goal decline represents a 40% reduction from their first-half output.

The more revealing figure is the difference between the teams in each half. CSM won the first half by seven goals, 20:13. Dortmund won the second half by 10, 22:12. Moving from a seven-goal disadvantage in one half to a 10-goal advantage in the other creates a 17-goal reversal between the half-by-half margins.

That 17-goal figure is not another description of the comeback deficit. It compares Dortmund’s performance relative to CSM across the two halves. The nine-goal figure measures the largest in-game deficit Dortmund erased, while the 12-goal figure measures the movement from 13:22 to the final margin.

The 67-goal match total is not by itself the unusual feature. Around 30 goals per team is common enough in modern handball that the total needs context rather than surprise. The exceptional part was how abruptly the scoring balance changed while the combined rate stayed nearly constant. For more context, see why 30 goals is a normal handball score.

The 11:2 Run Changed Both Ends of the Score

A large comeback requires more than an increase in attacking output. If the leading team continues scoring at the same rate, even a strong attacking spell may only keep the deficit stable.

Dortmund’s run worked because the team improved at both ends simultaneously. Scoring 11 times created the attacking pressure, while limiting CSM to two ensured that nine of those goals translated into a reduction of the deficit.

The difference can be seen by holding one side of the run constant. Had Dortmund scored 11 while CSM scored 11, the nine-goal deficit would have remained. Had Dortmund limited CSM to two but also scored only two, the score would likewise have stayed nine goals apart. The 11:2 combination supplied the required nine-goal net gain.

The run also occupied a specific part of the match rather than the entire second half. Dortmund scored 22 second-half goals in total, and 11 of them came during the recovery from 13:22 to 24:24. The other 11 came after the score was level. CSM’s 12 second-half goals divide into two during the comeback run and eight after 24:24, with the remaining two taking CSM from the half-time score of 20 to the 22:13 lead.

This breakdown accounts for every second-half goal:

• Dortmund: 11 during the run and 11 after the tie, for 22.
• CSM: two before the run, two during it and eight after the tie, for 12.

It also explains why the final score can make the game look closer than its turning point felt. The final margin was three, but Dortmund had to create a nine-goal net gain merely to get back to level before winning the final passage.

The Tactical Changes Addressed Attack and Defence

Dortmund centre back Alina Grijseels identified two adjustments after half-time: a switch to a 5–1 defence and the use of seven-against-six in attack. She said the changes worked well and put Dortmund “into a flow.” The EHF review also highlighted goalkeeper Nicole Wiggins’ saves as Dortmund began closing the gap.

In the 5–1 defensive arrangement, one defender operates farther forward than the line closer to the six-metre area. That advanced position can apply pressure higher up the court rather than allowing every defensive player to remain deep.

The seven-against-six attack addressed the other side of the score. Dortmund replaced the goalkeeper with an additional outfield player, creating a numerical advantage in attack. The trade-off was an empty goal until the goalkeeper could return.

Wiggins’ saves added a third component. A defensive system can influence the shots an opponent takes, but the goalkeeper still has to stop attempts that reach the goal. During a comeback, those saves can prevent the leading side from answering and create opportunities to narrow the margin at the other end.

The score progression is consistent with Grijseels’ account because Dortmund simultaneously raised their scoring and sharply reduced CSM’s output. The available figures do not isolate how many goals resulted from the 5–1 defence, how many came from seven-against-six possessions or how many should be attributed to individual saves.

It would therefore go beyond the reported evidence to assign a numerical value to each adjustment. What the score establishes is the combined effect during the decisive passage: Dortmund scored 11 while conceding two. The tactical comments explain the changes Dortmund made, while the scoring sequence shows when the match turned.

CSM’s Previous Form Made the Reversal More Unexpected

The clubs entered round three with opposite Champions League records. Dortmund had lost their first two group matches and were on a seven-game winless streak in the competition. CSM had opened with two victories, each by at least eight goals, and had won both previous meetings between the clubs, according to the EHF’s pre-match briefing.

CSM also arrived with the competition’s leading attack at that point: 73 goals across two matches. Their first half in Dortmund followed that attacking pattern. Emma Friis scored four times in the opening seven minutes, and CSM reached 20 goals by half-time.

The contrast came after the interval. CSM went from 20 first-half goals to 12 in the second, while Dortmund rose from 13 to 22. The result was not produced by a general increase in match pace; the teams combined for only one more goal in the second half than in the first. Instead, Dortmund took control of a similar amount of total scoring.

Individual totals also show that CSM retained several scoring contributors despite the collapse in team output. Thomaier led Dortmund with seven goals from nine shots. Friis, Valeriia Maslova and Crina Pintea each scored six for CSM, according to the EHF review.

Thomaier’s contribution included the goal that put Dortmund ahead for the first time at 27:26. Her seven-from-nine total represents the highest Dortmund tally reported for the match, but the comeback cannot be reduced to one scorer: the defining numerical change combined 22 second-half goals with CSM being held to 12.

The Result Ended Two Different Sequences

The 35:32 victory ended Dortmund’s seven-match Champions League winless run. It also ended CSM’s perfect start to the 2026/27 group phase after two opening wins.

Those outcomes help explain why the match was more than an ordinary three-goal home victory. Before the game, Dortmund’s recent competition record and CSM’s two emphatic wins pointed in opposite directions. During the game, CSM’s 22:13 lead appeared to continue that pattern. The final 27 minutes reported for the 11:2 sequence and subsequent finish reversed it.

The cleanest numerical summary is therefore not just the full-time score. Dortmund fell nine behind, used an 11:2 run to reach 24:24 and then won the remaining stretch 11:8. Across the second half they outscored CSM 22:12, overturning a seven-goal half-time deficit and finishing three ahead.

The evidence supports describing this as a nine-goal comeback because 13:22 was the largest stated deficit. It supports describing the full score-state movement as 12 goals, from minus nine to plus three. It does not establish that this was Dortmund’s largest comeback in club history or in Champions League history; no such comparative record is provided by the cited reports.