▸ Show moremonikausitrendit + railolinssi ●
The whole league in numbers – a five-season story →
The round as an edge-finder
next round · 10 matches left (17.–19.10.) · next kick-off Sat 17.10. 14.30 · fixtures from fixture data ●Where the market and the season table disagree, and what the season's numbers say about each team. Disagreements this round: 2. A dash means the market and the table agree. The market is shown only as a probability ▷, the table and numbers come from season 2026-27 matches before the round● measured.
1Fulham–Hull Cityla 17.10. klo 17.00table20. / 8.market ▷56 / 24 / 20 %place gap 12favourite lower in the table
2Tottenham–Coventryma 19.10. klo 22.00table19. / 14.market ▷64 / 21 / 16 %place gap 5favourite lower in the table
3Man City–Ipswichla 17.10. klo 17.00table1. / 10.market ▷77 / 14 / 9 %–
4Brighton–Crystal Palacesu 18.10. klo 16.00table3. / 12.market ▷61 / 22 / 18 %–
5Nott'm Forest–Arsenalsu 18.10. klo 18.30table15. / 2.market ▷16 / 24 / 60 %–
6Bournemouth–Sunderlandsu 18.10. klo 16.00table18. / 17.market ▷46 / 27 / 27 %–
7Newcastle–Aston Villala 17.10. klo 19.30table11. / 16.market ▷45 / 26 / 30 %–
8Everton–Chelseala 17.10. klo 14.30table5. / 6.market ▷30 / 26 / 44 %–
9Leeds–Man Utdsu 18.10. klo 16.00table7. / 13.market ▷39 / 26 / 35 %–
10Brentford–
Liverpoolla 17.10. klo 17.00table4. / 9.market ▷39 / 26 / 35 %–
The table recommends nothing: it shows where two measures disagree, not which one is right. After the match both are graded against the outcome in the preview receipt.● measured
Matches
every match's preview + outcome · matchweeks 1–7 · 60/70 played ●Rhythm hits in 71 %, player pick in 17 %. Every preview claim is graded against the outcome, and misses count with the same weight as hits. Open claims (26) are not in the denominator.
Matchweek 7upcoming
Everton–Chelseala 17.10. klo 14.30preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Everton shoot this season 15.8 times per match (4th in the league, last season 11.1 and 15th in the league), Chelsea: 13.5 shots conceded (league 10.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Everton score this season from 8.4 percent of their shots (13th in the league, last season 11.2 and 8th in the league), Chelsea: save percentage on shots on target 63.9 (league 13.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Everton scored 60 percent of their goals in the second half, Chelsea 55 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Everton.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (306/568), league 2./20
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Box pressure delivers. 65 shots from inside the box (league 4./20) and 8 goals, 95 shots in total (4./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 28.3 points on average in 6 matches, top three 4 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Plays without the ball: possession 44 % (league's 4. lowest); space comes from transitions.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Chelsea shoot this season 13.7 times per match (10th in the league, last season 13.4 and 6th in the league), Everton: 13.0 shots conceded (league 9.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Chelsea score this season from 18.3 percent of their shots (2nd in the league, last season 11.3 and 7th in the league), Everton: save percentage on shots on target 78.3 (league 5.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Chelsea win this season 5.7 corners per match (4th in the league, last season 6.1 and 4th in the league), Everton: 4.8 corners conceded (league 8.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (300/555), league 3./20
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Goalkeeper level on show. 25 saves (league 1./20) against 1.75 xG
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. João Pedro is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 40.4 points on average in 5 matches, top three 4 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Patient build-up: 40 passes per shot (league's 2. most).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Brentford–Liverpoolla 17.10. klo 17.00preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brentford shoot this season 15.8 times per match (5th in the league, last season 10.7 and 16th in the league), Liverpool: 12.2 shots conceded (league 8.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brentford score this season from 12.6 percent of their shots (8th in the league, last season 13.6 and 1st in the league), Liverpool: save percentage on shots on target 68.2 (league 8.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Brentford win this season 4.0 corners per match (16th in the league, last season 4.8 and 13th in the league), Liverpool: 4.7 corners conceded (league 10.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 22 saves (league 3./20) against 1.34 xG
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Box pressure delivers. 72 shots from inside the box (league 1./20) and 12 goals, 95 shots in total (5./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Kevin Schade is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 23.7 points on average in 6 matches, top three 2 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Liverpool shoot this season 14.8 times per match (6th in the league, last season 15.5 and 3rd in the league), Brentford: 14.5 shots conceded (league 13.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Liverpool score this season from 7.9 percent of their shots (15th in the league, last season 10.7 and 12th in the league), Brentford: save percentage on shots on target 80.0 (league 3.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Liverpool scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Brentford 56 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Liverpool.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.27)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Player pick. Alexander Isak is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 26.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 59 % and 531 passes/match (league 2.).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Fulham–Hull Cityla 17.10. klo 17.00preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Fulham shoot this season 14.2 times per match (7th in the league, last season 12.7 and 10th in the league), Hull City: 14.0 shots conceded (league 11.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Fulham score this season from 7.1 percent of their shots (18th in the league, last season 9.8 and 18th in the league), Hull City: save percentage on shots on target 78.6 (league 4.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Fulham scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, liigan taso 57 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Fulham.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 6 goals from 9.47 expected (xG), a gap of -3.47, league 17./20
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Set pieces without output. 33 corners (league 5./20) and 6 goals
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Josh King is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 20.3 points on average in 6 matches, top three 2 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.6 times/match (league 3.).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Hull City shoot this season 11.7 times per match (15th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Fulham: 15.7 shots conceded (league 15.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Hull City score this season from 11.4 percent of their shots (9th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Fulham: save percentage on shots on target 65.5 (league 9.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Hull City win this season 4.0 corners per match (15th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Fulham: 4.7 corners conceded (league 11.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Direct play delivers. Possession 33 % (20./20) and pass accuracy 72 % (20./20), yet output above expected (+1.11)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: The lead held to the end. The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Konstantinos Tzolakis is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 23.8 points on average in 6 matches, top three 4 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Man City–Ipswichla 17.10. klo 17.00preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man City shoot this season 13.8 times per match (9th in the league, last season 15.7 and 2nd in the league), Ipswich: 16.5 shots conceded (league 17.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man City score this season from 19.3 percent of their shots (1st in the league, last season 12.9 and 2nd in the league), Ipswich: save percentage on shots on target 63.6 (league 14.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Man City win this season 6.2 corners per match (3rd in the league, last season 6.5 and 1st in the league), Ipswich: 5.2 corners conceded (league 5.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +4.62)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Player pick. Erling Haaland is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 32.8 points on average in 6 matches, top three 3 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 60 % and 587 passes/match (league 1.).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Ipswich shoot this season 11.5 times per match (17th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Man City: 12.0 shots conceded (league 6.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Ipswich score this season from 13.0 percent of their shots (6th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Man City: save percentage on shots on target 80.8 (league 2.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Ipswich win this season 3.3 corners per match (18th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Man City: 4.3 corners conceded (league 16.). The expectation is at least 3 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Player pick. Emersonn is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 19.7 points on average in 6 matches, top three 2 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Newcastle–Aston Villala 17.10. klo 19.30preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Newcastle shoot this season 11.7 times per match (16th in the league, last season 12.9 and 8th in the league), Aston Villa: 15.8 shots conceded (league 16.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Newcastle score this season from 14.3 percent of their shots (4th in the league, last season 10.8 and 11th in the league), Aston Villa: save percentage on shots on target 63.3 (league 16.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Newcastle win this season 4.7 corners per match (9th in the league, last season 6.1 and 3rd in the league), Aston Villa: 4.3 corners conceded (league 15.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Opponents get into the box. 63 shots against from inside the box (3rd most of 20), 107 shots in total (59 % from the box)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Player pick. Anthony Elanga is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 23.7 points on average in 3 matches, top three 1 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Aston Villa shoot this season 11.3 times per match (18th in the league, last season 12.7 and 9th in the league), Newcastle: 17.8 shots conceded (league 19.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Aston Villa score this season from 8.8 percent of their shots (12th in the league, last season 11.6 and 4th in the league), Newcastle: save percentage on shots on target 61.8 (league 17.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Aston Villa scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Newcastle 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Aston Villa.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -0.79)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Player pick. Johan Manzambi is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 23.7 points on average in 3 matches, top three 2 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.9 times/match (league 2.).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Bournemouth–Sunderlandsu 18.10. klo 16.00preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Bournemouth shoot this season 12.8 times per match (13th in the league, last season 13.8 and 5th in the league), Sunderland: 12.2 shots conceded (league 7.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Bournemouth score this season from 9.1 percent of their shots (11th in the league, last season 11.1 and 9th in the league), Sunderland: save percentage on shots on target 40.0 (league 20.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Bournemouth win this season 4.7 corners per match (8th in the league, last season 5.6 and 6th in the league), Sunderland: 4.0 corners conceded (league 17.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The cost of indiscipline grows. 18 cards (league 2./20) and 75 fouls (6./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.19)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Marcus Tavernier is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 26.3 points on average in 6 matches, top three 3 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 2. most direct.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Sunderland shoot this season 13.0 times per match (12th in the league, last season 10.4 and 18th in the league), Bournemouth: 10.7 shots conceded (league 2.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Sunderland score this season from 7.7 percent of their shots (16th in the league, last season 10.6 and 14th in the league), Bournemouth: save percentage on shots on target 50.0 (league 19.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Sunderland scored 69 percent of their goals in the second half, Bournemouth 55 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Sunderland.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 6 goals from 10.27 expected (xG), a gap of -4.27, league 19./20
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.81)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Brian Brobbey is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 22.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 1 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Brighton–Crystal Palacesu 18.10. klo 16.00preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brighton shoot this season 18.0 times per match (2nd in the league, last season 13.0 and 7th in the league), Crystal Palace: 18.0 shots conceded (league 20.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brighton score this season from 16.7 percent of their shots (3rd in the league, last season 10.5 and 15th in the league), Crystal Palace: save percentage on shots on target 64.7 (league 11.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Brighton scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Crystal Palace 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Brighton.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 69 shots from inside the box (league 3./20) and 18 goals, 108 shots in total (2./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: The cost of indiscipline grows. 14 cards (league 3./20) and 77 fouls (5./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Pascal Groß is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 31.3 points on average in 6 matches, top three 3 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 54 % and 476 passes/match (league 5.).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Crystal Palace shoot this season 11.0 times per match (19th in the league, last season 11.6 and 13th in the league), Brighton: 11.7 shots conceded (league 5.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Crystal Palace score this season from 13.6 percent of their shots (5th in the league, last season 9.3 and 19th in the league), Brighton: save percentage on shots on target 77.3 (league 6.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Crystal Palace win this season 2.8 corners per match (19th in the league, last season 4.2 and 17th in the league), Brighton: 5.0 corners conceded (league 6.). The expectation is at least 3 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Opponents get into the box. 78 shots against from inside the box (1st most of 20), 108 shots in total (72 % from the box)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Player pick. Daichi Kamada is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 22.8 points on average in 6 matches, top three 5 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Leeds–Man Utdsu 18.10. klo 16.00preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Leeds shoot this season 12.0 times per match (14th in the league, last season 12.6 and 11th in the league), Man Utd: 10.8 shots conceded (league 3.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Leeds score this season from 11.1 percent of their shots (10th in the league, last season 10.2 and 16th in the league), Man Utd: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 10.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Leeds win this season 4.3 corners per match (12th in the league, last season 4.4 and 15th in the league), Man Utd: 3.8 corners conceded (league 19.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 24 saves (league 2./20) against 1.50 xG
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Player pick. James Trafford is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 22.0 points on average in 6 matches, top three 4 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 31 passes per shot, the league's 3. most direct.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man Utd shoot this season 20.8 times per match (1st in the league, last season 15.7 and 1st in the league), Leeds: 14.3 shots conceded (league 12.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man Utd score this season from 7.2 percent of their shots (17th in the league, last season 11.6 and 5th in the league), Leeds: save percentage on shots on target 81.5 (league 1.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Man Utd scored 58 percent of their goals in the second half, Leeds 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Manchester United.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 71 shots from inside the box (league 2./20) and 9 goals, 125 shots in total (1./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: No route into the box. 43 % of shots from outside the box (league 1./20) and chance quality only 0.084 xG per shot (19./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Bruno Fernandes is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 26.3 points on average in 6 matches, top three 3 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 1. most direct.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Nott'm Forest–Arsenalsu 18.10. klo 18.30preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Nott'm Forest shoot this season 17.7 times per match (3rd in the league, last season 12.5 and 12th in the league), Arsenal: 10.7 shots conceded (league 1.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Nott'm Forest score this season from 4.7 percent of their shots (19th in the league, last season 10.1 and 17th in the league), Arsenal: save percentage on shots on target 73.7 (league 7.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Nott'm Forest win this season 4.2 corners per match (13th in the league, last season 5.2 and 9th in the league), Arsenal: 3.3 corners conceded (league 20.). The expectation is at least 3 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 5 goals from 10.23 expected (xG), a gap of -5.23, league 20./20
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Box pressure delivers. 64 shots from inside the box (league 5./20) and 5 goals, 106 shots in total (3./20)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Player pick. Morgan Gibbs-White is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 23.2 points on average in 6 matches, top three 4 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.9/match).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Arsenal shoot this season 13.0 times per match (11th in the league, last season 14.5 and 4th in the league), Nott'm Forest: 10.8 shots conceded (league 4.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Arsenal score this season from 12.8 percent of their shots (7th in the league, last season 12.9 and 3rd in the league), Nott'm Forest: save percentage on shots on target 63.6 (league 15.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Arsenal win this season 4.5 corners per match (10th in the league, last season 5.7 and 5th in the league), Nott'm Forest: 4.7 corners conceded (league 9.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (289/538), league 1./20
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +2.23)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Player pick. Martin Ødegaard is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 24.8 points on average in 6 matches, top three 2 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.7/match).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Tottenham–Coventryma 19.10. klo 22.00preview · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Tottenham shoot this season 13.8 times per match (8th in the league, last season 11.5 and 14th in the league), Coventry: 17.7 shots conceded (league 18.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Tottenham score this season from 3.6 percent of their shots (20th in the league, last season 11.0 and 10th in the league), Coventry: save percentage on shots on target 60.7 (league 18.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Tottenham win this season 7.0 corners per match (1st in the league, last season 5.5 and 7th in the league), Coventry: 4.8 corners conceded (league 7.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 3 goals from 6.50 expected (xG), a gap of -3.50, league 18./20
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Set pieces without output. 42 corners (league 1./20) and 3 goals
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Player pick. Sávio is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 21.0 points on average in 4 matches, top three 2 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 1.8 times/match (league 5.).
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Coventry shoot this season 10.0 times per match (20th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Tottenham: 14.7 shots conceded (league 14.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Coventry score this season from 8.3 percent of their shots (14th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Tottenham: save percentage on shots on target 64.0 (league 12.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Third: Set pieces. Coventry win this season 3.7 corners per match (17th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Tottenham: 4.5 corners conceded (league 13.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Fourth: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 38 % (league 19./20), own output 1.05 xG and 1.75 xG given to opponents (3./20 most): 6 metrics at the bottom end at once
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
One more: Opponents get into the box. 63 shots against from inside the box (2nd most of 20), 105 shots in total (60 % from the box)
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
Finally: Player pick. Bobby Thomas is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 16.5 points on average in 6 matches, top three 4 times.
The outcome will be recorded here after the match.
The outcome will be recorded here once the match is played and the round data read.
Matchweek 6claims held 57/125
Arsenal–Leeds2–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/12 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Arsenal shoot this season 13.0 times per match (13th in the league, last season 14.5 and 4th in the league), Leeds: 14.6 shots conceded (league 13.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 13.0, opponent concedes 14.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Arsenal score this season from 12.3 percent of their shots (6th in the league, last season 12.9 and 3rd in the league), Leeds: save percentage on shots on target 85.7 (league 1.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 2 goals from 2.66 expected (-0.66), 15 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Arsenal scored 58 percent of their goals in the second half, Leeds 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Arsenal.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.45 → 2.21 xG, shots 4 → 9.
Fourth: The duels carry. 53 % of duels won (234/438), league 3./20
What happened: Duels carry repeated in this match: 55 % of duels won.
One more: Player pick. Bukayo Saka is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 27.4 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Bukayo Saka ranked 11/16 in his team's match ratings
Finally: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.7/match).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 4 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 3/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Leeds shoot this season 12.2 times per match (15th in the league, last season 12.6 and 11th in the league), Arsenal: 10.6 shots conceded (league 2.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 11 shots (baseline 12.2, opponent concedes 10.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Leeds score this season from 11.5 percent of their shots (8th in the league, last season 10.2 and 16th in the league), Arsenal: save percentage on shots on target 71.4 (league 8.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.74 expected (+0.26), 9 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Leeds win this season 4.4 corners per match (9th in the league, last season 4.4 and 15th in the league), Arsenal: 3.2 corners conceded (league 20.). The expectation is at least 3 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 4 corners (expected 3), 1 goals.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (299/555), league 1./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 45 % of duels won.
One more: Goalkeeper level on show. 20 saves (league 2./20) against 1.27 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing repeated in this match: 4 saves.
Finally: Player pick. Jayden Bogle is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 24.4 points on average in 5 matches, top three 2 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Jayden Bogle ranked 14/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 31 passes per shot, the league's 3. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 32.4 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 7/12 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Aston Villa–Brentford2–2puoliaika 1–1outcome: 5/14 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Aston Villa shoot this season 9.6 times per match (20th in the league, last season 12.7 and 9th in the league), Brentford: 13.4 shots conceded (league 9.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 20 shots (baseline 9.6, opponent concedes 13.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Aston Villa score this season from 8.3 percent of their shots (14th in the league, last season 11.6 and 4th in the league), Brentford: save percentage on shots on target 82.6 (league 3.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.84 expected (+0.16), 10 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Aston Villa scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Brentford 56 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Aston Villa.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 1.28 → 0.56 xG, shots 10 → 10.
Fourth: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 46 % (league 13./20), own output 0.91 xG and 1.83 xG given to opponents (1./20 most): 3 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end turned in this match: possession 52 %, 2 goals.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 12/48 shots on target, i.e. 25 % (league 19./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target turned in this match: 7/20 on target (35 %).
Finally: Player pick. Zion Suzuki is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 20.0 points on average in 4 matches, top three 1 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Zion Suzuki ranked 7/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.9 times/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 1 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 2/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brentford shoot this season 16.2 times per match (4th in the league, last season 10.7 and 16th in the league), Aston Villa: 16.2 shots conceded (league 15.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 14 shots (baseline 16.2, opponent concedes 16.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brentford score this season from 12.3 percent of their shots (5th in the league, last season 13.6 and 1st in the league), Aston Villa: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 12.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.31 expected (+0.69), 14 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brentford win this season 4.4 corners per match (10th in the league, last season 4.8 and 13th in the league), Aston Villa: 4.8 corners conceded (league 9.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 60 shots from inside the box (league 3./20) and 10 goals, 81 shots in total (4./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 12 shots from the box, 2 goals, 20 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.67)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.56 → 0.75 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Kevin Schade is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 27.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 2 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Kevin Schade ranked 12/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: The playing-style claim did not hold: 25 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 5/14 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Chelsea–Bournemouth5–1puoliaika 2–0outcome: 5/12 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Chelsea shoot this season 14.4 times per match (8th in the league, last season 13.4 and 6th in the league), Bournemouth: 10.8 shots conceded (league 4.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 10 shots (baseline 14.4, opponent concedes 10.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Chelsea score this season from 13.9 percent of their shots (4th in the league, last season 11.3 and 7th in the league), Bournemouth: save percentage on shots on target 60.0 (league 18.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 5 goals from 1.16 expected (+3.84), 50 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Chelsea win this season 6.6 corners per match (3rd in the league, last season 6.1 and 4th in the league), Bournemouth: 4.6 corners conceded (league 14.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 1 corners (expected 5), 5 goals.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (243/451), league 2./20
What happened: Duels carry repeated in this match: 55 % of duels won.
One more: Goalkeeper level on show. 22 saves (league 1./20) against 1.80 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 3 saves.
Finally: Player pick. João Pedro is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 35.2 points on average in 4 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick held: João Pedro was among his team's best in match ratings (2/16) and produced 2+0.
And: Style of play. Patient build-up: 40 passes per shot (league's 2. most).
What happened: Style claim held: 48.8 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 4/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Bournemouth shoot this season 13.6 times per match (11th in the league, last season 13.8 and 5th in the league), Chelsea: 14.4 shots conceded (league 12.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 9 shots (baseline 13.6, opponent concedes 14.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Bournemouth score this season from 8.8 percent of their shots (13th in the league, last season 11.1 and 9th in the league), Chelsea: save percentage on shots on target 62.5 (league 14.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.52 expected (-0.52), 11 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Bournemouth win this season 4.2 corners per match (12th in the league, last season 5.6 and 6th in the league), Chelsea: 5.2 corners conceded (league 5.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 7 corners (expected 4), 1 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Marcus Tavernier is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 30.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Marcus Tavernier ranked 6/16 in his team's match ratings
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 2. most direct.
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 52.4 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 1/5 held
Outcome · 5/12 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Ipswich–Fulham2–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 2/12 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Ipswich shoot this season 11.6 times per match (16th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Fulham: 16.6 shots conceded (league 16.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 11.6, opponent concedes 16.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Ipswich score this season from 12.1 percent of their shots (7th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Fulham: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 11.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.22 expected (+0.78), 18 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Ipswich win this season 3.6 corners per match (16th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Fulham: 5.2 corners conceded (league 4.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -0.81)
What happened: The second half fades turned in this match: threat 0.11 → 1.11 xG.
One more: Player pick. Emersonn is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 22.0 points on average in 5 matches, top three 2 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Emersonn ranked 11/16 in his team's match ratings
From this match: 1/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Fulham shoot this season 14.4 times per match (7th in the league, last season 12.7 and 10th in the league), Ipswich: 17.2 shots conceded (league 18.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 13 shots (baseline 14.4, opponent concedes 17.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Fulham score this season from 6.9 percent of their shots (17th in the league, last season 9.8 and 18th in the league), Ipswich: save percentage on shots on target 60.7 (league 17.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.87 expected (-0.87), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Fulham scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, liigan taso 57 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Fulham.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.48 → 1.39 xG, shots 7 → 6.
Fourth: Set pieces without output. 28 corners (league 5./20) and 5 goals
What happened: Set pieces without output turned in this match: 5 corners and 1 goals.
One more: Box pressure delivers. 53 shots from inside the box (league 5./20) and 5 goals, 70 shots in total (9./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers turned in this match: 9 shots from the box, 1 goals, 11 shots against.
Finally: Player pick. Josh King is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 21.8 points on average in 5 matches, top three 2 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Josh King ranked 5/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.6 times/match (league 3.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 0 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 1/7 held
Outcome · 2/12 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Sunderland–Brighton0–2puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/13 held (2 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Sunderland shoot this season 13.2 times per match (12th in the league, last season 10.4 and 18th in the league), Brighton: 11.6 shots conceded (league 5.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 12 shots (baseline 13.2, opponent concedes 11.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Sunderland score this season from 9.1 percent of their shots (12th in the league, last season 10.6 and 14th in the league), Brighton: save percentage on shots on target 73.7 (league 7.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.68 expected (-0.68), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Sunderland scored 69 percent of their goals in the second half, Brighton 62 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Sunderland.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 0.43 → 0.25 xG, shots 4 → 8.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 6 goals from 9.59 expected (xG), a gap of -3.59, league 19./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 0 goals from 0.68 xG (-0.68).
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.99)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 0.43 → 0.25 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Granit Xhaka is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 23.2 points on average in 5 matches, top three 4 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Granit Xhaka ranked 5/14 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: Style claim held: 54 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 2/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brighton shoot this season 19.0 times per match (2nd in the league, last season 13.0 and 7th in the league), Sunderland: 12.0 shots conceded (league 8.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 13 shots (baseline 19.0, opponent concedes 12.0).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brighton score this season from 16.8 percent of their shots (3rd in the league, last season 10.5 and 15th in the league), Sunderland: save percentage on shots on target 37.5 (league 20.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.14 expected (+0.86), 15 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brighton win this season 5.4 corners per match (6th in the league, last season 4.9 and 12th in the league), Sunderland: 3.8 corners conceded (league 19.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 63 shots from inside the box (league 2./20) and 16 goals, 95 shots in total (2./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 6 shots from the box, 2 goals, 12 shots against.
One more: The cost of indiscipline grows. 12 cards (league 2./20) and 65 fouls (5./20)
What happened: The cost of indiscipline grows repeated in this match: 2 cards, 12 fouls.
Finally: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
And: Player pick. Pascal Groß is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 33.2 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Pascal Groß ranked 4/16 in his team's match ratings and produced 0+1.
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 54 % and 476 passes/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: possession 38 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 5/7 held
Outcome · 7/13 held (2 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Man Utd–Tottenham1–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/15 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man Utd shoot this season 22.6 times per match (1st in the league, last season 15.7 and 1st in the league), Tottenham: 15.2 shots conceded (league 14.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 12 shots (baseline 22.6, opponent concedes 15.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man Utd score this season from 7.1 percent of their shots (16th in the league, last season 11.6 and 5th in the league), Tottenham: save percentage on shots on target 61.9 (league 15.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.88 expected (+0.12), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man Utd win this season 7.2 corners per match (2nd in the league, last season 4.8 and 14th in the league), Tottenham: 4.6 corners conceded (league 12.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 63 shots from inside the box (league 1./20) and 8 goals, 113 shots in total (1./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers turned in this match: 8 shots from the box, 1 goals, 12 shots against.
One more: No route into the box. 44 % of shots from outside the box (league 2./20) and chance quality only 0.086 xG per shot (19./20)
What happened: No route into the box turned in this match: 33 % of shots from outside the box.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+1.
And: Player pick. Bruno Fernandes is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 29.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Bruno Fernandes ranked 8/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 1. most direct.
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 38.9 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 2/8 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Tottenham shoot this season 14.2 times per match (9th in the league, last season 11.5 and 14th in the league), Man Utd: 10.6 shots conceded (league 3.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 12 shots (baseline 14.2, opponent concedes 10.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Tottenham score this season from 2.8 percent of their shots (19th in the league, last season 11.0 and 10th in the league), Man Utd: save percentage on shots on target 65.2 (league 13.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.68 expected (-0.68), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Tottenham win this season 7.6 corners per match (1st in the league, last season 5.5 and 7th in the league), Man Utd: 3.8 corners conceded (league 18.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 4 corners (expected 4), 1 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 2 goals from 4.82 expected (xG), a gap of -2.82, league 17./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 1 goals from 1.68 xG (-0.68).
One more: Set pieces without output. 38 corners (league 1./20) and 2 goals
What happened: Set pieces without output turned in this match: 4 corners and 1 goals.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+1.
And: Player pick. Sávio is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 22.0 points on average in 3 matches, top three 1 times.
What happened: The player call held: Sávio was among their team's best in the match scoring (3./16).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 1.8 times/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 5/7 held
Outcome · 7/15 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Crystal Palace–Nott'm Forest3–1puoliaika 2–1outcome: 9/13 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Crystal Palace shoot this season 10.6 times per match (17th in the league, last season 11.6 and 13th in the league), Nott'm Forest: 10.4 shots conceded (league 1.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 10.6, opponent concedes 10.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Crystal Palace score this season from 11.3 percent of their shots (9th in the league, last season 9.3 and 19th in the league), Nott'm Forest: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 10.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 2.42 expected (+0.58), 23 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Crystal Palace win this season 2.4 corners per match (20th in the league, last season 4.2 and 17th in the league), Nott'm Forest: 4.6 corners conceded (league 11.). The expectation is at least 2 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 2), 3 goals.
Fourth: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 44 % (league 18./20), own output 1.25 xG and 1.75 xG given to opponents (4./20 most): 3 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end turned in this match: possession 43 %, 3 goals.
One more: Opponents get into the box. 62 shots against from inside the box (1st most of 20), 84 shots in total (74 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box repeated in this match: 16 shots against from inside the box.
Finally: Player pick. Daichi Kamada is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 21.8 points on average in 5 matches, top three 4 times.
What happened: Player pick held: Daichi Kamada was among his team's best in match ratings (3/15) and produced 1+0.
From this match: 5/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Nott'm Forest shoot this season 16.4 times per match (3rd in the league, last season 12.5 and 12th in the league), Crystal Palace: 16.8 shots conceded (league 17.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 24 shots (baseline 16.4, opponent concedes 16.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Nott'm Forest score this season from 4.9 percent of their shots (18th in the league, last season 10.1 and 17th in the league), Crystal Palace: save percentage on shots on target 60.7 (league 16.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 2.98 expected (-1.98), 4 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Nott'm Forest scored 60 percent of their goals in the second half, Crystal Palace 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Nottingham Forest.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 2.18 → 0.80 xG, shots 16 → 8.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 4 goals from 7.25 expected (xG), a gap of -3.25, league 18./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 1 goals from 2.98 xG (-1.98).
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 17/82 shots on target, i.e. 21 % (league 20./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target repeated in this match: 6/24 on target (25 %).
Finally: Player pick. Morgan Gibbs-White is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 23.2 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: The player call held: Morgan Gibbs-White was among their team's best in the match scoring (2./15).
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.9/match).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 4/7 held
Outcome · 9/13 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Hull City–Everton2–2puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/11 held (3 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Hull City shoot this season 12.2 times per match (14th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Everton: 13.8 shots conceded (league 11.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 9 shots (baseline 12.2, opponent concedes 13.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Hull City score this season from 9.8 percent of their shots (10th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Everton: save percentage on shots on target 83.3 (league 2.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.37 expected (+0.63), 22 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Hull City win this season 3.4 corners per match (17th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Everton: 4.4 corners conceded (league 15.). The expectation is at least 3 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 7 corners (expected 3), 2 goals.
Fourth: Direct play delivers. Possession 32 % (20./20) and pass accuracy 72 % (20./20), yet output above expected (+0.48)
What happened: Direct play delivers repeated in this match: possession 35 %, 2 goals.
One more: The lead held to the end. The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
What happened: The lead held to the end stayed open in this match: no half-time lead in this match.
Finally: Player pick. Konstantinos Tzolakis is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 25.8 points on average in 5 matches, top three 4 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Konstantinos Tzolakis ranked 5/15 in his team's match ratings
From this match: 3/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Everton shoot this season 16.0 times per match (5th in the league, last season 11.1 and 15th in the league), Hull City: 13.8 shots conceded (league 10.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 15 shots (baseline 16.0, opponent concedes 13.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Everton score this season from 7.5 percent of their shots (15th in the league, last season 11.2 and 8th in the league), Hull City: save percentage on shots on target 81.0 (league 4.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.73 expected (+0.27), 13 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Everton win this season 5.0 corners per match (8th in the league, last season 4.3 and 16th in the league), Hull City: 6.0 corners conceded (league 1.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 54 shots from inside the box (league 4./20) and 6 goals, 80 shots in total (5./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 11 shots from the box, 2 goals, 9 shots against.
One more: The lead held to the end. The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
What happened: The lead held to the end stayed open in this match: no half-time lead in this match.
Finally: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
And: Player pick. James Tarkowski is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 27.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: James Tarkowski ranked 4/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Plays without the ball: possession 44 % (league's 4. lowest); space comes from transitions.
What happened: Style claim did not hold: possession 65 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 7/11 held (3 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Liverpool–Man City0–3puoliaika 0–0outcome: 5/11 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Liverpool shoot this season 15.2 times per match (6th in the league, last season 15.5 and 3rd in the league), Man City: 11.8 shots conceded (league 7.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 13 shots (baseline 15.2, opponent concedes 11.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Liverpool score this season from 9.2 percent of their shots (11th in the league, last season 10.7 and 12th in the league), Man City: save percentage on shots on target 75.0 (league 6.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.02 expected (-1.02), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Last season Liverpool scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Man City 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Liverpool.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 0.51 → 0.51 xG, shots 5 → 8.
Fourth: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.27)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 0.51 → 0.51 xG.
One more: Player pick. Alexander Isak is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 26.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Alexander Isak did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 59 % and 531 passes/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: possession 35 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 0/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man City shoot this season 13.6 times per match (10th in the league, last season 15.7 and 2nd in the league), Liverpool: 11.6 shots conceded (league 6.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 15 shots (baseline 13.6, opponent concedes 11.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man City score this season from 19.1 percent of their shots (1st in the league, last season 12.9 and 2nd in the league), Liverpool: save percentage on shots on target 77.8 (league 5.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 1.35 expected (+1.65), 20 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man City win this season 6.2 corners per match (4th in the league, last season 6.5 and 1st in the league), Liverpool: 4.4 corners conceded (league 16.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 4), 3 goals.
Fourth: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.49)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.11 → 1.24 xG.
One more: Player pick. Erling Haaland is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 33.4 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Erling Haaland ranked 5/14 in his team's match ratings and produced 1+0.
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 60 % and 587 passes/match (league 1.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 65 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 5/6 held
Outcome · 5/11 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Coventry–Newcastle4–1puoliaika 1–0outcome: 3/12 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Coventry shoot this season 10.2 times per match (18th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Newcastle: 19.6 shots conceded (league 20.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 9 shots (baseline 10.2, opponent concedes 19.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Coventry score this season from 2.0 percent of their shots (20th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Newcastle: save percentage on shots on target 67.9 (league 9.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 4 goals from 1.47 expected (+2.53), 44 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Coventry win this season 4.0 corners per match (13th in the league, not in the Premier League last season), Newcastle: 6.0 corners conceded (league 2.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 4), 4 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 1 goals from 4.85 expected (xG), a gap of -3.85, league 20./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency turned in this match: 4 goals from 1.47 xG (+2.53).
One more: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 39 % (league 19./20), own output 0.97 xG and 1.73 xG given to opponents (6./20 most): 5 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end turned in this match: possession 33 %, 4 goals.
Finally: Player pick. Bobby Thomas is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 15.6 points on average in 5 matches, top three 4 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Bobby Thomas ranked 5/16 in his team's match ratings
From this match: 1/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Newcastle shoot this season 10.2 times per match (19th in the league, last season 12.9 and 8th in the league), Coventry: 17.4 shots conceded (league 19.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 19 shots (baseline 10.2, opponent concedes 17.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Newcastle score this season from 17.6 percent of their shots (2nd in the league, last season 10.8 and 11th in the league), Coventry: save percentage on shots on target 54.5 (league 19.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.87 expected (-0.87), 5 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Newcastle win this season 4.4 corners per match (11th in the league, last season 6.1 and 3rd in the league), Coventry: 4.6 corners conceded (league 10.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 4), 1 goals.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 19 saves (league 3./20) against 1.66 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 2 saves.
One more: Opponents get into the box. 57 shots against from inside the box (2nd most of 20), 98 shots in total (58 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box turned in this match: 6 shots against from inside the box.
Finally: Player pick. Lewis Hall is the team's best in the match ratings this season: 25.4 points on average in 5 matches, top three 3 times.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Lewis Hall ranked 7/16 in his team's match ratings
From this match: 2/6 held
Outcome · 3/12 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Matchweek 5claims held 56/119show 10 matches ▾
Brentford–Chelsea3–0puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/14 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brentford shot 10.7 times per match (league 16.), Chelsea: 10.9 shots conceded (league 3.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 10.7, opponent concedes 10.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brentford scored from 13.6 percent of their shots (league 1.), Chelsea: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 12.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 2.65 expected (+0.35), 23 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brentford won 4.8 corners per match (league 13.), Chelsea: 4.3 corners conceded (league 18.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 4), 3 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 51 shots from inside the box (league 2./20) and 7 goals, 68 shots in total (3./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 9 shots from the box, 3 goals, 12 shots against.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 17/68 shots on target, i.e. 25 % (league 17./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target turned in this match: 6/13 on target (46 %).
Finally: Player pick. Mathias Jensen: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Mathias Jensen did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: Style claim held: 33 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 4/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Chelsea shot 13.4 times per match (league 6.), Brentford: 13.3 shots conceded (league 14.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 12 shots (baseline 13.4, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Chelsea scored from 11.3 percent of their shots (league 7.), Brentford: save percentage on shots on target 67.9 (league 9.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.83 expected (-0.83), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Chelsea won 6.1 corners per match (league 4.), Brentford: 5.4 corners conceded (league 5.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 12 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 19 saves (league 1./20) against 1.58 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 3 saves.
One more: Opponents get into the box. 42 shots against from inside the box (3rd most of 20), 59 shots in total (71 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box repeated in this match: 9 shots against from inside the box.
Finally: Player pick. João Pedro comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: João Pedro did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. Patient build-up: 40 passes per shot (league's 2. most).
What happened: Style claim held: 42.8 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 7/14 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Tottenham–Aston Villa2–3puoliaika 0–1outcome: 8/14 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Tottenham shot 11.5 times per match (league 14.), Aston Villa: 12.9 shots conceded (league 13.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 20 shots (baseline 11.5, opponent concedes 12.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Tottenham scored from 11.0 percent of their shots (league 10.), Aston Villa: save percentage on shots on target 70.8 (league 3.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.56 expected (+0.44), 10 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Tottenham won 5.5 corners per match (league 7.), Aston Villa: 4.9 corners conceded (league 11.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 11 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 3.26 expected (xG), a gap of -3.26, league 19./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency stayed open in this match: 2 goals from 1.56 xG (+0.44).
One more: Set pieces without output. 27 corners (league 1./20) and 0 goals
What happened: Set pieces without output turned in this match: 11 corners and 2 goals.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
And: Player pick. João Gonçalves comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: João Gonçalves did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 1.8 times/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 5/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Aston Villa shot 12.7 times per match (league 9.), Tottenham: 12.2 shots conceded (league 9.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 15 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 12.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Aston Villa scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 4.), Tottenham: save percentage on shots on target 63.0 (league 19.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 1.16 expected (+1.84), 20 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Aston Villa scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Tottenham 58 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Aston Villa.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 0.82 → 0.35 xG, shots 9 → 6.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 1 goals from 3.37 expected (xG), a gap of -2.37, league 17./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency turned in this match: 3 goals from 1.16 xG (+1.84).
One more: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 48 % (league 9./20), own output 0.84 xG and 1.89 xG given to opponents (1./20 most): 3 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end turned in this match: possession 36 %, pass accuracy 83 %, 3 goals.
Finally: Player pick. Morgan Rogers comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Morgan Rogers did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.9 times/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: 5 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 8/14 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Brighton–Arsenal3–0puoliaika 2–0outcome: 7/15 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brighton shot 13.0 times per match (league 7.), Arsenal: 8.2 shots conceded (league 1.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 17 shots (baseline 13.0, opponent concedes 8.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brighton scored from 10.5 percent of their shots (league 15.), Arsenal: save percentage on shots on target 70.0 (league 4.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 1.31 expected (+1.69), 18 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brighton won 4.9 corners per match (league 12.), Arsenal: 3.4 corners conceded (league 20.). The expectation is at least 3 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 3), 3 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 53 shots from inside the box (league 1./20) and 13 goals, 78 shots in total (2./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 10 shots from the box, 3 goals, 11 shots against.
One more: Ball kept, duels lost. Possession 71 % (league 1./20) but only 47 % of duels won (17./20)
What happened: Ball kept, duels lost turned in this match: possession 40 %, duels 50 %.
Finally: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): goals by half 2+1.
And: Player pick. Gomez carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 6 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Gomez ranked 9/16 in his team's match ratings and produced 0+1.
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 54 % and 476 passes/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: possession 40 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/8 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Arsenal shot 14.5 times per match (league 4.), Brighton: 11.7 shots conceded (league 6.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 14.5, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Arsenal scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 3.), Brighton: save percentage on shots on target 68.9 (league 6.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.63 expected (-1.63), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Arsenal won 5.7 corners per match (league 5.), Brighton: 4.8 corners conceded (league 14.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (183/336), league 1./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 50 % of duels won.
One more: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): no goals came, but the back end tightened (concessions 2+1).
Finally: Player pick. Zubimendi carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 0 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Zubimendi ranked 13/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.7/match).
What happened: Style claim held: 0 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 7/15 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Everton–Ipswich1–0puoliaika 1–0outcome: 2/9 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Everton shot 11.1 times per match (league 15.), Ipswich are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 21 shots (baseline 11.1, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Everton scored from 11.2 percent of their shots (league 8.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 2.24 expected (-1.24), 5 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Everton won 4.3 corners per match (league 16.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 4), 1 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 41 shots from inside the box (league 5./20) and 5 goals, 59 shots in total (6./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 13 shots from the box, 1 goals, 13 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.28)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 1.30 → 0.93 xG.
Finally: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): goals by half 1+0.
And: Player pick. Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall ranked 10/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Plays without the ball: possession 44 % (league's 4. lowest); space comes from transitions.
What happened: Style claim did not hold: possession 52 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 2/8 held
Watch first: Goalkeeper level on show. 16 saves (league 2./20) against 1.66 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 1 saves.
From this match: 0/1 held
Outcome · 2/9 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Newcastle–Hull City2–1puoliaika 2–0outcome: 3/8 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Newcastle shot 12.9 times per match (league 8.), Hull City are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 12 shots (baseline 12.9, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Newcastle scored from 10.8 percent of their shots (league 11.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.44 expected (+0.56), 17 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Newcastle won 6.1 corners per match (league 3.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 16 saves (league 3./20) against 1.68 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 3 saves.
One more: No route into the box. 44 % of shots from outside the box (league 3./20) and chance quality only 0.096 xG per shot (17./20)
What happened: No route into the box turned in this match: 25 % of shots from outside the box.
Finally: Player pick. Sandro Tonali carried the core, but fitness left question marks (4 early substitutions · 3 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Sandro Tonali did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 1/6 held
Watch first: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (182/339), league 2./20
What happened: Duels carry repeated in this match: 52 % of duels won.
Then watch: Direct play delivers. Possession 29 % (20./20) and pass accuracy 70 % (20./20), yet output above expected (+1.07)
What happened: Direct play delivers repeated in this match: possession 44 %, pass accuracy 79 %, 1 goals.
From this match: 2/2 held
Outcome · 3/8 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Nott'm Forest–Coventry0–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 4/9 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Nott'm Forest shot 12.5 times per match (league 12.), Coventry are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 24 shots (baseline 12.5, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Nott'm Forest scored from 10.1 percent of their shots (league 17.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.10 expected (-1.10), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Nott'm Forest won 5.2 corners per match (league 9.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Shots are not finding the target. 14/58 shots on target, i.e. 24 % (league 18./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target repeated in this match: 3/24 on target (12 %).
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.39)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 0.60 → 0.50 xG.
Finally: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): no goals of our own, concessions 0+1.
And: Player pick. Morgan Gibbs-White comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: The player call held: Morgan Gibbs-White was among their team's best in the match scoring (1./15).
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.9/match).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 4/8 held
Watch first: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 4.18 expected (xG), a gap of -4.18, league 20./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency stayed open in this match: 1 goals from 0.67 xG (+0.33).
Then watch: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 40 % (league 19./20), own output 1.04 xG and 1.88 xG given to opponents (2./20 most): 4 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end turned in this match: possession 38 %, pass accuracy 76 %, 1 goals.
From this match: 0/1 held
Outcome · 4/9 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Bournemouth–Liverpool0–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 3/11 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Bournemouth shot 13.8 times per match (league 5.), Liverpool: 11.4 shots conceded (league 4.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 9 shots (baseline 13.8, opponent concedes 11.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Bournemouth scored from 11.1 percent of their shots (league 9.), Liverpool: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 16.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.79 expected (-0.79), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Bournemouth won 5.6 corners per match (league 6.), Liverpool: 4.4 corners conceded (league 17.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 3 corners (expected 4), 0 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Junior Kroupi comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Junior Kroupi did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 2. most direct.
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 42.6 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 0/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Liverpool shot 15.5 times per match (league 3.), Bournemouth: 12.6 shots conceded (league 12.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 12 shots (baseline 15.5, opponent concedes 12.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Liverpool scored from 10.7 percent of their shots (league 12.), Bournemouth: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 11.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.65 expected (-0.65), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Liverpool scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Bournemouth 55 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Liverpool.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.49 → 1.16 xG, shots 7 → 5.
Fourth: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +2.60)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.49 → 1.16 xG.
One more: Player pick. Ryan Gravenberch comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Ryan Gravenberch ranked 14/15 in his team's match ratings
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 59 % and 531 passes/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 54 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 3/6 held
Outcome · 3/11 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Leeds–Crystal Palace0–0puoliaika 0–0outcome: 4/10 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Leeds shot 12.6 times per match (league 11.), Crystal Palace: 11.7 shots conceded (league 7.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 12.6, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Leeds scored from 10.2 percent of their shots (league 16.), Crystal Palace: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 7.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.31 expected (-1.31), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Leeds won 4.4 corners per match (league 15.), Crystal Palace: 5.2 corners conceded (league 8.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 4), 0 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Brenden Aaronson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Brenden Aaronson ranked 11/14 in his team's match ratings
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 31 passes per shot, the league's 3. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 32.6 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 2/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Crystal Palace shot 11.6 times per match (league 13.), Leeds: 12.5 shots conceded (league 11.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 12 shots (baseline 11.6, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Crystal Palace scored from 9.3 percent of their shots (league 19.), Leeds: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 15.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.06 expected (-1.06), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Crystal Palace won 4.2 corners per match (league 17.), Leeds: 5.1 corners conceded (league 10.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 3 corners (expected 4), 0 goals.
Fourth: Opponents get into the box. 53 shots against from inside the box (1st most of 20), 71 shots in total (75 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box repeated in this match: 9 shots against from inside the box.
One more: Player pick. Jean-Philippe Mateta: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Jean-Philippe Mateta did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 2/5 held
Outcome · 4/10 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Man City–Sunderland5–3puoliaika 3–2outcome: 10/14 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man City shot 15.7 times per match (league 2.), Sunderland: 14.3 shots conceded (league 18.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 16 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 14.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man City scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 2.), Sunderland: save percentage on shots on target 71.3 (league 2.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 5 goals from 2.82 expected (+2.18), 31 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man City won 6.5 corners per match (league 1.), Sunderland: 5.3 corners conceded (league 7.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 5), 5 goals.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (214/399), league 3./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 41 % of duels won.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +2.02)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.67 → 2.14 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Antoine Semenyo comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: Antoine Semenyo was among his team's best in match ratings (1/12) and produced 2+1.
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 60 % and 587 passes/match (league 1.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 55 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 6/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Sunderland shot 10.4 times per match (league 18.), Man City: 9.7 shots conceded (league 2.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 17 shots (baseline 10.4, opponent concedes 9.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Sunderland scored from 10.6 percent of their shots (league 14.), Man City: save percentage on shots on target 72.4 (league 1.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 3 goals from 3.57 expected (-0.57), 18 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Sunderland scored 69 percent of their goals in the second half, Man City 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Sunderland.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 1.57 → 2.00 xG, shots 7 → 10.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 3 goals from 6.02 expected (xG), a gap of -3.02, league 18./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 3 goals from 3.57 xG (-0.57).
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.56)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 1.57 → 2.00 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Daniel Ballard carried the core, but fitness left question marks (2 early substitutions · 9 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Daniel Ballard ranked 14/14 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: The playing-style claim did not hold: 25 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 4/7 held
Outcome · 10/14 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Fulham–Man Utd1–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 8/15 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Fulham shot 12.7 times per match (league 10.), Man Utd: 11.6 shots conceded (league 5.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 12 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 11.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Fulham scored from 9.8 percent of their shots (league 18.), Man Utd: save percentage on shots on target 64.5 (league 18.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.62 expected (-0.62), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Fulham won 5.0 corners per match (league 10.), Man Utd: 4.9 corners conceded (league 13.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 3 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Set pieces without output. 25 corners (league 3./20) and 4 goals
What happened: Set pieces without output turned in this match: 3 corners and 1 goals.
One more: Box pressure delivers. 42 shots from inside the box (league 4./20) and 4 goals, 58 shots in total (9./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 11 shots from the box, 1 goals, 29 shots against.
Finally: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+1.
And: Player pick. Harry Wilson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Harry Wilson did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.6 times/match (league 3.).
What happened: Style claim held: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 3/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man Utd shot 15.7 times per match (league 1.), Fulham: 11.8 shots conceded (league 8.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 29 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 11.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man Utd scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 5.), Fulham: save percentage on shots on target 65.8 (league 14.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.60 expected (-0.60), 3 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man Utd won 4.8 corners per match (league 14.), Fulham: 5.5 corners conceded (league 4.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 13 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 46 shots from inside the box (league 3./20) and 7 goals, 84 shots in total (1./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 17 shots from the box, 1 goals, 12 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +4.19)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 1.06 → 0.54 xG.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+1.
And: Player pick. Bruno Fernandes comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Bruno Fernandes ranked 7/14 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 1. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 20.9 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 5/8 held
Outcome · 8/15 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Matchweek 4claims held 60/121show 10 matches ▾
Aston Villa–Nott'm Forest1–2puoliaika 0–0outcome: 9/14 held (2 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Aston Villa shot 12.7 times per match (league 9.), Nott'm Forest: 13.3 shots conceded (league 15.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 7 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Aston Villa scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 4.), Nott'm Forest: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 8.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.82 expected (+0.18), 14 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Aston Villa won 5.2 corners per match (league 8.), Nott'm Forest: 4.8 corners conceded (league 15.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 2.55 expected (xG), a gap of -2.55, league 18./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency stayed open in this match: 1 goals from 0.82 xG (+0.18).
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 1/26 shots on target, i.e. 4 % (league 20./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target turned in this match: 5/7 on target (71 %).
Finally: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+1.
And: Player pick. Morgan Rogers comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Morgan Rogers did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.9 times/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: 4 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 4/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Nott'm Forest shot 12.5 times per match (league 12.), Aston Villa: 12.9 shots conceded (league 13.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 22 shots (baseline 12.5, opponent concedes 12.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Nott'm Forest scored from 10.1 percent of their shots (league 17.), Aston Villa: save percentage on shots on target 70.8 (league 3.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 2.28 expected (-0.28), 9 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Nott'm Forest won 5.2 corners per match (league 9.), Aston Villa: 4.9 corners conceded (league 11.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 1 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 2 goals from 3.87 expected (xG), a gap of -1.87, league 17./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency stayed open in this match: 2 goals from 2.28 xG (-0.28).
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 7/36 shots on target, i.e. 19 % (league 19./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target turned in this match: 7/22 on target (32 %).
Finally: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
And: Player pick. Morgan Gibbs-White comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: Morgan Gibbs-White was among his team's best in match ratings (1/14) and produced 0+1.
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.9/match).
What happened: Style claim held: 0 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 5/7 held
Outcome · 9/14 held (2 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Bournemouth–Brentford2–2puoliaika 1–1outcome: 6/12 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Bournemouth shot 13.8 times per match (league 5.), Brentford: 13.3 shots conceded (league 14.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 20 shots (baseline 13.8, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Bournemouth scored from 11.1 percent of their shots (league 9.), Brentford: save percentage on shots on target 67.9 (league 9.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.75 expected (+0.25), 10 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Bournemouth won 5.6 corners per match (league 6.), Brentford: 5.4 corners conceded (league 5.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Junior Kroupi comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Junior Kroupi did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 2. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 24.9 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 3/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brentford shot 10.7 times per match (league 16.), Bournemouth: 12.6 shots conceded (league 12.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 8 shots (baseline 10.7, opponent concedes 12.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brentford scored from 13.6 percent of their shots (league 1.), Bournemouth: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 11.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 0.50 expected (+1.50), 25 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brentford won 4.8 corners per match (league 13.), Bournemouth: 5.3 corners conceded (league 6.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 1 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 45 shots from inside the box (league 1./20) and 5 goals, 60 shots in total (2./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 6 shots from the box, 2 goals, 20 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.96)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 0.33 → 0.17 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Mathias Jensen: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Mathias Jensen did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: Style claim held: 50 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 6/12 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Chelsea–Hull City2–2puoliaika 1–2outcome: 5/9 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Chelsea shot 13.4 times per match (league 6.), Hull City are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 12 shots (baseline 13.4, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Chelsea scored from 11.3 percent of their shots (league 7.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 0.91 expected (+1.09), 17 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Chelsea won 6.1 corners per match (league 4.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 10 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 16 saves (league 1./20) against 1.65 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 3 saves.
One more: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -2.02)
What happened: The second half fades turned in this match: threat 0.18 → 0.72 xG.
Finally: Player pick. João Pedro comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: João Pedro was among his team's best in match ratings (1/16) and produced 1+1.
And: Style of play. Patient build-up: 40 passes per shot (league's 2. most).
What happened: Style claim held: 48.1 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 4/7 held
Watch first: The duels carry. 56 % of duels won (141/251), league 1./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 47 % of duels won.
Then watch: Direct play delivers. Possession 28 % (20./20) and pass accuracy 70 % (20./20), yet output above expected (+0.45)
What happened: Direct play delivers repeated in this match: possession 32 %, pass accuracy 70 %, 2 goals.
From this match: 1/2 held
Outcome · 5/9 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Crystal Palace–Ipswich2–3puoliaika 1–2outcome: 3/8 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Crystal Palace shot 11.6 times per match (league 13.), Ipswich are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 11.6, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Crystal Palace scored from 9.3 percent of their shots (league 19.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 0.62 expected (+1.38), 18 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Crystal Palace won 4.2 corners per match (league 17.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 41 % (league 18./20), own output 1.53 xG and 1.92 xG given to opponents (2./20 most): 3 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end turned in this match: possession 47 %, pass accuracy 81 %, 2 goals.
One more: Opponents get into the box. 45 shots against from inside the box (1st most of 20), 59 shots in total (76 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box repeated in this match: 8 shots against from inside the box.
Finally: Player pick. Jean-Philippe Mateta: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Jean-Philippe Mateta did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 3/6 held
Watch first: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 41 % (league 17./20), own output 1.50 xG and 2.01 xG given to opponents (1./20 most): 3 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end turned in this match: possession 53 %, pass accuracy 82 %, 3 goals.
Then watch: Goalkeeper level on show. 14 saves (league 2./20) against 2.01 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 2 saves.
From this match: 0/2 held
Outcome · 3/8 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Liverpool–Fulham0–0puoliaika 0–0outcome: 4/15 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Liverpool shot 15.5 times per match (league 3.), Fulham: 11.8 shots conceded (league 8.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 14 shots (baseline 15.5, opponent concedes 11.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Liverpool scored from 10.7 percent of their shots (league 12.), Fulham: save percentage on shots on target 65.8 (league 14.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.28 expected (-1.28), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Liverpool won 6.1 corners per match (league 2.), Fulham: 5.5 corners conceded (league 4.). The expectation is at least 6 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 5 corners (expected 6), 0 goals.
Fourth: The cost of indiscipline grows. 10 cards (league 1./20) and 41 fouls (6./20)
What happened: The cost of indiscipline grows turned in this match: 0 cards, 11 fouls.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +2.36)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.52 → 0.76 xG.
Finally: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): threat 0.52 → 0.76 xG, shots 6 → 8.
And: Player pick. Ryan Gravenberch comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Ryan Gravenberch ranked 7/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 59 % and 531 passes/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 56 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 3/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Fulham shot 12.7 times per match (league 10.), Liverpool: 11.4 shots conceded (league 4.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 10 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 11.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Fulham scored from 9.8 percent of their shots (league 18.), Liverpool: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 16.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.70 expected (-0.70), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Fulham won 5.0 corners per match (league 10.), Liverpool: 4.4 corners conceded (league 17.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 8 corners (expected 4), 0 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 34 shots from inside the box (league 5./20) and 4 goals, 48 shots in total (5./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers turned in this match: 8 shots from the box, 0 goals, 14 shots against.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 12/48 shots on target, i.e. 25 % (league 18./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target turned in this match: 4/10 on target (40 %).
Finally: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): threat 0.40 → 0.30 xG, shots 5 → 5.
And: Player pick. Harry Wilson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Harry Wilson did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.6 times/match (league 3.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 1 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 1/8 held
Outcome · 4/15 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Tottenham–Everton0–0puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/14 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Tottenham shot 11.5 times per match (league 14.), Everton: 14.0 shots conceded (league 17.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 14 shots (baseline 11.5, opponent concedes 14.0).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Tottenham scored from 11.0 percent of their shots (league 10.), Everton: save percentage on shots on target 69.1 (league 5.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.69 expected (-0.69), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Tottenham won 5.5 corners per match (league 7.), Everton: 5.1 corners conceded (league 9.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 5 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 2.57 expected (xG), a gap of -2.57, league 19./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 0 goals from 0.69 xG (-0.69).
One more: Set pieces without output. 22 corners (league 1./20) and 0 goals
What happened: Set pieces without output repeated in this match: 5 corners and 0 goals.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): threat 0.36 → 0.33 xG, shots 7 → 7.
And: Player pick. João Gonçalves comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: João Gonçalves did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 1.8 times/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 1 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 3/8 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Everton shot 11.1 times per match (league 15.), Tottenham: 12.2 shots conceded (league 9.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 12 shots (baseline 11.1, opponent concedes 12.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Everton scored from 11.2 percent of their shots (league 8.), Tottenham: save percentage on shots on target 63.0 (league 19.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.11 expected (-1.11), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Everton won 4.3 corners per match (league 16.), Tottenham: 4.7 corners conceded (league 16.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 4), 0 goals.
Fourth: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): threat 0.15 → 0.96 xG, shots 4 → 8.
One more: Player pick. Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall ranked 7/14 in his team's match ratings
Finally: Style of play. Plays without the ball: possession 44 % (league's 4. lowest); space comes from transitions.
What happened: Style claim held: possession 38 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 7/14 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Sunderland–Arsenal0–2puoliaika 0–0outcome: 5/14 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Sunderland shot 10.4 times per match (league 18.), Arsenal: 8.2 shots conceded (league 1.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 12 shots (baseline 10.4, opponent concedes 8.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Sunderland scored from 10.6 percent of their shots (league 14.), Arsenal: save percentage on shots on target 70.0 (league 4.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.80 expected (-1.80), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Sunderland scored 69 percent of their goals in the second half, Arsenal 58 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Sunderland.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.23 → 1.57 xG, shots 5 → 7.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (182/337), league 2./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 41 % of duels won.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +2.22)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.23 → 1.57 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Daniel Ballard carried the core, but fitness left question marks (2 early substitutions · 9 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Daniel Ballard did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: The playing-style claim did not hold: 27 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 3/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Arsenal shot 14.5 times per match (league 4.), Sunderland: 14.3 shots conceded (league 18.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 14.5, opponent concedes 14.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Arsenal scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 3.), Sunderland: save percentage on shots on target 71.3 (league 2.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.88 expected (+0.12), 18 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Arsenal won 5.7 corners per match (league 5.), Sunderland: 5.3 corners conceded (league 7.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -0.72)
What happened: The second half fades turned in this match: threat 0.77 → 1.11 xG.
One more: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
Finally: Player pick. Zubimendi carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 0 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Zubimendi ranked 10/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.7/match).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 2/7 held
Outcome · 5/14 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Coventry–Brighton0–5puoliaika 0–1outcome: 8/9 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 2.85 expected (xG), a gap of -2.85, league 20./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 0 goals from 1.33 xG (-1.33).
Then watch: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -0.85)
What happened: The second half fades repeated in this match: threat 0.97 → 0.37 xG.
From this match: 2/2 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brighton shot 13.0 times per match (league 7.), Coventry are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 22 shots (baseline 13.0, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brighton scored from 10.5 percent of their shots (league 15.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 5 goals from 2.81 expected (+2.19), 23 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Brighton scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, liigan taso 57 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Brighton.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.97 → 1.83 xG, shots 12 → 10.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 39 shots from inside the box (league 3./20) and 8 goals, 56 shots in total (3./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 14 shots from the box, 5 goals, 14 shots against.
One more: The lead held to the end. The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
What happened: The lead held to the end repeated in this match: the lead held.
Finally: Player pick. Gomez carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 6 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Gomez ranked 12/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 54 % and 476 passes/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 69 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 6/7 held
Outcome · 8/9 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Man Utd–Man City0–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 8/14 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man Utd shot 15.7 times per match (league 1.), Man City: 9.7 shots conceded (league 2.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 16 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 9.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man Utd scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 5.), Man City: save percentage on shots on target 72.4 (league 1.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.00 expected (-1.00), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Man Utd scored 58 percent of their goals in the second half, Man City 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Manchester United.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.20 → 0.80 xG, shots 5 → 11.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 40 shots from inside the box (league 2./20) and 7 goals, 68 shots in total (1./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers turned in this match: 6 shots from the box, 0 goals, 6 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.59)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.20 → 0.80 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Bruno Fernandes comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: The player call held: Bruno Fernandes was among their team's best in the match scoring (3./13).
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 1. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 30.4 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 5/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man City shot 15.7 times per match (league 2.), Man Utd: 11.6 shots conceded (league 5.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 6 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 11.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man City scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 2.), Man Utd: save percentage on shots on target 64.5 (league 18.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 1.10 expected (-0.10), 17 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man City won 6.5 corners per match (league 1.), Man Utd: 4.9 corners conceded (league 13.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 7 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (161/299), league 3./20
What happened: Duels carry repeated in this match: 53 % of duels won.
One more: Box pressure delivers. 37 shots from inside the box (league 4./20) and 7 goals, 46 shots in total (8./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers turned in this match: 2 shots from the box, 1 goals, 16 shots against.
Finally: Player pick. Antoine Semenyo comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Antoine Semenyo ranked 10/13 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 60 % and 587 passes/match (league 1.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: possession 45 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 8/14 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Leeds–Newcastle4–1puoliaika 3–0outcome: 5/12 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Leeds shot 12.6 times per match (league 11.), Newcastle: 12.4 shots conceded (league 10.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 15 shots (baseline 12.6, opponent concedes 12.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Leeds scored from 10.2 percent of their shots (league 16.), Newcastle: save percentage on shots on target 67.3 (league 10.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 4 goals from 2.08 expected (+1.92), 27 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Leeds won 4.4 corners per match (league 15.), Newcastle: 4.9 corners conceded (league 12.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 4), 4 goals.
Fourth: Opponents get into the box. 35 shots against from inside the box (2nd most of 20), 54 shots in total (65 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box turned in this match: 4 shots against from inside the box.
One more: Player pick. Brenden Aaronson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Brenden Aaronson ranked 13/17 in his team's match ratings
Finally: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 31 passes per shot, the league's 3. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 29.3 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 4/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Newcastle shot 12.9 times per match (league 8.), Leeds: 12.5 shots conceded (league 11.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 7 shots (baseline 12.9, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Newcastle scored from 10.8 percent of their shots (league 11.), Leeds: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 15.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.88 expected (+0.12), 14 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Newcastle won 6.1 corners per match (league 3.), Leeds: 5.1 corners conceded (league 10.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 5 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 13 saves (league 3./20) against 1.55 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 3 saves.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 8/32 shots on target, i.e. 25 % (league 17./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target turned in this match: 5/7 on target (71 %).
Finally: Player pick. Sandro Tonali carried the core, but fitness left question marks (4 early substitutions · 3 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Sandro Tonali did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 1/6 held
Outcome · 5/12 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Matchweek 3claims held 60/117show 10 matches ▾
Ipswich–Liverpool0–2puoliaika 0–2outcome: 5/9 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Goalkeeper level on show. 9 saves (league 1./20) against 2.67 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing repeated in this match: 5 saves.
Then watch: Opponents get into the box. 24 shots against from inside the box (3rd most of 20), 44 shots in total (55 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box turned in this match: 5 shots against from inside the box.
From this match: 1/2 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Liverpool shot 15.5 times per match (league 3.), Ipswich are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 10 shots (baseline 15.5, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Liverpool scored from 10.7 percent of their shots (league 12.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 0.69 expected (+1.31), 20 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Liverpool scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, liigan taso 57 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Liverpool.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 0.42 → 0.26 xG, shots 7 → 3.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 24 shots from inside the box (league 5./20) and 4 goals, 40 shots in total (3./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 5 shots from the box, 2 goals, 14 shots against.
One more: The cost of indiscipline grows. 7 cards (league 3./20) and 28 fouls (3./20)
What happened: The cost of indiscipline grows repeated in this match: 3 cards, 13 fouls.
Finally: Player pick. Ryan Gravenberch comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Ryan Gravenberch ranked 15/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 59 % and 531 passes/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 55 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/7 held
Outcome · 5/9 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Newcastle–Bournemouth2–2puoliaika 1–2outcome: 6/13 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Newcastle shot 12.9 times per match (league 8.), Bournemouth: 12.6 shots conceded (league 12.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 8 shots (baseline 12.9, opponent concedes 12.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Newcastle scored from 10.8 percent of their shots (league 11.), Bournemouth: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 11.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 0.71 expected (+1.29), 25 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Newcastle won 6.1 corners per match (league 3.), Bournemouth: 5.3 corners conceded (league 6.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 9 saves (league 3./20) against 1.64 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing repeated in this match: 4 saves.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 6/24 shots on target, i.e. 25 % (league 17./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target repeated in this match: 2/8 on target (25 %).
Finally: Player pick. Sandro Tonali carried the core, but fitness left question marks (4 early substitutions · 3 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Sandro Tonali did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 3/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Bournemouth shot 13.8 times per match (league 5.), Newcastle: 12.4 shots conceded (league 10.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 17 shots (baseline 13.8, opponent concedes 12.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Bournemouth scored from 11.1 percent of their shots (league 9.), Newcastle: save percentage on shots on target 67.3 (league 10.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.37 expected (+0.63), 12 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Bournemouth scored 55 percent of their goals in the second half, Newcastle 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Bournemouth.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 1.29 → 0.08 xG, shots 13 → 4.
Fourth: Set pieces without output. 13 corners (league 4./20) and 2 goals
What happened: Set pieces without output turned in this match: 3 corners and 2 goals.
One more: Goalkeeper level on show. 9 saves (league 2./20) against 2.04 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 0 saves.
Finally: Player pick. Junior Kroupi comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Junior Kroupi did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 2. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 19.7 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 6/13 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Brentford–Sunderland1–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 6/12 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brentford shot 10.7 times per match (league 16.), Sunderland: 14.3 shots conceded (league 18.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 12 shots (baseline 10.7, opponent concedes 14.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brentford scored from 13.6 percent of their shots (league 1.), Sunderland: save percentage on shots on target 71.3 (league 2.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 1.21 expected (-0.21), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brentford won 4.8 corners per match (league 13.), Sunderland: 5.3 corners conceded (league 7.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 4 goals from 5.52 expected (xG), a gap of -1.52, league 19./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency stayed open in this match: 1 goals from 1.21 xG (-0.21).
One more: Box pressure delivers. 38 shots from inside the box (league 1./20) and 4 goals, 48 shots in total (2./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers turned in this match: 7 shots from the box, 1 goals, 14 shots against.
Finally: Player pick. Mathias Jensen: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Mathias Jensen did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: The playing-style claim did not hold: 29 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 2/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Sunderland shot 10.4 times per match (league 18.), Brentford: 13.3 shots conceded (league 14.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 14 shots (baseline 10.4, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Sunderland scored from 10.6 percent of their shots (league 14.), Brentford: save percentage on shots on target 67.9 (league 9.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.71 expected (-0.71), 7 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Sunderland scored 69 percent of their goals in the second half, Brentford 56 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Sunderland.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.35 → 1.36 xG, shots 5 → 9.
Fourth: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.21)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.35 → 1.36 xG.
One more: Player pick. Daniel Ballard carried the core, but fitness left question marks (2 early substitutions · 9 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Daniel Ballard ranked 6/13 in his team's match ratings
Finally: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: Style claim held: 42 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 6/12 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Brighton–Leeds1–1puoliaika 0–1outcome: 7/13 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brighton shot 13.0 times per match (league 7.), Leeds: 12.5 shots conceded (league 11.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 20 shots (baseline 13.0, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brighton scored from 10.5 percent of their shots (league 15.), Leeds: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 15.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 2.19 expected (-1.19), 5 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Brighton scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Leeds 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Brighton.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.06 → 2.14 xG, shots 3 → 17.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 28 shots from inside the box (league 3./20) and 7 goals, 36 shots in total (4./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 11 shots from the box, 1 goals, 10 shots against.
One more: The lead held to the end. The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
What happened: The lead held to the end stayed open in this match: no half-time lead in this match.
Finally: Player pick. Gomez carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 6 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Gomez ranked 8/14 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 54 % and 476 passes/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 67 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Leeds shot 12.6 times per match (league 11.), Brighton: 11.7 shots conceded (league 6.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 10 shots (baseline 12.6, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Leeds scored from 10.2 percent of their shots (league 16.), Brighton: save percentage on shots on target 68.9 (league 6.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 2.49 expected (-1.49), 10 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Leeds won 4.4 corners per match (league 15.), Brighton: 4.8 corners conceded (league 14.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 4), 1 goals.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (129/238), league 3./20
What happened: Duels carry repeated in this match: 52 % of duels won.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 5/24 shots on target, i.e. 21 % (league 19./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target turned in this match: 5/10 on target (50 %).
Finally: Player pick. Brenden Aaronson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Brenden Aaronson ranked 11/13 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 31 passes per shot, the league's 3. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 25.2 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 3/7 held
Outcome · 7/13 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Fulham–Crystal Palace2–3puoliaika 2–1outcome: 3/11 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Fulham shot 12.7 times per match (league 10.), Crystal Palace: 11.7 shots conceded (league 7.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 25 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Fulham scored from 9.8 percent of their shots (league 18.), Crystal Palace: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 7.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 2 goals from 3.14 expected (-1.14), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Fulham scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Crystal Palace 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Fulham.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 1.60 → 1.54 xG, shots 13 → 12.
Fourth: Player pick. Harry Wilson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Harry Wilson did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
One more: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.6 times/match (league 3.).
What happened: Style claim held: 6 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 2/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Crystal Palace shot 11.6 times per match (league 13.), Fulham: 11.8 shots conceded (league 8.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 10 shots (baseline 11.6, opponent concedes 11.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Crystal Palace scored from 9.3 percent of their shots (league 19.), Fulham: save percentage on shots on target 65.8 (league 14.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 1.97 expected (+1.03), 30 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Crystal Palace won 4.2 corners per match (league 17.), Fulham: 5.5 corners conceded (league 4.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 1 corners (expected 4), 3 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 1 goals from 2.61 expected (xG), a gap of -1.61, league 20./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency turned in this match: 3 goals from 1.97 xG (+1.03).
One more: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -1.29)
What happened: The second half fades turned in this match: threat 0.30 → 1.67 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Jean-Philippe Mateta: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Jean-Philippe Mateta did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 1/6 held
Outcome · 3/11 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Man City–Coventry1–0puoliaika 1–0outcome: 4/8 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man City shot 15.7 times per match (league 2.), Coventry are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 15 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man City scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 2.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 2.12 expected (-1.12), 7 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man City won 6.5 corners per match (league 1.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Dominance at both ends. Output above expected (+2.19, league 2./20) and only 0.60 xG per match given to opponents (19./20, 7 shots against)
What happened: Dominance at both ends repeated in this match: 14 shots from the box, 1 goals, 12 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.14)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 1.08 → 1.04 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Antoine Semenyo comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Antoine Semenyo ranked 5/14 in his team's match ratings and produced 0+1.
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 60 % and 587 passes/match (league 1.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 78 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 2/6 held
Watch first: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 1.48 expected (xG), a gap of -1.48, league 17./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 0 goals from 1.37 xG (-1.37).
Then watch: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -0.76)
What happened: The second half fades repeated in this match: threat 0.73 → 0.64 xG.
From this match: 2/2 held
Outcome · 4/8 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Nott'm Forest–Tottenham0–0puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/15 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Nott'm Forest shot 12.5 times per match (league 12.), Tottenham: 12.2 shots conceded (league 9.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 12 shots (baseline 12.5, opponent concedes 12.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Nott'm Forest scored from 10.1 percent of their shots (league 17.), Tottenham: save percentage on shots on target 63.0 (league 19.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.92 expected (-0.92), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Nott'm Forest won 5.2 corners per match (league 9.), Tottenham: 4.7 corners conceded (league 16.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Shots are not finding the target. 5/24 shots on target, i.e. 21 % (league 18./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target repeated in this match: 2/12 on target (17 %).
One more: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): threat 0.49 → 0.43 xG, shots 7 → 5.
Finally: Player pick. Morgan Gibbs-White comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Morgan Gibbs-White ranked 12/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.9/match).
What happened: Style claim held: 1 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 2/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Tottenham shot 11.5 times per match (league 14.), Nott'm Forest: 13.3 shots conceded (league 15.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 11.5, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Tottenham scored from 11.0 percent of their shots (league 10.), Nott'm Forest: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 8.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.06 expected (-1.06), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Tottenham won 5.5 corners per match (league 7.), Nott'm Forest: 4.8 corners conceded (league 15.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 10 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 1.51 expected (xG), a gap of -1.51, league 18./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 0 goals from 1.06 xG (-1.06).
One more: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 58 % (league 7./20), own output 0.76 xG and 2.35 xG given to opponents (3./20 most): 3 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end repeated in this match: possession 59 %, pass accuracy 84 %, 0 goals.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): threat 0.08 → 0.99 xG, shots 3 → 8.
And: Player pick. João Gonçalves comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: João Gonçalves did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 1.8 times/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 5/8 held
Outcome · 7/15 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Hull City–Aston Villa0–0puoliaika 0–0outcome: 6/9 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: The duels carry. 57 % of duels won (95/167), league 1./20
What happened: Duels carry repeated in this match: 55 % of duels won.
Then watch: Direct play delivers. Possession 30 % (20./20) and pass accuracy 68 % (20./20), yet output above expected (+1.02)
What happened: Direct play delivers turned in this match: possession 26 %, pass accuracy 73 %, 0 goals.
From this match: 1/2 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Aston Villa shot 12.7 times per match (league 9.), Hull City are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Aston Villa scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 4.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.93 expected (-1.93), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Aston Villa scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, liigan taso 57 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Aston Villa.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.57 → 1.36 xG, shots 7 → 6.
Fourth: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 33 % (league 18./20), own output 0.31 xG and 2.36 xG given to opponents (2./20 most): 4 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end repeated in this match: possession 74 %, pass accuracy 90 %, 0 goals.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 0/13 shots on target, i.e. 0 % (league 20./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target repeated in this match: 1/13 on target (8 %).
Finally: Player pick. Morgan Rogers comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Morgan Rogers did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.9 times/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: 2 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 5/7 held
Outcome · 6/9 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Everton–Man Utd2–2puoliaika 0–0outcome: 9/14 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Everton shot 11.1 times per match (league 15.), Man Utd: 11.6 shots conceded (league 5.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 18 shots (baseline 11.1, opponent concedes 11.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Everton scored from 11.2 percent of their shots (league 8.), Man Utd: save percentage on shots on target 64.5 (league 18.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.01 expected (+0.99), 11 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Everton won 4.3 corners per match (league 16.), Man Utd: 4.9 corners conceded (league 13.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: The lead held to the end. The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
What happened: The lead held to the end stayed open in this match: no half-time lead in this match.
One more: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
Finally: Player pick. Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: The player call held: Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall was among their team's best in the match scoring (2./14).
And: Style of play. Plays without the ball: possession 44 % (league's 4. lowest); space comes from transitions.
What happened: Style claim held: possession 45 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 5/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man Utd shot 15.7 times per match (league 1.), Everton: 14.0 shots conceded (league 17.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 14 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 14.0).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man Utd scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 5.), Everton: save percentage on shots on target 69.1 (league 5.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 0.69 expected (+1.31), 14 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man Utd won 4.8 corners per match (league 14.), Everton: 5.1 corners conceded (league 9.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 3 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 34 shots from inside the box (league 2./20) and 5 goals, 54 shots in total (1./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 6 shots from the box, 2 goals, 18 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.48)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.29 → 0.40 xG.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
And: Player pick. Bruno Fernandes comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Bruno Fernandes ranked 7/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 1. most direct.
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 37.6 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 4/8 held
Outcome · 9/14 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Arsenal–Chelsea2–1puoliaika 1–1outcome: 7/13 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Arsenal shot 14.5 times per match (league 4.), Chelsea: 10.9 shots conceded (league 3.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 16 shots (baseline 14.5, opponent concedes 10.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Arsenal scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 3.), Chelsea: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 12.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 2.05 expected (-0.05), 12 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Arsenal won 5.7 corners per match (league 5.), Chelsea: 4.3 corners conceded (league 18.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: The duels carry. 55 % of duels won (88/161), league 2./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 49 % of duels won.
One more: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals level (1+1), realised differently: goals level (1+1) but the back end tightened (concessions 1+0).
Finally: Player pick. Zubimendi carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 0 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Zubimendi ranked 14/14 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.7/match).
What happened: Style claim held: 0 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 5/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Chelsea shot 13.4 times per match (league 6.), Arsenal: 8.2 shots conceded (league 1.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 13 shots (baseline 13.4, opponent concedes 8.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Chelsea scored from 11.3 percent of their shots (league 7.), Arsenal: save percentage on shots on target 70.0 (league 4.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.39 expected (+0.61), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Chelsea won 6.1 corners per match (league 4.), Arsenal: 3.4 corners conceded (league 20.). The expectation is at least 3 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 3 corners (expected 3), 1 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 28 shots from inside the box (league 4./20) and 7 goals, 35 shots in total (5./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers turned in this match: 5 shots from the box, 1 goals, 16 shots against.
One more: Direct play delivers. Possession 32 % (19./20) and pass accuracy 74 % (17./20), yet output above expected (+2.33)
What happened: Direct play delivers repeated in this match: possession 45 %, pass accuracy 82 %, 1 goals.
Finally: Player pick. João Pedro comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: João Pedro ranked 7/15 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Patient build-up: 40 passes per shot (league's 2. most).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 29.5 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 2/6 held
Outcome · 7/13 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Matchweek 2claims held 62/112show 10 matches ▾
Crystal Palace–Man City1–4puoliaika 0–1outcome: 6/11 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Crystal Palace shot 11.6 times per match (league 13.), Man City: 9.7 shots conceded (league 2.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 9 shots (baseline 11.6, opponent concedes 9.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Crystal Palace scored from 9.3 percent of their shots (league 19.), Man City: save percentage on shots on target 72.4 (league 1.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.57 expected (+0.43), 11 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Crystal Palace scored 51 percent of their goals in the second half, Man City 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Crystal Palace.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 0.30 → 0.27 xG, shots 7 → 2.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 2.04 expected (xG), a gap of -2.04, league 20./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency stayed open in this match: 1 goals from 0.57 xG (+0.43).
One more: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -1.26)
What happened: The second half fades repeated in this match: threat 0.30 → 0.27 xG.
Finally: Player pick. Jean-Philippe Mateta: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Jean-Philippe Mateta did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 2/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man City shot 15.7 times per match (league 2.), Crystal Palace: 11.7 shots conceded (league 7.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 18 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man City scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 2.), Crystal Palace: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 7.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 4 goals from 1.45 expected (+2.55), 22 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man City won 6.5 corners per match (league 1.), Crystal Palace: 5.2 corners conceded (league 8.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 5), 4 goals.
Fourth: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.38)
What happened: The second half sharpens turned in this match: threat 0.85 → 0.61 xG.
One more: Player pick. Antoine Semenyo comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Antoine Semenyo ranked 4/16 in his team's match ratings and produced 0+1.
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 60 % and 587 passes/match (league 1.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 72 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 6/11 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Liverpool–Nott'm Forest2–2puoliaika 0–1outcome: 9/14 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Liverpool shot 15.5 times per match (league 3.), Nott'm Forest: 13.3 shots conceded (league 15.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 13 shots (baseline 15.5, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Liverpool scored from 10.7 percent of their shots (league 12.), Nott'm Forest: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 8.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.61 expected (+0.39), 15 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Liverpool won 6.1 corners per match (league 2.), Nott'm Forest: 4.8 corners conceded (league 15.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 3 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 16 shots from inside the box (league 2./20) and 2 goals, 27 shots in total (1./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 8 shots from the box, 2 goals, 12 shots against.
One more: The second half sharpens. Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.41)
What happened: The second half sharpens repeated in this match: threat 0.25 → 1.36 xG.
Finally: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+2.
And: Player pick. Ryan Gravenberch comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Ryan Gravenberch ranked 10/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 59 % and 531 passes/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 70 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 5/8 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Nott'm Forest shot 12.5 times per match (league 12.), Liverpool: 11.4 shots conceded (league 4.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 12 shots (baseline 12.5, opponent concedes 11.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Nott'm Forest scored from 10.1 percent of their shots (league 17.), Liverpool: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 16.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 2.30 expected (-0.30), 17 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Nott'm Forest won 5.2 corners per match (league 9.), Liverpool: 4.4 corners conceded (league 17.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: Shots are not finding the target. 2/12 shots on target, i.e. 17 % (league 19./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target repeated in this match: 3/12 on target (25 %).
One more: Rhythm. 60% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): goals level (1+1), threat 1.31 → 0.99 xG, shots 8 → 4.
Finally: Player pick. Morgan Gibbs-White comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: Morgan Gibbs-White was among his team's best in match ratings (1/15) and produced 1+1.
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.9/match).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 3 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 9/14 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Bournemouth–Everton1–1puoliaika 1–0outcome: 6/11 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Bournemouth shot 13.8 times per match (league 5.), Everton: 14.0 shots conceded (league 17.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 17 shots (baseline 13.8, opponent concedes 14.0).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Bournemouth scored from 11.1 percent of their shots (league 9.), Everton: save percentage on shots on target 69.1 (league 5.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 2.14 expected (-1.14), 6 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Bournemouth won 5.6 corners per match (league 6.), Everton: 5.1 corners conceded (league 9.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 10 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Junior Kroupi comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Junior Kroupi did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 2. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 26.1 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 3/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Everton shot 11.1 times per match (league 15.), Bournemouth: 12.6 shots conceded (league 12.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 11.1, opponent concedes 12.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Everton scored from 11.2 percent of their shots (league 8.), Bournemouth: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 11.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.72 expected (-0.72), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Everton scored 60 percent of their goals in the second half, Bournemouth 55 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Everton.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 1.06 → 0.66 xG, shots 9 → 4.
Fourth: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (53/99), league 2./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 44 % of duels won.
One more: The lead held to the end. The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
What happened: The lead held to the end stayed open in this match: no half-time lead in this match.
Finally: Player pick. Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: The player call held: Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall was among their team's best in the match scoring (2./16).
And: Style of play. Plays without the ball: possession 44 % (league's 4. lowest); space comes from transitions.
What happened: Style claim held: possession 42 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 3/6 held
Outcome · 6/11 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Coventry–Hull City0–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 1/3 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: No route into the box. 75 % of shots from outside the box (league 1./20) and chance quality only 0.050 xG per shot (19./20)
What happened: No route into the box turned in this match: 36 % of shots from outside the box.
From this match: 0/1 held
Watch first: The duels carry. 59 % of duels won (50/85), league 1./20
What happened: Duels carry repeated in this match: 55 % of duels won.
Then watch: Goalkeeper level on show. 5 saves (league 1./20) against 1.81 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 3 saves.
From this match: 1/2 held
Outcome · 1/3 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Tottenham–Newcastle0–2puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/13 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Tottenham shot 11.5 times per match (league 14.), Newcastle: 12.4 shots conceded (league 10.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 17 shots (baseline 11.5, opponent concedes 12.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Tottenham scored from 11.0 percent of their shots (league 10.), Newcastle: save percentage on shots on target 67.3 (league 10.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.04 expected (-1.04), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Tottenham scored 58 percent of their goals in the second half, Newcastle 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Tottenham.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.50 → 0.54 xG, shots 8 → 9.
Fourth: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 59 % (league 8./20), own output 0.47 xG and 3.96 xG given to opponents (1./20 most): 4 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end repeated in this match: possession 58 %, pass accuracy 89 %, 0 goals.
One more: Goalkeeper level on show. 5 saves (league 2./20) against 3.96 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing turned in this match: 0 saves.
Finally: Player pick. João Gonçalves comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: João Gonçalves did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 1.8 times/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 1 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 3/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Newcastle shot 12.9 times per match (league 8.), Tottenham: 12.2 shots conceded (league 9.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 12.9, opponent concedes 12.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Newcastle scored from 10.8 percent of their shots (league 11.), Tottenham: save percentage on shots on target 63.0 (league 19.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 0.75 expected (+1.25), 18 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Newcastle won 6.1 corners per match (league 3.), Tottenham: 4.7 corners conceded (league 16.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 7 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Goalkeeper level on show. 5 saves (league 3./20) against 2.23 xG
What happened: Goalkeeper class showing repeated in this match: 4 saves.
One more: Opponents get into the box. 16 shots against from inside the box (2nd most of 20), 27 shots in total (59 % from the box)
What happened: Opponents get into the box repeated in this match: 10 shots against from inside the box.
Finally: Player pick. Sandro Tonali carried the core, but fitness left question marks (4 early substitutions · 3 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Sandro Tonali did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 7/13 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Chelsea–Brighton4–3puoliaika 3–1outcome: 9/13 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Chelsea shot 13.4 times per match (league 6.), Brighton: 11.7 shots conceded (league 6.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 17 shots (baseline 13.4, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Chelsea scored from 11.3 percent of their shots (league 7.), Brighton: save percentage on shots on target 68.9 (league 6.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 4 goals from 2.97 expected (+1.03), 24 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Chelsea won 6.1 corners per match (league 4.), Brighton: 4.8 corners conceded (league 14.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 4 goals.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 13 shots from inside the box (league 5./20) and 3 goals, 18 shots in total (6./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 15 shots from the box, 4 goals, 15 shots against.
One more: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -1.22)
What happened: The second half fades repeated in this match: threat 1.93 → 1.04 xG.
Finally: Player pick. João Pedro comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: João Pedro was among his team's best in match ratings (1/16) and produced 1+1.
And: Style of play. Patient build-up: 40 passes per shot (league's 2. most).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 12.8 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 5/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brighton shot 13.0 times per match (league 7.), Chelsea: 10.9 shots conceded (league 3.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 15 shots (baseline 13.0, opponent concedes 10.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brighton scored from 10.5 percent of their shots (league 15.), Chelsea: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 12.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 1.56 expected (+1.44), 20 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Brighton scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Chelsea 55 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Brighton.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 1.06 → 0.50 xG, shots 6 → 9.
Fourth: Box pressure delivers. 15 shots from inside the box (league 4./20) and 4 goals, 21 shots in total (4./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 13 shots from the box, 3 goals, 17 shots against.
One more: Player pick. Gomez carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 6 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Gomez ranked 4/14 in his team's match ratings and produced 0+1.
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 54 % and 476 passes/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 74 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/6 held
Outcome · 9/13 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Leeds–Brentford1–1puoliaika 0–1outcome: 8/12 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Leeds shot 12.6 times per match (league 11.), Brentford: 13.3 shots conceded (league 14.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 12.6, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Leeds scored from 10.2 percent of their shots (league 16.), Brentford: save percentage on shots on target 67.9 (league 9.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.46 expected (-0.46), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Leeds won 4.4 corners per match (league 15.), Brentford: 5.4 corners conceded (league 5.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 4), 1 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Brenden Aaronson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Brenden Aaronson ranked 12/15 in his team's match ratings
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 31 passes per shot, the league's 3. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 28.1 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 3/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brentford shot 10.7 times per match (league 16.), Leeds: 12.5 shots conceded (league 11.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 22 shots (baseline 10.7, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brentford scored from 13.6 percent of their shots (league 1.), Leeds: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 15.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.56 expected (-0.56), 5 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Brentford scored 56 percent of their goals in the second half, Leeds 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Brentford.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.55 → 1.01 xG, shots 11 → 11.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 3 goals from 3.96 expected (xG), a gap of -0.96, league 18./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency repeated in this match: 1 goals from 1.56 xG (-0.56).
One more: Box pressure delivers. 20 shots from inside the box (league 1./20) and 3 goals, 26 shots in total (2./20)
What happened: Box pressure delivers repeated in this match: 18 shots from the box, 1 goals, 13 shots against.
Finally: Player pick. Mathias Jensen: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Mathias Jensen did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: Style claim held: 54 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 5/7 held
Outcome · 8/12 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Sunderland–Fulham1–0puoliaika 0–0outcome: 3/12 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Sunderland shot 10.4 times per match (league 18.), Fulham: 11.8 shots conceded (league 8.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 12 shots (baseline 10.4, opponent concedes 11.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Sunderland scored from 10.6 percent of their shots (league 14.), Fulham: save percentage on shots on target 65.8 (league 14.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 1 goals from 1.75 expected (-0.75), 8 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Sunderland scored 69 percent of their goals in the second half, Fulham 62 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Sunderland.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.07 → 1.69 xG, shots 4 → 8.
Fourth: The cost of indiscipline grows. 3 cards (league 3./20) and 14 fouls (6./20)
What happened: The cost of indiscipline grows turned in this match: 0 cards, 10 fouls.
One more: Player pick. Daniel Ballard carried the core, but fitness left question marks (2 early substitutions · 9 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Daniel Ballard ranked 4/15 in his team's match ratings
Finally: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: Style claim held: 44 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 3/6 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Fulham shot 12.7 times per match (league 10.), Sunderland: 14.3 shots conceded (league 18.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 9 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 14.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Fulham scored from 9.8 percent of their shots (league 18.), Sunderland: save percentage on shots on target 71.3 (league 2.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.79 expected (-0.79), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Fulham won 5.0 corners per match (league 10.), Sunderland: 5.3 corners conceded (league 7.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): no goals of our own, concessions 0+1.
One more: Player pick. Harry Wilson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Harry Wilson did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
Finally: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.6 times/match (league 3.).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 1 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 0/6 held
Outcome · 3/12 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Man Utd–Ipswich5–2puoliaika 1–1outcome: 6/8 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man Utd shot 15.7 times per match (league 1.), Ipswich are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 33 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man Utd scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 5.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 5 goals from 4.57 expected (+0.43), 15 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man Utd won 4.8 corners per match (league 14.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 8 corners (expected 5), 5 goals.
Fourth: Attacking inefficiency. 0 goals from 1.81 expected (xG), a gap of -1.81, league 19./20
What happened: Attacking inefficiency stayed open in this match: 5 goals from 4.57 xG (+0.43).
One more: Set pieces without output. 6 corners (league 4./20) and 0 goals
What happened: Set pieces without output turned in this match: 8 corners and 5 goals.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 1+4.
And: Player pick. Bruno Fernandes comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: Bruno Fernandes was among his team's best in match ratings (1/16) and produced 3+1.
And: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 1. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 16.5 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 6/7 held
Watch first: The duels carry. 54 % of duels won (62/114), league 3./20
What happened: Duels carry turned in this match: 34 % of duels won.
From this match: 0/1 held
Outcome · 6/8 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Aston Villa–Arsenal0–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 7/15 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Aston Villa shot 12.7 times per match (league 9.), Arsenal: 8.2 shots conceded (league 1.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 7 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 8.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Aston Villa scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 4.), Arsenal: save percentage on shots on target 70.0 (league 4.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.31 expected (-0.31), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Aston Villa scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Arsenal 58 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Aston Villa.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.09 → 0.23 xG, shots 3 → 4.
Fourth: The whole system at the bottom end. Possession 27 % (league 20./20), own output 0.31 xG and 3.67 xG given to opponents (2./20 most): 6 metrics at the bottom end at once
What happened: The whole system at the bottom end repeated in this match: possession 39 %, pass accuracy 81 %, 0 goals.
One more: Shots are not finding the target. 0/6 shots on target, i.e. 0 % (league 20./20)
What happened: Shots are not finding the target repeated in this match: 0/7 on target (0 %).
Finally: Player pick. Morgan Rogers comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Morgan Rogers did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
And: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.9 times/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: 8 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 4/7 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Arsenal shot 14.5 times per match (league 4.), Aston Villa: 12.9 shots conceded (league 13.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 7 shots (baseline 14.5, opponent concedes 12.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Arsenal scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 3.), Aston Villa: save percentage on shots on target 70.8 (league 3.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 1.05 expected (-0.05), 14 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Arsenal won 5.7 corners per match (league 5.), Aston Villa: 4.9 corners conceded (league 11.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 5), 1 goals.
Fourth: Dominance at both ends. Output above expected (+1.12, league 2./20) and only 0.20 xG per match given to opponents (20./20, 4 shots against)
What happened: Dominance at both ends turned in this match: 5 shots from the box, 1 goals, against 7 shots.
One more: The second half fades. Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -0.76)
What happened: The second half fades turned in this match: threat 0.36 → 0.69 xG.
Finally: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): goals by half 0+1.
And: Player pick. Zubimendi carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 0 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Zubimendi ranked 12/16 in his team's match ratings
And: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.7/match).
What happened: Style claim held: 0 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 3/8 held
Outcome · 7/15 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Matchweek 1claims held 46/85show 10 matches ▾
Arsenal–Coventry3–0puoliaika 2–0outcome: 4/6 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Arsenal shot 14.5 times per match (league 4.), Coventry are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 20 shots (baseline 14.5, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Arsenal scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 3.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 1.88 expected (+1.12), 15 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Arsenal won 5.7 corners per match (league 5.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 8 corners (expected 5), 3 goals.
Fourth: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim did not hold (sharpens late): goals by half 2+1.
One more: Player pick. Zubimendi carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 0 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Zubimendi ranked 16/16 in his team's match ratings
Finally: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.7/match).
What happened: Style claim held: 0 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 4/6 held
Watch first: Baseline. Coventry are promoted: there is no measured Premier League baseline, so this match is their first measurement, with Arsenal as the opponent. The yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots and 1.4 goals per match.
What happened: first measurement logged: 4 shots, 0.20 expected goals, possession 36 %, 0 goals, below league level (12.5 shots).
Outcome · 4/6 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Hull City–Man Utd2–0puoliaika 2–0outcome: 5/6 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Baseline. Hull City are promoted: there is no measured Premier League baseline, so this match is their first measurement, with Man Utd as the opponent. The yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots and 1.4 goals per match.
What happened: first measurement logged: 8 shots, 1.26 expected goals, possession 28 %, 2 goals, below league level (12.5 shots).
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man Utd shot 15.7 times per match (league 1.), Hull City are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 21 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man Utd scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 5.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 1.81 expected (-1.81), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man Utd won 4.8 corners per match (league 14.), league level: 5.0 corners conceded. The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 6 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): no goals came, but the back end tightened (concessions 2+0).
One more: Player pick. Bruno Fernandes comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: The player call held: Bruno Fernandes was among their team's best in the match scoring (1./16).
Finally: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 1. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 31.1 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 5/6 held
Outcome · 5/6 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Everton–Crystal Palace2–0puoliaika 1–0outcome: 5/9 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Everton shot 11.1 times per match (league 15.), Crystal Palace: 11.7 shots conceded (league 7.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 16 shots (baseline 11.1, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Everton scored from 11.2 percent of their shots (league 8.), Crystal Palace: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 7.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.16 expected (+0.84), 12 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Everton scored 60 percent of their goals in the second half, Crystal Palace 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Everton.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.31 → 0.85 xG, shots 6 → 10.
Fourth: Player pick. Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall was among his team's best in match ratings (1/15) and produced 1+0.
One more: Style of play. Plays without the ball: possession 44 % (league's 4. lowest); space comes from transitions.
What happened: Style claim held: possession 42 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 5/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Crystal Palace shot 11.6 times per match (league 13.), Everton: 14.0 shots conceded (league 17.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 11.6, opponent concedes 14.0).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Crystal Palace scored from 9.3 percent of their shots (league 19.), Everton: save percentage on shots on target 69.1 (league 5.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 2.04 expected (-2.04), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Crystal Palace won 4.2 corners per match (league 17.), Everton: 5.1 corners conceded (league 9.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 0 corners (expected 4), 0 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Jean-Philippe Mateta: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Jean-Philippe Mateta ranked 15/16 in his team's match ratings
From this match: 0/4 held
Outcome · 5/9 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Ipswich–Sunderland2–1puoliaika 1–1outcome: 2/5 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Baseline. Ipswich are promoted: there is no measured Premier League baseline, so this match is their first measurement, with Sunderland as the opponent. The yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots and 1.4 goals per match.
What happened: first measurement logged: 10 shots, 1.74 expected goals, possession 38 %, 2 goals, below league level (12.5 shots).
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Sunderland shot 10.4 times per match (league 18.), Ipswich are promoted, so the yardstick is the league level: 12.5 shots conceded on average. The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 11 shots (baseline 10.4, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Sunderland scored from 10.6 percent of their shots (league 14.), league level: save percentage on shots on target 67.3. In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.76 expected (+0.24), 9 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Sunderland scored 69 percent of their goals in the second half, liigan taso 57 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Sunderland.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 0.58 → 0.17 xG, shots 8 → 3.
Fourth: Player pick. Daniel Ballard carried the core, but fitness left question marks (2 early substitutions · 9 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Daniel Ballard ranked 9/16 in his team's match ratings
One more: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: The playing-style claim did not hold: 20 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 2/5 held
Outcome · 2/5 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Nott'm Forest–Leeds0–1puoliaika 0–0outcome: 3/10 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Nott'm Forest shot 12.5 times per match (league 12.), Leeds: 12.5 shots conceded (league 11.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 12 shots (baseline 12.5, opponent concedes 12.5).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Nott'm Forest scored from 10.1 percent of their shots (league 17.), Leeds: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 15.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.65 expected (-0.65), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Nott'm Forest scored 60 percent of their goals in the second half, Leeds 51 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Nottingham Forest.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.19 → 0.46 xG, shots 5 → 7.
Fourth: Player pick. Morgan Gibbs-White comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Morgan Gibbs-White ranked 6/15 in his team's match ratings
One more: Style of play. Deep line: the offside trap springs rarely (0.9/match).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 3 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 1/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Leeds shot 12.6 times per match (league 11.), Nott'm Forest: 13.3 shots conceded (league 15.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 11 shots (baseline 12.6, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Leeds scored from 10.2 percent of their shots (league 16.), Nott'm Forest: save percentage on shots on target 68.5 (league 8.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.49 expected (+0.51), 9 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Leeds won 4.4 corners per match (league 15.), Nott'm Forest: 4.8 corners conceded (league 15.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 4), 1 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Brenden Aaronson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Brenden Aaronson ranked 9/13 in his team's match ratings
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 31 passes per shot, the league's 3. most direct.
What happened: Style claim held: 29.5 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 2/5 held
Outcome · 3/10 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Brentford–Tottenham3–0puoliaika 2–0outcome: 5/11 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brentford shot 10.7 times per match (league 16.), Tottenham: 12.2 shots conceded (league 9.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 26 shots (baseline 10.7, opponent concedes 12.2).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brentford scored from 13.6 percent of their shots (league 1.), Tottenham: save percentage on shots on target 63.0 (league 19.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 3 goals from 3.96 expected (-0.96), 12 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brentford won 4.8 corners per match (league 13.), Tottenham: 4.7 corners conceded (league 16.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 7 corners (expected 5), 3 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Mathias Jensen: involvements exceeded output; the rise has backing.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Mathias Jensen ranked 7/16 in his team's match ratings and produced 0+1.
One more: Style of play. Low block: 36 % of shots conceded from outside the box, forces opponents to shoot from range.
What happened: Style claim held: 56 % of shots conceded from outside the box (league level 32 %).
From this match: 3/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Tottenham shot 11.5 times per match (league 14.), Brentford: 13.3 shots conceded (league 14.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 9 shots (baseline 11.5, opponent concedes 13.3).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Tottenham scored from 11.0 percent of their shots (league 10.), Brentford: save percentage on shots on target 67.9 (league 9.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.47 expected (-0.47), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Tottenham won 5.5 corners per match (league 7.), Brentford: 5.4 corners conceded (league 5.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 3 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Rhythm. 58% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim held (sharpens late): no goals came, but the back end tightened (concessions 2+1).
One more: Player pick. João Gonçalves comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: João Gonçalves did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
Finally: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 1.8 times/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: 3 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 2/6 held
Outcome · 5/11 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Brighton–Aston Villa4–0puoliaika 4–0outcome: 5/10 held (2 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Brighton shot 13.0 times per match (league 7.), Aston Villa: 12.9 shots conceded (league 13.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 21 shots (baseline 13.0, opponent concedes 12.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Brighton scored from 10.5 percent of their shots (league 15.), Aston Villa: save percentage on shots on target 70.8 (league 3.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 4 goals from 3.67 expected (+0.33), 19 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Brighton won 4.9 corners per match (league 12.), Aston Villa: 4.9 corners conceded (league 11.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 5 corners (expected 5), 4 goals.
Fourth: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim (sharpens late): goals level by half (4+0); not needed: the match was settled by half-time (4-0), the second half does not test the claim.
One more: Player pick. Gomez carried the core, but fitness left question marks (3 early substitutions · 6 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Gomez ranked 5/16 in his team's match ratings and produced 0+1.
Finally: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 54 % and 476 passes/match (league 5.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 73 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 4/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Aston Villa shot 12.7 times per match (league 9.), Brighton: 11.7 shots conceded (league 6.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 6 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 11.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Aston Villa scored from 11.6 percent of their shots (league 4.), Brighton: save percentage on shots on target 68.9 (league 6.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 0 goals from 0.31 expected (-0.31), 0 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Aston Villa won 5.2 corners per match (league 8.), Brighton: 4.8 corners conceded (league 14.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 5), 0 goals.
Fourth: Rhythm. 62% of the goals came in the second half; the attack sharpens late.
What happened: Rhythm claim waiting (sharpens late): not needed: the match was settled by half-time (0-4), the second half does not test the claim.
One more: Player pick. Morgan Rogers comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Morgan Rogers did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
Finally: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.9 times/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: 6 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 1/5 held
Outcome · 5/10 held (2 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Man City–Bournemouth2–1puoliaika 0–1outcome: 3/9 held (1 open) · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Man City shot 15.7 times per match (league 2.), Bournemouth: 12.6 shots conceded (league 12.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: between the readings: 13 shots (baseline 15.7, opponent concedes 12.6).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Man City scored from 12.9 percent of their shots (league 2.), Bournemouth: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 11.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: goalkeeping and finishing beat the team: 2 goals from 2.36 expected (-0.36), 15 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Man City won 6.5 corners per match (league 1.), Bournemouth: 5.3 corners conceded (league 6.). The expectation is at least 5 corners.
What happened: expectation met: 8 corners (expected 5), 2 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Antoine Semenyo comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Antoine Semenyo ranked 4/15 in his team's match ratings
One more: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 60 % and 587 passes/match (league 1.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 66 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 2/4 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Bournemouth shot 13.8 times per match (league 5.), Man City: 9.7 shots conceded (league 2.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the defence won: 5 shots (baseline 13.8, opponent concedes 9.7).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Bournemouth scored from 11.1 percent of their shots (league 9.), Man City: save percentage on shots on target 72.4 (league 1.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 1 goals from 0.63 expected (+0.37), 20 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Bournemouth scored 55 percent of their goals in the second half, Man City 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Bournemouth.
What happened: the second half was flatter: threat 0.55 → 0.08 xG, shots 4 → 1.
Fourth: Player pick. Junior Kroupi comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Junior Kroupi did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
One more: Style of play. Progresses quickly: 30 passes per shot, the league's 2. most direct.
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 66.6 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 1/5 held
Outcome · 3/9 held (1 open) · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Newcastle–Liverpool2–2puoliaika 1–0outcome: 7/9 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Newcastle shot 12.9 times per match (league 8.), Liverpool: 11.4 shots conceded (league 4.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 13 shots (baseline 12.9, opponent concedes 11.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Newcastle scored from 10.8 percent of their shots (league 11.), Liverpool: save percentage on shots on target 65.4 (league 16.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.42 expected (+0.58), 15 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Newcastle won 6.1 corners per match (league 3.), Liverpool: 4.4 corners conceded (league 17.). The expectation is at least 4 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 2 corners (expected 4), 2 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. Sandro Tonali carried the core, but fitness left question marks (4 early substitutions · 3 DNP, patchy season).
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Sandro Tonali did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
From this match: 2/4 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Liverpool shot 15.5 times per match (league 3.), Newcastle: 12.4 shots conceded (league 10.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 27 shots (baseline 15.5, opponent concedes 12.4).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Liverpool scored from 10.7 percent of their shots (league 12.), Newcastle: save percentage on shots on target 67.3 (league 10.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 2.23 expected (-0.23), 7 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Liverpool scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Newcastle 47 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Liverpool.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.41 → 1.82 xG, shots 9 → 18.
Fourth: Player pick. Ryan Gravenberch comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: Ryan Gravenberch was among his team's best in match ratings (3/15) and produced 0+1.
One more: Style of play. Keeps the ball: possession 59 % and 531 passes/match (league 2.).
What happened: Style claim held: possession 61 % (league level 50 %).
From this match: 5/5 held
Outcome · 7/9 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Fulham–Chelsea2–3puoliaika 1–2outcome: 7/10 held · open ▾
PREVIEW · derived from season data, deterministic (the same reading before and after the match)
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Fulham shot 12.7 times per match (league 10.), Chelsea: 10.9 shots conceded (league 3.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 14 shots (baseline 12.7, opponent concedes 10.9).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Fulham scored from 9.8 percent of their shots (league 18.), Chelsea: save percentage on shots on target 66.7 (league 12.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 2 goals from 1.35 expected (+0.65), 14 % of shots scored.
Third: Rhythm of the two halves. Fulham scored 62 percent of their goals in the second half, Chelsea 55 percent. If the gap holds, the threat grows late towards Fulham.
What happened: the second half was sharper: threat 0.44 → 0.92 xG, shots 7 → 7.
Fourth: Player pick. Harry Wilson comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick did not hold: Harry Wilson did not play in this match (not in the match ratings, which cover everyone who played).
One more: Style of play. High defensive line: opponents offside 2.6 times/match (league 3.).
What happened: Style claim held: 3 offsides drawn (league level 1.5).
From this match: 4/5 held
Watch first: Pressure vs the defence. Chelsea shot 13.4 times per match (league 6.), Fulham: 11.8 shots conceded (league 8.). The match's shot count tells which number held.
What happened: the pressure held: 18 shots (baseline 13.4, opponent concedes 11.8).
Then watch: Finishing vs the goalkeeper. Chelsea scored from 11.3 percent of their shots (league 7.), Fulham: save percentage on shots on target 65.8 (league 14.). In the match this shows in whether the goal count matches the threat created.
What happened: the finishing held: 3 goals from 1.70 expected (+1.30), 17 % of shots scored.
Third: Set pieces. Chelsea won 6.1 corners per match (league 4.), Fulham: 5.5 corners conceded (league 4.). The expectation is at least 6 corners.
What happened: fell short of expectation: 4 corners (expected 6), 3 goals.
Fourth: Player pick. João Pedro comes into the season on fire; watch whether the finishing continues where it left off.
What happened: Player pick held: João Pedro was among his team's best in match ratings (2/16) and produced 1+1.
One more: Style of play. Patient build-up: 40 passes per shot (league's 2. most).
What happened: Style claim did not hold: 21.7 passes per shot (league level 35.1).
From this match: 3/5 held
Outcome · 7/10 held · every preview claim is graded under its own item
Every match row opens into a preview and, once played, a receipt. The preview derives from season data and is deterministic, so the opening round's retrospective reading is honestly marked. ● measured; the outcome tells, claim by claim, whether it happened or not.
The receipt: the result and the grading of the read come from round data, every preview claim is graded against the outcome, and hits and misses go into the Track record. The next match's preview is published once the round's match data has been read.
Team cards
the 2026-27 league · profiles + promoted · relegated in the archive ●The team reaches the box: 13/16 shots from inside the box (Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea).
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 13/16 shots from inside the box
Last season 14.5 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Other tracked hypotheses (4)
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: own threat 0.36 → 0.69 xG, opponents 0.09 → 0.23
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: own threat 0.39 → 1.24 xG, opponents 0.36 → 0.95
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Sunderland: own threat 0.77 → 1.11 xG, opponents 0.23 → 1.57
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: own threat 0.45 → 2.21 xG, opponents 0.44 → 0.30
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: own threat 1.17 → 0.88 xG, opponents 0.15 → 0.24
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: own threat 1.32 → 0.56 xG, opponents 0.04 → 0.16
Last season 58 % of goals came in the second half (41 / 71)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Duels State · strengthening · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 52 % of duels won (37/71)
+ Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: 57 % of duels won (51/90)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Sunderland: 59 % of duels won (53/90)
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 55 % of duels won (55/100)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 49 % of duels won (42/85)
− Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 50 % of duels won (51/102)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 4 · Shooting accuracy State · mixed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 6/20 shots on target (30 %)
+ Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: 2/7 shots on target (29 %)
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 2/11 shots on target (18 %)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 9/16 shots on target (56 %)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Sunderland: 5/11 shots on target (45 %)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
Last season 34 % of shots on target (186 / 552)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 5 · Finishing State · mixed · 3 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 0 goals from 1.63 expected (-1.63)
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 2 goals from 2.66 expected (-0.66)
Challenges
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 3 goals from 1.88 expected (+1.12)
Last season 1.9 goals and 14.5 shots in the match, 13 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Show 60 findings
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Threat by half − own threat 1.17 → 0.88 xG, opponents 0.15 → 0.24
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Shooting accuracy − 9/16 shots on target (56 %)
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Discipline + 2 cards, 13 fouls
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Duels − 49 % of duels won (42/85)
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Possession and duels + possession 55 %, duels 49 %
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Set pieces − 5 corners, 3 conceded
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sun 6 Sep home vs Chelsea · Box pressure + 13/16 shots from inside the box
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.88 expected (+1.12)
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Threat by half − own threat 1.32 → 0.56 xG, opponents 0.04 → 0.16
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Shooting accuracy + 6/20 shots on target (30 %)
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Discipline − 1 cards, 10 fouls
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Duels + 52 % of duels won (37/71)
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Possession and duels − possession 64 %, duels 52 %
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Set pieces − 8 corners, 2 conceded
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Own box − 1 shots against from inside the box (4 in total)
Fri 21 Aug home vs Coventry · Box pressure + 10/20 shots from inside the box
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Threat by half + own threat 0.36 → 0.69 xG, opponents 0.09 → 0.23
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Goalkeeper − 0 saves
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Shooting accuracy + 2/7 shots on target (29 %)
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Discipline − 1 cards, 6 fouls
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Duels + 57 % of duels won (51/90)
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Possession and duels − possession 61 %, duels 57 %
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Set pieces − 4 corners, 2 conceded
Mon 31 Aug away vs Aston Villa · Own box − 3 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.63 expected (-1.63)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Threat by half + own threat 0.39 → 1.24 xG, opponents 0.36 → 0.95
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Shooting accuracy + 2/11 shots on target (18 %)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Discipline − 1 cards, 11 fouls
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Duels − 50 % of duels won (51/102)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Possession and duels − possession 60 %, duels 50 %
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Set pieces + 6 corners, 5 conceded
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Brighton · Box pressure + 10/11 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Threat by half + own threat 0.77 → 1.11 xG, opponents 0.23 → 1.57
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Shooting accuracy − 5/11 shots on target (45 %)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Discipline + 2 cards, 11 fouls
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Duels + 59 % of duels won (53/90)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Possession and duels − possession 57 %, duels 59 %
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Sunderland · Box pressure + 8/11 shots from inside the box
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Finishing + 2 goals from 2.66 expected (-0.66)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Threat by half + own threat 0.45 → 2.21 xG, opponents 0.44 → 0.30
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Shooting accuracy − 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Discipline − 1 cards, 12 fouls
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Duels + 55 % of duels won (55/100)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Possession and duels − possession 58 %, duels 55 %
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Set pieces − 3 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Leeds · Box pressure + 8/13 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (6)
Hypothesis 1 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 4 saves
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 4 saves
Challenges
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 1 saves
− Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: 0 saves
− Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 2 saves
− Sat 12.9. away vs Sunderland: 2 saves
Last season 70 % of shots on target kept out (27 conceded / 90)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 2 · Discipline State · closed · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 2 cards, 13 fouls
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Sunderland: 2 cards, 11 fouls
Challenges
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 1 cards, 10 fouls
− Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: 1 cards, 6 fouls
− Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 1 cards, 11 fouls
− Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 1 cards, 12 fouls
Last season 1.3 cards and 10.3 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 3 · Set pieces State · closed · 5 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 6 corners, 5 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 5 corners, 3 conceded
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 8 corners, 2 conceded
− Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: 4 corners, 2 conceded
− Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 3 corners, 4 conceded
Last season 5.7 corners in the match, 3.4 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 4 · Defensive line State · closed · 5 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 4 offsides won
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 0 offsides won
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 0 offsides won
− Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: 0 offsides won
− Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Hypothesis 5 · Own box State · closed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: 10 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: 5 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: 1 shots against from inside the box (4 in total)
− Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: 3 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Sunderland: 7 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Last season 8.2 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 6 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Chelsea: possession 55 %, duels 49 %
Challenges
− Fri 21.8. home vs Coventry: possession 64 %, duels 52 %
− Mon 31.8. away vs Aston Villa: possession 61 %, duels 57 %
− Sat 19.9. away vs Brighton: possession 60 %, duels 50 %
− Sat 12.9. away vs Sunderland: possession 57 %, duels 59 %
− Sat 10.10. home vs Leeds: possession 58 %, duels 55 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: deep line: the offside trap sprang only 6 times (18./20)
Progression: progresses with control: 38.6 passes per shot (league 3./20 most), possession 59 %
Set pieces: in attack 28 corners (league 8./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 20 corners against (20./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (3+7 goals); own threat grows in the second half (4.46 → 6.69 xG); opponents' threat grows (1.31 → 3.45 xG); first substitution on average at minute 58
When leading: withstood the pressure: led at half-time 1 time and kept the result even as the opponents' threat grew (opponents' xG 1.31 → 3.45)
The duels carry: 54 % of duels won (289/538), league 1./20
We track whether the duel wins hold as opponents change their approach.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +2.23)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −1.7 | +4.9 |
| Midfield | +3.7 | +6.1 |
| Forwards | +1.2 | −1.7 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The cost of indiscipline has grown: 2 cards, 11 fouls (Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City).
Last quarter hour · Bournemouth dropped 7 points after the 75th minute.
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: 2 cards, 11 fouls
− Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: 1 cards, 11 fouls
Last season 2.4 cards and 12.0 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Other tracked hypotheses (4)
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: own threat 0.15 → 0.65 xG, opponents 0.49 → 1.16
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: own threat 0.48 → 1.66 xG, opponents 1.06 → 0.66
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Brentford: own threat 0.67 → 1.08 xG, opponents 0.33 → 0.17
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: own threat 0.37 → 1.15 xG, opponents 0.50 → 0.66
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: own threat 0.55 → 0.08 xG, opponents 0.49 → 1.87
− Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: own threat 1.29 → 0.08 xG, opponents 0.14 → 0.57
Last season 55 % of goals came in the second half (32 / 58)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: 9/17 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: 13/17 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Brentford: 10/20 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 13.8 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 4 · Finishing State · strengthening · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: 0 goals from 0.79 expected (-0.79)
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: 1 goals from 2.14 expected (-1.14)
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: 1 goals from 1.52 expected (-0.52)
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: 2 goals from 1.37 expected (+0.63)
Last season 1.5 goals and 13.8 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 5 · Shooting accuracy State · mixed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: 2/9 shots on target (22 %)
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: 5/17 shots on target (29 %)
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: 5/17 shots on target (29 %)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: 4/5 shots on target (80 %)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Brentford: 10/20 shots on target (50 %)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: 4/9 shots on target (44 %)
Last season 34 % of shots on target (178 / 525)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Show 53 findings
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Threat by half − own threat 0.55 → 0.08 xG, opponents 0.49 → 1.87
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Shooting accuracy − 4/5 shots on target (80 %)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Discipline + 2 cards, 11 fouls
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Duels − 46 % of duels won (39/85)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Possession and duels − possession 34 %, duels 46 %
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Set pieces − 3 corners, 8 conceded
Sun 23 Aug away vs Manchester City · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.79 expected (-0.79)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Threat by half + own threat 0.15 → 0.65 xG, opponents 0.49 → 1.16
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Shooting accuracy + 2/9 shots on target (22 %)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Discipline − 1 cards, 11 fouls
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Duels − 44 % of duels won (40/91)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Possession and duels − possession 46 %, duels 44 %
Sun 20 Sep home vs Liverpool · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.37 expected (+0.63)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Threat by half − own threat 1.29 → 0.08 xG, opponents 0.14 → 0.57
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Goalkeeper − 0 saves
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Shooting accuracy + 5/17 shots on target (29 %)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Discipline + 3 cards, 17 fouls
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Duels + 53 % of duels won (61/116)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Possession and duels − possession 42 %, duels 53 %
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Set pieces − 3 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (8 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Newcastle · Box pressure + 9/17 shots from inside the box
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Finishing + 1 goals from 2.14 expected (-1.14)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Threat by half + own threat 0.48 → 1.66 xG, opponents 1.06 → 0.66
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Shooting accuracy + 5/17 shots on target (29 %)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Discipline + 3 cards, 11 fouls
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Duels + 55 % of duels won (57/103)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Possession and duels − possession 58 %, duels 55 %
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Set pieces − 10 corners, 7 conceded
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Everton · Box pressure + 13/17 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Threat by half + own threat 0.67 → 1.08 xG, opponents 0.33 → 0.17
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Goalkeeper − 0 saves
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Shooting accuracy − 10/20 shots on target (50 %)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Discipline + 5 cards, 10 fouls
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Duels − 48 % of duels won (58/122)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Possession and duels + possession 57 %, duels 48 %
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (8 in total)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Brentford · Box pressure + 10/20 shots from inside the box
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.52 expected (-0.52)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Threat by half + own threat 0.37 → 1.15 xG, opponents 0.50 → 0.66
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Shooting accuracy − 4/9 shots on target (44 %)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Discipline + 4 cards, 15 fouls
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Duels − 45 % of duels won (47/104)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Possession and duels + possession 60 %, duels 45 %
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Set pieces − 7 corners, 1 conceded
Sat 10 Oct away vs Chelsea · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Suljetut hypoteesit (5)
Hypothesis 1 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: 53 % of duels won (61/116)
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: 55 % of duels won (57/103)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: 46 % of duels won (39/85)
− Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: 44 % of duels won (40/91)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Brentford: 48 % of duels won (58/122)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: 45 % of duels won (47/104)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 2 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Brentford: possession 57 %, duels 48 %
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: possession 60 %, duels 45 %
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: possession 34 %, duels 46 %
− Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: possession 46 %, duels 44 %
− Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: possession 42 %, duels 53 %
− Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: possession 58 %, duels 55 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 3 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: 4 saves
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: 2 saves
− Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: 0 saves
− Sat 12.9. home vs Brentford: 0 saves
− Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: 1 saves
Last season 67 % of shots on target kept out (54 conceded / 162)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 4 · Own box State · closed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: 11 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Liverpool: 7 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: 5 shots against from inside the box (8 in total)
− Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: 7 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Brentford: 6 shots against from inside the box (8 in total)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: 6 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Last season 12.6 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 5 · Set pieces State · closed · 4 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Manchester City: 3 corners, 8 conceded
− Sat 5.9. away vs Newcastle: 3 corners, 4 conceded
− Sat 29.8. home vs Everton: 10 corners, 7 conceded
− Sat 10.10. away vs Chelsea: 7 corners, 1 conceded
Last season 5.6 corners in the match, 5.3 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 8 offsides drawn
Progression: progression mid-table: 32.0 passes per shot, possession 50 %
Set pieces: in attack 28 corners (league 9./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 24 corners against (18./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the opening half (5+2 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 4+9); own threat grows in the second half (3.51 → 4.70 xG); opponents' threat grows (3.01 → 5.09 xG); first substitution on average at minute 68
When leading: the lead broke: 3 leads at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 3.01 → 5.09)
The cost of indiscipline grows: 18 cards (league 2./20) and 75 fouls (6./20)
We track whether cards accumulate into suspensions and fouls into set pieces for opponents.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.19)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −0.8 | +5.0 |
| Midfield | −3.6 | −6.6 |
| Forwards | −0.5 | +1.1 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The box has been reached too easily: 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total) (Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds).
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Last season 11.7 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Other tracked hypotheses (6)
Hypothesis 2 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: 11/13 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: 8/11 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: 9/11 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 11.6 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 3 · Discipline State · strengthening · 5 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: 3 cards, 12 fouls
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: 2 cards, 11 fouls
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: 2 cards, 6 fouls
Challenges
− Fri 28.8. home vs Manchester City: 1 cards, 8 fouls
− Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: 1 cards, 15 fouls
Last season 2.0 cards and 10.5 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 4 · Threat by half State · mixed · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: own threat 0.18 → 0.88 xG, opponents 0.54 → 0.77
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Fulham: own threat 0.30 → 1.67 xG, opponents 1.60 → 1.54
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: own threat 0.20 → 0.41 xG, opponents 0.92 → 0.76
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: own threat 1.41 → 1.01 xG, opponents 2.18 → 0.80
− Fri 28.8. home vs Manchester City: own threat 0.30 → 0.27 xG, opponents 0.85 → 0.61
− Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: own threat 1.65 → 0.39 xG, opponents 0.31 → 0.85
Last season 51 % of goals came in the second half (21 / 41)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 5 · Goalkeeper State · mixed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: 4 saves
+ Fri 28.8. home vs Manchester City: 4 saves
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Fulham: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: 2 saves
− Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: 3 saves
− Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: 3 saves
Last season 69 % of shots on target kept out (51 conceded / 162)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 6 · Set pieces State · declining · 2 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: 5 corners, 8 conceded
− Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: 6 corners, 3 conceded
Last season 4.2 corners in the match, 5.2 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 7 · Defensive line Status · fading · 1 match
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Fri 28.8. home vs Manchester City: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 52 findings
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.06 expected (-1.06)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Threat by half + own threat 0.18 → 0.88 xG, opponents 0.54 → 0.77
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Shooting accuracy − 4/12 shots on target (33 %)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Discipline + 3 cards, 12 fouls
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Duels − 44 % of duels won (44/101)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Possession and duels − possession 49 %, duels 44 %
Sun 20 Sep away vs Leeds · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Finishing − 3 goals from 2.42 expected (+0.58)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Threat by half − own threat 1.41 → 1.01 xG, opponents 2.18 → 0.80
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Shooting accuracy − 7/13 shots on target (54 %)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Discipline + 2 cards, 11 fouls
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Duels − 51 % of duels won (50/98)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Possession and duels − possession 43 %, duels 51 %
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Set pieces − 5 corners, 8 conceded
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Own box + 16 shots against from inside the box (24 in total)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Nottingham Forest · Box pressure + 11/13 shots from inside the box
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Threat by half − own threat 0.30 → 0.27 xG, opponents 0.85 → 0.61
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Shooting accuracy + 1/9 shots on target (11 %)
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Discipline − 1 cards, 8 fouls
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Duels − 51 % of duels won (55/107)
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Possession and duels − possession 28 %, duels 51 %
Fri 28 Aug home vs Manchester City · Own box + 12 shots against from inside the box (18 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Fulham · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.97 expected (+1.03)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Fulham · Threat by half + own threat 0.30 → 1.67 xG, opponents 1.60 → 1.54
Sat 5 Sep away vs Fulham · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 5 Sep away vs Fulham · Shooting accuracy − 5/10 shots on target (50 %)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Fulham · Duels + 55 % of duels won (44/80)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Fulham · Possession and duels − possession 36 %, duels 55 %
Sat 5 Sep away vs Fulham · Own box + 22 shots against from inside the box (25 in total)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Finishing + 0 goals from 2.04 expected (-2.04)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Threat by half − own threat 1.65 → 0.39 xG, opponents 0.31 → 0.85
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Shooting accuracy − 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Discipline − 1 cards, 15 fouls
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Duels − 46 % of duels won (46/99)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Possession and duels + possession 58 %, duels 46 %
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (16 in total)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Everton · Box pressure + 8/11 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Finishing − 2 goals from 0.62 expected (+1.38)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Threat by half + own threat 0.20 → 0.41 xG, opponents 0.92 → 0.76
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Shooting accuracy − 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Discipline + 2 cards, 6 fouls
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Duels + 56 % of duels won (50/89)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Possession and duels − possession 47 %, duels 56 %
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Set pieces − 6 corners, 3 conceded
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Ipswich · Box pressure + 9/11 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (4)
Hypothesis 1 · Finishing State · closed · 5 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: 0 goals from 1.06 expected (-1.06)
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: 0 goals from 2.04 expected (-2.04)
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: 3 goals from 2.42 expected (+0.58)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Fulham: 3 goals from 1.97 expected (+1.03)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: 2 goals from 0.62 expected (+1.38)
Last season 1.1 goals and 11.6 shots in the match, 9 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 2 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Fulham: 55 % of duels won (44/80)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: 56 % of duels won (50/89)
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: 44 % of duels won (44/101)
− Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: 51 % of duels won (50/98)
− Fri 28.8. home vs Manchester City: 51 % of duels won (55/107)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: 46 % of duels won (46/99)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 3 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Fri 28.8. home vs Manchester City: 1/9 shots on target (11 %)
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: 4/12 shots on target (33 %)
− Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: 7/13 shots on target (54 %)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Fulham: 5/10 shots on target (50 %)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
Last season 32 % of shots on target (141 / 442)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 4 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Everton: possession 58 %, duels 46 %
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. away vs Leeds: possession 49 %, duels 44 %
− Sun 11.10. home vs Nottingham Forest: possession 43 %, duels 51 %
− Fri 28.8. home vs Manchester City: possession 28 %, duels 51 %
− Sat 5.9. away vs Fulham: possession 36 %, duels 55 %
− Sat 12.9. home vs Ipswich: possession 47 %, duels 56 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: deep line: the offside trap sprang only 7 times (17./20); box open: 72 % of shots conceded came from inside the box
Progression: progression mid-table: 36.8 passes per shot, possession 44 %
Set pieces: in attack 17 corners (league 19./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 32 corners against (3./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (3+6 goals); own end tightens late (concessions 7+5); own threat holds in the second half (4.04 → 4.63 xG); opponents' threat holds (6.40 → 5.33 xG); first substitution on average at minute 53 (forced reaction)
Opponents get into the box: 78 shots against from inside the box (1st most of 20), 108 shots in total (72 % from the box)
We track whether the number of shots conceded in the box narrows: leaking the box predicts goals conceded over a longer sample.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −2.0 | −1.7 |
| Midfield | −11.5 | −9.4 |
| Forwards | −3.5 | −3.7 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The cost of indiscipline has grown: 3 cards, 15 fouls (Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle).
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: 3 cards, 15 fouls
− Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 0 cards, 11 fouls
Last season 1.5 cards and 10.1 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Other tracked hypotheses (7)
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: own threat 0.41 → 1.82 xG, opponents 0.25 → 1.17
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: own threat 0.49 → 1.16 xG, opponents 0.15 → 0.65
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: own threat 0.25 → 1.36 xG, opponents 1.31 → 0.99
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: own threat 0.52 → 0.76 xG, opponents 0.40 → 0.30
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: own threat 0.51 → 0.51 xG, opponents 0.11 → 1.24
− Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: own threat 0.42 → 0.26 xG, opponents 0.51 → 0.25
Last season 62 % of goals came in the second half (39 / 63)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: 16/27 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: 8/13 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 9/14 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 15.5 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 4 · Finishing State · strengthening · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: 1 goals from 1.65 expected (-0.65)
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: 0 goals from 1.02 expected (-1.02)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 0 goals from 1.28 expected (-1.28)
Challenges
− Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: 2 goals from 0.69 expected (+1.31)
Last season 1.7 goals and 15.5 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 5 · Duels State · mixed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: 56 % of duels won (51/91)
+ Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: 55 % of duels won (49/89)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 52 % of duels won (38/73)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: 51 % of duels won (50/98)
− Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: 46 % of duels won (46/100)
− Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: 46 % of duels won (51/111)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 6 · Own box State · mixed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: 8 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: 11 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 8 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
− Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: 5 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
− Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: 4 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Last season 11.4 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 7 · Shooting accuracy State · mixed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: 7/27 shots on target (26 %)
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 3/14 shots on target (21 %)
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
− Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: 7/10 shots on target (70 %)
− Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
Last season 30 % of shots on target (175 / 588)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 8 · Defensive line State · mixed · 3 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: 4 offsides won
+ Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: 5 offsides won
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 58 findings
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Threat by half + own threat 0.41 → 1.82 xG, opponents 0.25 → 1.17
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Shooting accuracy + 7/27 shots on target (26 %)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Discipline + 3 cards, 15 fouls
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Duels − 51 % of duels won (50/98)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Possession and duels − possession 61 %, duels 51 %
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Set pieces − 6 corners, 2 conceded
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Newcastle · Box pressure + 16/27 shots from inside the box
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.65 expected (-0.65)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Threat by half + own threat 0.49 → 1.16 xG, opponents 0.15 → 0.65
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Shooting accuracy + 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Discipline + 2 cards, 13 fouls
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Duels + 56 % of duels won (51/91)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Possession and duels − possession 54 %, duels 56 %
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Set pieces − 3 corners, 3 conceded
Sun 20 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.02 expected (-1.02)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Threat by half − own threat 0.51 → 0.51 xG, opponents 0.11 → 1.24
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Shooting accuracy − 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Discipline + 3 cards, 19 fouls
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Duels − 46 % of duels won (46/100)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Possession and duels − possession 35 %, duels 46 %
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Set pieces + 5 corners, 6 conceded
Sun 11 Oct home vs Manchester City · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Finishing − 2 goals from 0.69 expected (+1.31)
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Threat by half − own threat 0.42 → 0.26 xG, opponents 0.51 → 0.25
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Shooting accuracy − 7/10 shots on target (70 %)
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Defensive line + 5 offsides won
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Discipline + 3 cards, 13 fouls
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Duels + 55 % of duels won (49/89)
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Possession and duels − possession 55 %, duels 55 %
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Set pieces − 3 corners, 4 conceded
Fri 4 Sep away vs Ipswich · Own box − 4 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Threat by half + own threat 0.25 → 1.36 xG, opponents 1.31 → 0.99
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Shooting accuracy − 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Discipline + 4 cards, 13 fouls
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Duels − 46 % of duels won (51/111)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Possession and duels + possession 70 %, duels 46 %
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Set pieces − 3 corners, 5 conceded
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Nottingham Forest · Box pressure + 8/13 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.28 expected (-1.28)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Threat by half + own threat 0.52 → 0.76 xG, opponents 0.40 → 0.30
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Shooting accuracy + 3/14 shots on target (21 %)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Discipline − 0 cards, 11 fouls
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Duels + 52 % of duels won (38/73)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Possession and duels − possession 56 %, duels 52 %
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Set pieces + 5 corners, 8 conceded
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Fulham · Box pressure + 9/14 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (3)
Hypothesis 1 · Set pieces State · closed · 6 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: 5 corners, 6 conceded
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 5 corners, 8 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: 6 corners, 2 conceded
− Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: 3 corners, 3 conceded
− Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: 3 corners, 4 conceded
− Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: 3 corners, 5 conceded
Last season 6.1 corners in the match, 4.4 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 2 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: possession 70 %, duels 46 %
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: possession 61 %, duels 51 %
− Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: possession 54 %, duels 56 %
− Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: possession 35 %, duels 46 %
− Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: possession 55 %, duels 55 %
− Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: possession 56 %, duels 52 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 3 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Fri 4.9. away vs Ipswich: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Newcastle: 3 saves
− Sun 20.9. away vs Bournemouth: 2 saves
− Sun 11.10. home vs Manchester City: 1 saves
− Sat 29.8. home vs Nottingham Forest: 1 saves
− Sat 12.9. home vs Fulham: 3 saves
Last season 65 % of shots on target kept out (53 conceded / 153)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 14 offsides drawn
Progression: progression mid-table: 32.2 passes per shot, possession 55 %
Set pieces: in attack 25 corners (league 14./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 28 corners against (10./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (2+5 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 2+5); own threat grows in the second half (2.60 → 5.87 xG); opponents' threat grows (2.73 → 4.60 xG); first substitution on average at minute 63
When leading: withstood the pressure: led at half-time 1 time and kept the result even as the opponents' threat grew (opponents' xG 2.73 → 4.60)
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.27)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +3.7 | +0.8 |
| Midfield | −1.9 | +0.2 |
| Forwards | +1.8 | −0.3 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The box has been reached too easily: 16 shots against from inside the box (27 in total) (Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool).
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: 16 shots against from inside the box (27 in total)
− Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Last season 12.4 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Other tracked hypotheses (5)
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: own threat 0.25 → 1.17 xG, opponents 0.41 → 1.82
+ Mon 14.9. away vs Leeds: own threat 0.26 → 0.62 xG, opponents 1.49 → 0.59
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: own threat 0.14 → 0.57 xG, opponents 1.29 → 0.08
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: own threat 0.26 → 0.49 xG, opponents 0.50 → 0.54
Challenges
− Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: own threat 1.23 → 0.64 xG, opponents 0.88 → 0.59
− Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: own threat 1.19 → 0.25 xG, opponents 0.34 → 1.26
Last season 47 % of goals came in the second half (25 / 53)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Discipline State · strengthening · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: 5 cards, 16 fouls
+ Mon 14.9. away vs Leeds: 2 cards, 13 fouls
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: 2 cards, 19 fouls
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: 2 cards, 9 fouls
Challenges
− Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 1 cards, 10 fouls
− Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: 1 cards, 4 fouls
Last season 1.7 cards and 10.2 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 4 · Goalkeeper State · mixed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: 5 saves
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: 4 saves
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: 4 saves
Challenges
− Mon 14.9. away vs Leeds: 3 saves
− Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 2 saves
− Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: 3 saves
Last season 67 % of shots on target kept out (55 conceded / 168)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 5 · Possession and duels State · mixed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Mon 14.9. away vs Leeds: possession 50 %, duels 47 %
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: possession 58 %, duels 47 %
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: possession 56 %, duels 48 %
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: possession 39 %, duels 48 %
− Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: possession 67 %, duels 54 %
− Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: possession 42 %, duels 53 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 6 · Box pressure State · new · 2 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 11/19 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: 9/12 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 12.9 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Show 54 findings
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.42 expected (+0.58)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Threat by half + own threat 0.25 → 1.17 xG, opponents 0.41 → 1.82
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Shooting accuracy − 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Discipline + 5 cards, 16 fouls
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Duels − 48 % of duels won (47/97)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Possession and duels − possession 39 %, duels 48 %
Sun 23 Aug home vs Liverpool · Own box + 16 shots against from inside the box (27 in total)
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Threat by half + own threat 0.26 → 0.62 xG, opponents 1.49 → 0.59
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Shooting accuracy − 5/7 shots on target (71 %)
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Discipline + 2 cards, 13 fouls
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Duels − 47 % of duels won (49/104)
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Possession and duels + possession 50 %, duels 47 %
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Set pieces − 5 corners, 5 conceded
Mon 14 Sep away vs Leeds · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.87 expected (-0.87)
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Threat by half − own threat 1.23 → 0.64 xG, opponents 0.88 → 0.59
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Shooting accuracy − 6/19 shots on target (32 %)
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Discipline − 1 cards, 10 fouls
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Duels + 54 % of duels won (44/81)
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Possession and duels − possession 67 %, duels 54 %
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Set pieces − 6 corners, 2 conceded
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Mon 12 Oct away vs Coventry · Box pressure + 11/19 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Finishing − 2 goals from 0.71 expected (+1.29)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Threat by half + own threat 0.14 → 0.57 xG, opponents 1.29 → 0.08
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Shooting accuracy + 2/8 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Discipline + 2 cards, 19 fouls
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Duels − 47 % of duels won (55/116)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Possession and duels + possession 58 %, duels 47 %
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Set pieces − 4 corners, 3 conceded
Sat 5 Sep home vs Bournemouth · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Finishing − 2 goals from 0.75 expected (+1.25)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Threat by half + own threat 0.26 → 0.49 xG, opponents 0.50 → 0.54
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Shooting accuracy + 2/11 shots on target (18 %)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Discipline + 2 cards, 9 fouls
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Duels + 53 % of duels won (41/78)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Possession and duels − possession 42 %, duels 53 %
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Set pieces − 7 corners, 9 conceded
Sat 29 Aug away vs Tottenham · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.44 expected (+0.56)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Threat by half − own threat 1.19 → 0.25 xG, opponents 0.34 → 1.26
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Shooting accuracy − 5/12 shots on target (42 %)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Discipline − 1 cards, 4 fouls
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Duels − 48 % of duels won (46/96)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Possession and duels + possession 56 %, duels 48 %
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Set pieces − 4 corners, 7 conceded
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Own box + 12 shots against from inside the box (22 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Hull City · Box pressure + 9/12 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (4)
Hypothesis 1 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 54 % of duels won (44/81)
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: 53 % of duels won (41/78)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: 48 % of duels won (47/97)
− Mon 14.9. away vs Leeds: 47 % of duels won (49/104)
− Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: 47 % of duels won (55/116)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: 48 % of duels won (46/96)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 2 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: 2/8 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: 2/11 shots on target (18 %)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
− Mon 14.9. away vs Leeds: 5/7 shots on target (71 %)
− Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 6/19 shots on target (32 %)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: 5/12 shots on target (42 %)
Last season 36 % of shots on target (176 / 492)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 3 · Finishing State · closed · 5 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 1 goals from 1.87 expected (-0.87)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Liverpool: 2 goals from 1.42 expected (+0.58)
− Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: 2 goals from 0.71 expected (+1.29)
− Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: 2 goals from 0.75 expected (+1.25)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: 2 goals from 1.44 expected (+0.56)
Last season 1.4 goals and 12.9 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 4 · Set pieces State · closed · 5 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Mon 14.9. away vs Leeds: 5 corners, 5 conceded
− Mon 12.10. away vs Coventry: 6 corners, 2 conceded
− Sat 5.9. home vs Bournemouth: 4 corners, 3 conceded
− Sat 29.8. away vs Tottenham: 7 corners, 9 conceded
− Sat 19.9. home vs Hull City: 4 corners, 7 conceded
Last season 6.1 corners in the match, 4.9 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 9 offsides drawn
Progression: progression mid-table: 37.1 passes per shot, possession 52 %
Set pieces: in attack 28 corners (league 10./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 32 corners against (4./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (4+7 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 5+8); own threat holds in the second half (3.33 → 3.74 xG); opponents' threat holds (4.91 → 4.88 xG); first substitution on average at minute 56
When leading: the lead broke: 2 leads at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 4.91 → 4.88)
Opponents get into the box: 63 shots against from inside the box (3rd most of 20), 107 shots in total (59 % from the box)
We track whether the number of shots conceded in the box narrows: leaking the box predicts goals conceded over a longer sample.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −0.6 | −3.2 |
| Midfield | −3.3 | −4.6 |
| Forwards | +2.4 | +0.5 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The cost of indiscipline has grown: 4 cards, 9 fouls (Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton).
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: 4 cards, 9 fouls
− Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: 0 cards, 5 fouls
Last season 1.6 cards and 10.0 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Other tracked hypotheses (7)
Hypothesis 2 · Defensive line State · strengthening · 4 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: 6 offsides won
+ Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: 8 offsides won
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: 5 offsides won
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: 4 offsides won
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Hypothesis 3 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: 15 shots against from inside the box (21 in total)
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: 12 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: 14 shots against from inside the box (22 in total)
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Brentford: 12 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Challenges
− Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: 5 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: 4 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Last season 12.9 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 4 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 5 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: 10/13 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: 9/15 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Brentford: 15/20 shots from inside the box
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: 2/6 shots from inside the box
− Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: 3/7 shots from inside the box
Last season 12.7 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 5 · Shooting accuracy State · mixed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: 0/6 shots on target (0 %)
+ Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: 0/7 shots on target (0 %)
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: 1/13 shots on target (8 %)
Challenges
− Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: 6/15 shots on target (40 %)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: 5/7 shots on target (71 %)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brentford: 7/20 shots on target (35 %)
Last season 35 % of shots on target (170 / 483)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 6 · Goalkeeper State · mixed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: 4 saves
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: 5 saves
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: 3 saves
− Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: 1 saves
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brentford: 3 saves
Last season 71 % of shots on target kept out (49 conceded / 168)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 7 · Finishing State · mixed · 2 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: 0 goals from 1.93 expected (-1.93)
Challenges
− Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: 3 goals from 1.16 expected (+1.84)
Last season 1.5 goals and 12.7 shots in the match, 12 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 8 · Set pieces Status · fading · 1 match
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: 6 corners, 1 conceded
Last season 5.2 corners in the match, 4.9 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Show 54 findings
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Threat by half − own threat 0.18 → 0.13 xG, opponents 2.96 → 0.71
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Shooting accuracy + 0/6 shots on target (0 %)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Defensive line + 6 offsides won
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Discipline + 4 cards, 9 fouls
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Duels − 48 % of duels won (46/96)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Possession and duels − possession 27 %, duels 48 %
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Own box + 15 shots against from inside the box (21 in total)
Sun 23 Aug away vs Brighton · Box pressure − 2/6 shots from inside the box
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Threat by half + own threat 0.09 → 0.23 xG, opponents 0.36 → 0.69
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Shooting accuracy + 0/7 shots on target (0 %)
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Defensive line + 8 offsides won
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Discipline + 3 cards, 17 fouls
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Duels − 43 % of duels won (39/90)
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Possession and duels − possession 39 %, duels 43 %
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
Mon 31 Aug home vs Arsenal · Box pressure − 3/7 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.93 expected (-1.93)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Threat by half + own threat 0.57 → 1.36 xG, opponents 0.08 → 0.49
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Shooting accuracy + 1/13 shots on target (8 %)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Discipline − 0 cards, 5 fouls
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Duels − 45 % of duels won (38/84)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Possession and duels + possession 74 %, duels 45 %
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Own box − 4 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Hull City · Box pressure + 10/13 shots from inside the box
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.16 expected (+1.84)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Threat by half − own threat 0.82 → 0.35 xG, opponents 0.64 → 0.92
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Shooting accuracy − 6/15 shots on target (40 %)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Defensive line + 5 offsides won
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Discipline + 2 cards, 13 fouls
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Duels − 41 % of duels won (46/111)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Possession and duels − possession 36 %, duels 41 %
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Own box + 12 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Tottenham · Box pressure + 9/15 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Threat by half − own threat 0.65 → 0.17 xG, opponents 0.39 → 1.89
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Shooting accuracy − 5/7 shots on target (71 %)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Discipline + 2 cards, 11 fouls
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Duels − 48 % of duels won (47/97)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Possession and duels + possession 54 %, duels 48 %
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Set pieces − 6 corners, 1 conceded
Sat 12 Sep home vs Nottingham Forest · Own box + 14 shots against from inside the box (22 in total)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Threat by half − own threat 1.28 → 0.56 xG, opponents 0.56 → 0.75
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Shooting accuracy − 7/20 shots on target (35 %)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Discipline + 2 cards, 7 fouls
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Duels + 54 % of duels won (60/111)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Possession and duels − possession 52 %, duels 54 %
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Own box + 12 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brentford · Box pressure + 15/20 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (3)
Hypothesis 1 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: possession 74 %, duels 45 %
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: possession 54 %, duels 48 %
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: possession 27 %, duels 48 %
− Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: possession 39 %, duels 43 %
− Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: possession 36 %, duels 41 %
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brentford: possession 52 %, duels 54 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · closed · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: own threat 0.09 → 0.23 xG, opponents 0.36 → 0.69
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: own threat 0.57 → 1.36 xG, opponents 0.08 → 0.49
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: own threat 0.18 → 0.13 xG, opponents 2.96 → 0.71
− Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: own threat 0.82 → 0.35 xG, opponents 0.64 → 0.92
− Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: own threat 0.65 → 0.17 xG, opponents 0.39 → 1.89
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brentford: own threat 1.28 → 0.56 xG, opponents 0.56 → 0.75
Last season 62 % of goals came in the second half (35 / 56)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Brentford: 54 % of duels won (60/111)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. away vs Brighton: 48 % of duels won (46/96)
− Mon 31.8. home vs Arsenal: 43 % of duels won (39/90)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Hull City: 45 % of duels won (38/84)
− Sat 19.9. away vs Tottenham: 41 % of duels won (46/111)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Nottingham Forest: 48 % of duels won (47/97)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: high line: opponents caught offside 26 times (league 1./20)
Progression: progression mid-table: 35.7 passes per shot, possession 47 %
Set pieces: in attack 17 corners (league 20./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 26 corners against (16./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (1+5 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 1+6); own threat falls in the second half (3.59 → 2.80 xG); opponents' threat holds (4.99 → 5.45 xG); first substitution on average at minute 56 (covering 5/6 matches, 1 was settled by half-time)
The second half fades: Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -0.79)
We track whether the second-half fade turns around: do the decisive moments keep coming against less and less threat.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −2.0 | +3.0 |
| Midfield | +8.3 | +0.8 |
| Forwards | +1.0 | −0.4 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The team reaches the box: 13/15 shots from inside the box (Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea).
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 13/15 shots from inside the box
Last season 13.0 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Other tracked hypotheses (6)
Hypothesis 2 · Discipline State · strengthening · 5 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 3 cards, 12 fouls
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: 2 cards, 12 fouls
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: 3 cards, 13 fouls
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: 4 cards, 13 fouls
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 2 cards, 12 fouls
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 2.3 cards and 11.9 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 3 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: own threat 0.97 → 1.83 xG, opponents 0.97 → 0.37
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: own threat 0.06 → 2.14 xG, opponents 1.90 → 0.60
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: own threat 0.36 → 0.95 xG, opponents 0.39 → 1.24
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: own threat 0.47 → 0.67 xG, opponents 0.43 → 0.25
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: own threat 1.06 → 0.50 xG, opponents 1.93 → 1.04
− Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: own threat 2.96 → 0.71 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.13
Last season 62 % of goals came in the second half (32 / 52)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 4 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 15 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: 12 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: 10 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: 10 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: 2 shots against from inside the box (6 in total)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 4 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Last season 11.7 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 5 · Possession and duels State · mixed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: possession 74 %, duels 46 %
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: possession 69 %, duels 43 %
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: possession 67 %, duels 48 %
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: possession 73 %, duels 52 %
− Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: possession 40 %, duels 50 %
− Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: possession 38 %, duels 50 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 6 · Shooting accuracy State · mixed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: 6/21 shots on target (29 %)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: 5/20 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: 5/17 shots on target (29 %)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 6/15 shots on target (40 %)
− Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: 7/22 shots on target (32 %)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
Last season 36 % of shots on target (176 / 495)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 7 · Defensive line Status · new · 1 match
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 5 offsides won
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 58 findings
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.56 expected (+1.44)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Threat by half − own threat 1.06 → 0.50 xG, opponents 1.93 → 1.04
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Shooting accuracy − 6/15 shots on target (40 %)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Discipline + 3 cards, 12 fouls
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Duels − 46 % of duels won (36/79)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Possession and duels + possession 74 %, duels 46 %
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Set pieces − 7 corners, 4 conceded
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Own box + 15 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Chelsea · Box pressure + 13/15 shots from inside the box
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Threat by half − own threat 2.96 → 0.71 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.13
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Goalkeeper − 0 saves
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Shooting accuracy + 6/21 shots on target (29 %)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Discipline + 2 cards, 12 fouls
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Duels + 52 % of duels won (50/96)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Possession and duels − possession 73 %, duels 52 %
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Set pieces − 5 corners, 2 conceded
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Own box − 2 shots against from inside the box (6 in total)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Aston Villa · Box pressure + 15/21 shots from inside the box
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Finishing − 5 goals from 2.81 expected (+2.19)
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Threat by half + own threat 0.97 → 1.83 xG, opponents 0.97 → 0.37
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Goalkeeper + 6 saves
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Shooting accuracy − 7/22 shots on target (32 %)
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Duels − 43 % of duels won (41/96)
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Possession and duels + possession 69 %, duels 43 %
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Set pieces − 3 corners, 5 conceded
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Own box + 12 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sun 13 Sep away vs Coventry · Box pressure + 14/22 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Finishing + 1 goals from 2.19 expected (-1.19)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Threat by half + own threat 0.06 → 2.14 xG, opponents 1.90 → 0.60
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Shooting accuracy + 5/20 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Discipline + 3 cards, 13 fouls
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Duels − 48 % of duels won (54/112)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Possession and duels + possession 67 %, duels 48 %
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Set pieces − 7 corners, 6 conceded
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Leeds · Box pressure + 11/20 shots from inside the box
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.31 expected (+1.69)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Threat by half + own threat 0.36 → 0.95 xG, opponents 0.39 → 1.24
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Shooting accuracy + 5/17 shots on target (29 %)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Discipline + 4 cards, 13 fouls
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Duels − 50 % of duels won (51/102)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Possession and duels − possession 40 %, duels 50 %
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Set pieces − 5 corners, 6 conceded
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Arsenal · Box pressure + 10/17 shots from inside the box
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.14 expected (+0.86)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Threat by half + own threat 0.47 → 0.67 xG, opponents 0.43 → 0.25
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Shooting accuracy − 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Defensive line + 5 offsides won
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Discipline + 2 cards, 12 fouls
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Duels − 50 % of duels won (52/104)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Possession and duels − possession 38 %, duels 50 %
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Set pieces − 5 corners, 7 conceded
Sat 10 Oct away vs Sunderland · Own box − 4 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Suljetut hypoteesit (4)
Hypothesis 1 · Finishing State · closed · 5 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: 1 goals from 2.19 expected (-1.19)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 3 goals from 1.56 expected (+1.44)
− Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: 5 goals from 2.81 expected (+2.19)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: 3 goals from 1.31 expected (+1.69)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 2 goals from 1.14 expected (+0.86)
Last season 1.4 goals and 13.0 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 2 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: 6 saves
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 1 saves
− Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: 0 saves
− Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: 3 saves
− Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: 2 saves
− Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 3 saves
Last season 69 % of shots on target kept out (46 conceded / 148)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 3 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: 52 % of duels won (50/96)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 46 % of duels won (36/79)
− Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: 43 % of duels won (41/96)
− Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: 48 % of duels won (54/112)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: 50 % of duels won (51/102)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 50 % of duels won (52/104)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 4 · Set pieces State · closed · 6 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Chelsea: 7 corners, 4 conceded
− Sun 23.8. home vs Aston Villa: 5 corners, 2 conceded
− Sun 13.9. away vs Coventry: 3 corners, 5 conceded
− Sat 5.9. home vs Leeds: 7 corners, 6 conceded
− Sat 19.9. home vs Arsenal: 5 corners, 6 conceded
− Sat 10.10. away vs Sunderland: 5 corners, 7 conceded
Last season 4.9 corners in the match, 4.8 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-table: 13 offsides drawn; box open: 76 % of shots conceded came from inside the box
Progression: progression mid-table: 28.0 passes per shot, possession 60 %
Set pieces: in attack 32 corners (league 6./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 30 corners against (6./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (4+10 goals); own end tightens late (concessions 4+1); own threat holds in the second half (5.88 → 6.80 xG); opponents' threat falls (5.80 → 3.63 xG); first substitution on average at minute 69 (covering 5/6 matches, 1 was settled by half-time)
When leading: withstood the pressure: led at half-time 3 times and kept the result even as the opponents' threat grew (opponents' xG 5.80 → 3.63)
Box pressure delivers: 69 shots from inside the box (league 3./20) and 18 goals, 108 shots in total (2./20)
We track whether box pressure holds when opponents defend deeper: volume without goals is recorded as inefficiency.
The cost of indiscipline grows: 14 cards (league 3./20) and 77 fouls (5./20)
We track whether cards accumulate into suspensions and fouls into set pieces for opponents.
The lead held to the end: The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
We track whether the lead holds against stronger opponents and whether the opponents' threat keeps falling in the 2nd half.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +0.92)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +0.1 | −2.9 |
| Midfield | −5.4 | +4.5 |
| Forwards | +1.5 | −1.9 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
Duels have gone the team's way: 56 % of duels won (51/91) (Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United).
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 56 % of duels won (51/91)
− Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 44 % of duels won (45/103)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Other tracked hypotheses (6)
Hypothesis 2 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 5 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 14/18 shots from inside the box
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: 11/15 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 11/16 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 13/21 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: 9/12 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 11.1 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 3 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: 9 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 13 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 8 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: 8 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 6 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Last season 14.0 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 4 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: own threat 0.34 → 0.67 xG, opponents 0.29 → 0.40
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: own threat 0.86 → 0.87 xG, opponents 0.57 → 0.80
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: own threat 0.31 → 0.85 xG, opponents 1.65 → 0.39
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: own threat 0.15 → 0.96 xG, opponents 0.36 → 0.33
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: own threat 1.06 → 0.66 xG, opponents 0.48 → 1.66
− Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: own threat 1.30 → 0.93 xG, opponents 0.86 → 0.58
Last season 60 % of goals came in the second half (28 / 47)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 5 · Discipline State · strengthening · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 3 cards, 7 fouls
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 2 cards, 14 fouls
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 2 cards, 6 fouls
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: 2 cards, 8 fouls
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: 0 cards, 4 fouls
− Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 0 cards, 5 fouls
Last season 2.1 cards and 10.7 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 6 · Finishing State · strengthening · 5 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 1 goals from 1.72 expected (-0.72)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 1 goals from 2.24 expected (-1.24)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: 0 goals from 1.11 expected (-1.11)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 2 goals from 1.01 expected (+0.99)
− Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 2 goals from 1.16 expected (+0.84)
Last season 1.2 goals and 11.1 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 7 · Goalkeeper State · mixed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 4 saves
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 4 saves
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 4 saves
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 1 saves
− Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: 2 saves
− Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: 2 saves
Last season 69 % of shots on target kept out (50 conceded / 162)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Show 61 findings
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.01 expected (+0.99)
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Threat by half + own threat 0.34 → 0.67 xG, opponents 0.29 → 0.40
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Shooting accuracy − 6/18 shots on target (33 %)
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Discipline + 3 cards, 7 fouls
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Duels + 56 % of duels won (51/91)
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Possession and duels − possession 45 %, duels 56 %
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Set pieces − 4 corners, 3 conceded
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sun 6 Sep home vs Manchester United · Box pressure + 14/18 shots from inside the box
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Threat by half + own threat 0.86 → 0.87 xG, opponents 0.57 → 0.80
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Shooting accuracy − 7/15 shots on target (47 %)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Discipline − 0 cards, 4 fouls
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Duels + 61 % of duels won (57/93)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Possession and duels − possession 65 %, duels 61 %
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Set pieces − 6 corners, 7 conceded
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Hull City · Box pressure + 11/15 shots from inside the box
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.72 expected (-0.72)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Threat by half − own threat 1.06 → 0.66 xG, opponents 0.48 → 1.66
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Shooting accuracy − 7/13 shots on target (54 %)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Discipline + 2 cards, 14 fouls
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Duels − 44 % of duels won (45/103)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Possession and duels − possession 42 %, duels 44 %
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Set pieces − 7 corners, 10 conceded
Sat 29 Aug away vs Bournemouth · Own box + 13 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.16 expected (+0.84)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Threat by half + own threat 0.31 → 0.85 xG, opponents 1.65 → 0.39
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Shooting accuracy − 5/16 shots on target (31 %)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Discipline − 0 cards, 5 fouls
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Duels + 54 % of duels won (53/99)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Possession and duels − possession 42 %, duels 54 %
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Set pieces − 4 corners, 0 conceded
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Crystal Palace · Box pressure + 11/16 shots from inside the box
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Finishing + 1 goals from 2.24 expected (-1.24)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Threat by half − own threat 1.30 → 0.93 xG, opponents 0.86 → 0.58
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Shooting accuracy + 2/21 shots on target (10 %)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Discipline + 2 cards, 6 fouls
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Duels + 53 % of duels won (46/87)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Possession and duels − possession 52 %, duels 53 %
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Set pieces − 4 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Ipswich · Box pressure + 13/21 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.11 expected (-1.11)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Threat by half + own threat 0.15 → 0.96 xG, opponents 0.36 → 0.33
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Shooting accuracy + 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Discipline + 2 cards, 8 fouls
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Duels + 57 % of duels won (54/95)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Possession and duels − possession 38 %, duels 57 %
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Set pieces + 6 corners, 5 conceded
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Tottenham · Box pressure + 9/12 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (4)
Hypothesis 1 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 2/21 shots on target (10 %)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 6/18 shots on target (33 %)
− Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: 7/15 shots on target (47 %)
− Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 7/13 shots on target (54 %)
− Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 5/16 shots on target (31 %)
Last season 34 % of shots on target (144 / 420)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 2 · Set pieces State · closed · 6 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: 6 corners, 5 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: 4 corners, 3 conceded
− Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: 6 corners, 7 conceded
− Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 7 corners, 10 conceded
− Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 4 corners, 0 conceded
− Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 4 corners, 4 conceded
Last season 4.3 corners in the match, 5.1 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 3 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. home vs Manchester United: possession 45 %, duels 56 %
− Sun 11.10. away vs Hull City: possession 65 %, duels 61 %
− Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: possession 42 %, duels 44 %
− Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: possession 42 %, duels 54 %
− Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: possession 52 %, duels 53 %
− Sat 12.9. away vs Tottenham: possession 38 %, duels 57 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 4 · Defensive line State · closed · 3 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. away vs Bournemouth: 0 offsides won
− Sat 22.8. home vs Crystal Palace: 0 offsides won
− Sat 19.9. home vs Ipswich: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: deep line: the offside trap sprang only 4 times (20./20)
Progression: progression mid-table: 27.7 passes per shot, possession 47 %
Set pieces: in attack 31 corners (league 7./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 29 corners against (8./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (2+6 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 1+4); own threat holds in the second half (4.02 → 4.94 xG); opponents' threat holds (4.21 → 4.16 xG); first substitution on average at minute 67
When leading: kept the lead calmly: led at half-time 2 times, the opponents' threat stayed level and the lead was never in danger (opponents' xG 4.21 → 4.16)
The duels carry: 54 % of duels won (306/568), league 2./20
We track whether the duel wins hold as opponents change their approach.
Box pressure delivers: 65 shots from inside the box (league 4./20) and 8 goals, 95 shots in total (4./20)
We track whether box pressure holds when opponents defend deeper: volume without goals is recorded as inefficiency.
The lead held to the end: The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
We track whether the lead holds against stronger opponents and whether the opponents' threat keeps falling in the 2nd half.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +0.92)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +2.1 | 0 |
| Midfield | −1.0 | +0.5 |
| Forwards | +0.4 | −2.5 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The team reaches the box: 11/13 shots from inside the box (Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth).
Last quarter hour · Man City gained 3 points after the 75th minute.
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: 11/13 shots from inside the box
− Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 2/6 shots from inside the box
Last season 15.7 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Other tracked hypotheses (5)
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: own threat 0.49 → 1.87 xG, opponents 0.55 → 0.08
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: own threat 0.67 → 2.14 xG, opponents 1.57 → 2.00
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: own threat 0.09 → 1.01 xG, opponents 0.20 → 0.80
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: own threat 0.11 → 1.24 xG, opponents 0.51 → 0.51
Challenges
− Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: own threat 0.85 → 0.61 xG, opponents 0.30 → 0.27
− Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: own threat 1.08 → 1.04 xG, opponents 0.73 → 0.64
Last season 47 % of goals came in the second half (36 / 77)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Duels State · strengthening · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: 54 % of duels won (46/85)
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 53 % of duels won (53/100)
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: 54 % of duels won (54/100)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: 59 % of duels won (63/107)
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: 41 % of duels won (39/96)
− Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 49 % of duels won (52/107)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 4 · Discipline State · mixed · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 3 cards, 10 fouls
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: 2 cards, 14 fouls
+ Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 2 cards, 10 fouls
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: 1 cards, 11 fouls
− Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: 0 cards, 14 fouls
− Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: 1 cards, 7 fouls
Last season 1.8 cards and 9.7 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 5 · Defensive line State · new · 2 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 4 offsides won
+ Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 3 offsides won
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Hypothesis 6 · Finishing State · declining · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: 1 goals from 2.12 expected (-1.12)
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: 5 goals from 2.82 expected (+2.18)
− Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: 3 goals from 1.35 expected (+1.65)
− Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 4 goals from 1.45 expected (+2.55)
Last season 2.0 goals and 15.7 shots in the match, 13 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Show 60 findings
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Threat by half + own threat 0.49 → 1.87 xG, opponents 0.55 → 0.08
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Shooting accuracy − 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Discipline − 1 cards, 11 fouls
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Duels + 54 % of duels won (46/85)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Possession and duels − possession 66 %, duels 54 %
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Set pieces − 8 corners, 3 conceded
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Own box − 4 shots against from inside the box (5 in total)
Sun 23 Aug home vs Bournemouth · Box pressure + 11/13 shots from inside the box
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Finishing − 5 goals from 2.82 expected (+2.18)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Threat by half + own threat 0.67 → 2.14 xG, opponents 1.57 → 2.00
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Shooting accuracy − 6/16 shots on target (38 %)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Discipline − 0 cards, 14 fouls
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Duels − 41 % of duels won (39/96)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Possession and duels + possession 55 %, duels 41 %
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Set pieces − 6 corners, 5 conceded
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Own box + 14 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Sunderland · Box pressure + 12/16 shots from inside the box
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Threat by half + own threat 0.09 → 1.01 xG, opponents 0.20 → 0.80
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Shooting accuracy − 2/6 shots on target (33 %)
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Discipline + 3 cards, 10 fouls
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Duels + 53 % of duels won (53/100)
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Possession and duels − possession 45 %, duels 53 %
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Set pieces − 7 corners, 6 conceded
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (16 in total)
Sun 13 Sep away vs Manchester United · Box pressure − 2/6 shots from inside the box
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.35 expected (+1.65)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Threat by half + own threat 0.11 → 1.24 xG, opponents 0.51 → 0.51
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Goalkeeper + 6 saves
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Shooting accuracy + 4/15 shots on target (27 %)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Discipline + 2 cards, 14 fouls
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Duels + 54 % of duels won (54/100)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Possession and duels − possession 65 %, duels 54 %
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Set pieces − 6 corners, 5 conceded
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Liverpool · Box pressure + 8/15 shots from inside the box
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Finishing − 4 goals from 1.45 expected (+2.55)
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Threat by half − own threat 0.85 → 0.61 xG, opponents 0.30 → 0.27
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Shooting accuracy − 9/18 shots on target (50 %)
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Discipline + 2 cards, 10 fouls
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Duels − 49 % of duels won (52/107)
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Possession and duels + possession 72 %, duels 49 %
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Set pieces − 6 corners, 2 conceded
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Fri 28 Aug away vs Crystal Palace · Box pressure + 12/18 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Finishing + 1 goals from 2.12 expected (-1.12)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Threat by half − own threat 1.08 → 1.04 xG, opponents 0.73 → 0.64
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Shooting accuracy + 4/15 shots on target (27 %)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Discipline − 1 cards, 7 fouls
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Duels + 59 % of duels won (63/107)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Possession and duels − possession 78 %, duels 59 %
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Set pieces − 4 corners, 5 conceded
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Coventry · Box pressure + 14/15 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (5)
Hypothesis 1 · Own box State · closed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: 14 shots against from inside the box (17 in total)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: 4 shots against from inside the box (5 in total)
− Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 6 shots against from inside the box (16 in total)
− Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
− Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Last season 9.7 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 2 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: possession 55 %, duels 41 %
+ Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: possession 72 %, duels 49 %
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: possession 66 %, duels 54 %
− Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: possession 45 %, duels 53 %
− Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: possession 65 %, duels 54 %
− Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: possession 78 %, duels 59 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 3 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: 4 saves
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: 6 saves
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: 3 saves
− Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 3 saves
− Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 1 saves
− Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: 3 saves
Last season 72 % of shots on target kept out (35 conceded / 127)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 4 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: 4/15 shots on target (27 %)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: 4/15 shots on target (27 %)
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
− Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: 6/16 shots on target (38 %)
− Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 2/6 shots on target (33 %)
− Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 9/18 shots on target (50 %)
Last season 34 % of shots on target (205 / 595)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 5 · Set pieces State · closed · 6 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 23.8. home vs Bournemouth: 8 corners, 3 conceded
− Sun 20.9. home vs Sunderland: 6 corners, 5 conceded
− Sun 13.9. away vs Manchester United: 7 corners, 6 conceded
− Sun 11.10. away vs Liverpool: 6 corners, 5 conceded
− Fri 28.8. away vs Crystal Palace: 6 corners, 2 conceded
− Sat 5.9. home vs Coventry: 4 corners, 5 conceded
Last season 6.5 corners in the match, 3.8 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 12 offsides drawn
Progression: progresses with control: 44.3 passes per shot (league 1./20 most), possession 64 %
Set pieces: in attack 37 corners (league 3./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 26 corners against (15./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (5+11 goals); own end tightens late (concessions 3+2); own threat grows in the second half (3.29 → 7.91 xG); opponents' threat holds (3.86 → 4.30 xG); first substitution on average at minute 62
When leading: the lead broke: 3 leads at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 3.86 → 4.30)
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +4.62)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −0.5 | +5.4 |
| Midfield | +7.7 | +3.1 |
| Forwards | +1.9 | +2.5 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
The cost of indiscipline has grown: 2 cards, 10 fouls (Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace).
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 2 cards, 10 fouls
Last season 1.6 cards and 10.7 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Other tracked hypotheses (7)
Hypothesis 2 · Shooting accuracy State · strengthening · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 6/24 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Tottenham: 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: 3/24 shots on target (12 %)
Challenges
− Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: 7/22 shots on target (32 %)
Last season 33 % of shots on target (156 / 476)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 3 · Finishing State · strengthening · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 1 goals from 2.98 expected (-1.98)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Tottenham: 0 goals from 0.92 expected (-0.92)
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: 0 goals from 0.65 expected (-0.65)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: 0 goals from 1.10 expected (-1.10)
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 1.3 goals and 12.5 shots in the match, 10 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 4 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 4 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 16/24 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: 11/12 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: 12/24 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: 14/22 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 12.5 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 5 · Own box State · mixed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 11 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Tottenham: 8 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: 8 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: 6 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: 5 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: 6 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
Last season 13.3 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 6 · Possession and duels State · mixed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: possession 57 %, duels 49 %
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: possession 55 %, duels 48 %
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: possession 62 %, duels 49 %
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. home vs Tottenham: possession 41 %, duels 48 %
− Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: possession 30 %, duels 54 %
− Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: possession 46 %, duels 52 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 7 · Defensive line State · mixed · 3 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: 3 offsides won
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: 3 offsides won
Challenges
− Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Hypothesis 8 · Set pieces State · declining · 3 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: 6 corners, 2 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 8 corners, 5 conceded
− Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: 5 corners, 3 conceded
Last season 5.2 corners in the match, 4.8 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Show 56 findings
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Finishing + 1 goals from 2.98 expected (-1.98)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Threat by half − own threat 2.18 → 0.80 xG, opponents 1.41 → 1.01
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Shooting accuracy + 6/24 shots on target (25 %)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Discipline + 2 cards, 10 fouls
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Duels − 49 % of duels won (48/98)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Possession and duels + possession 57 %, duels 49 %
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Set pieces − 8 corners, 5 conceded
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sun 11 Oct away vs Crystal Palace · Box pressure + 16/24 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.92 expected (-0.92)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Threat by half − own threat 0.49 → 0.43 xG, opponents 0.08 → 0.99
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Goalkeeper − 0 saves
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Shooting accuracy + 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Discipline + 2 cards, 22 fouls
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Duels − 48 % of duels won (61/127)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Possession and duels − possession 41 %, duels 48 %
Sat 5 Sep home vs Tottenham · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Threat by half − own threat 1.31 → 0.99 xG, opponents 0.25 → 1.36
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Shooting accuracy + 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Discipline + 2 cards, 10 fouls
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Duels + 54 % of duels won (60/111)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Possession and duels − possession 30 %, duels 54 %
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Set pieces − 5 corners, 3 conceded
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Liverpool · Box pressure + 11/12 shots from inside the box
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.65 expected (-0.65)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Threat by half + own threat 0.19 → 0.46 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.31
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Shooting accuracy + 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Discipline + 2 cards, 15 fouls
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Duels − 48 % of duels won (59/124)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Possession and duels + possession 55 %, duels 48 %
Sat 22 Aug home vs Leeds · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.10 expected (-1.10)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Threat by half − own threat 0.60 → 0.50 xG, opponents 0.25 → 0.43
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Shooting accuracy + 3/24 shots on target (12 %)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Discipline + 2 cards, 12 fouls
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Duels − 49 % of duels won (52/106)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Possession and duels + possession 62 %, duels 49 %
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Set pieces + 6 corners, 2 conceded
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Coventry · Box pressure + 12/24 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Threat by half + own threat 0.39 → 1.89 xG, opponents 0.65 → 0.17
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Shooting accuracy − 7/22 shots on target (32 %)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Discipline + 5 cards, 16 fouls
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Duels + 52 % of duels won (50/97)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Possession and duels − possession 46 %, duels 52 %
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Aston Villa · Box pressure + 14/22 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (3)
Hypothesis 1 · Threat by half State · closed · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: own threat 0.19 → 0.46 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.31
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: own threat 0.39 → 1.89 xG, opponents 0.65 → 0.17
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: own threat 2.18 → 0.80 xG, opponents 1.41 → 1.01
− Sat 5.9. home vs Tottenham: own threat 0.49 → 0.43 xG, opponents 0.08 → 0.99
− Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: own threat 1.31 → 0.99 xG, opponents 0.25 → 1.36
− Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: own threat 0.60 → 0.50 xG, opponents 0.25 → 0.43
Last season 60 % of goals came in the second half (29 / 48)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 2 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 4 saves
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. home vs Tottenham: 0 saves
− Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: 2 saves
− Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: 2 saves
− Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: 2 saves
Last season 69 % of shots on target kept out (51 conceded / 162)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 3 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Liverpool: 54 % of duels won (60/111)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Aston Villa: 52 % of duels won (50/97)
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. away vs Crystal Palace: 49 % of duels won (48/98)
− Sat 5.9. home vs Tottenham: 48 % of duels won (61/127)
− Sat 22.8. home vs Leeds: 48 % of duels won (59/124)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Coventry: 49 % of duels won (52/106)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 11 offsides drawn
Progression: progresses directly: 22.2 passes per shot (league's most direct 1./20), possession 48 %
Set pieces: in attack 25 corners (league 13./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 28 corners against (9./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (2+3 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 1+7); own threat holds in the second half (5.16 → 5.07 xG); opponents' threat grows (2.82 → 4.27 xG); first substitution on average at minute 64
When leading: the lead broke: 1 lead at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 2.82 → 4.27)
Attacking inefficiency: 5 goals from 10.23 expected (xG), a gap of -5.23, league 20./20
We track whether the finishing corrects or the deficit continues: the same metric is read after every round.
Box pressure delivers: 64 shots from inside the box (league 5./20) and 5 goals, 106 shots in total (3./20)
We track whether box pressure holds when opponents defend deeper: volume without goals is recorded as inefficiency.
Shots are not finding the target: 23/106 shots on target, i.e. 22 % (league 20./20)
We track whether accuracy climbs as the chances improve: volume without shots on target does not produce goals.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +1.2 | −4.1 |
| Midfield | +4.1 | +2.3 |
| Forwards | −1.2 | +2.8 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Duels have gone the team's way: 56 % of duels won (64/114) (Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford).
Last quarter hour · Leeds gained 3 points after the 75th minute.
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: 56 % of duels won (64/114)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: 45 % of duels won (45/100)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Other tracked hypotheses (8)
Hypothesis 2 · Goalkeeper State · strengthening · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: 4 saves
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 5 saves
+ Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 4 saves
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 4 saves
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: 4 saves
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: 3 saves
Last season 65 % of shots on target kept out (56 conceded / 162)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 3 · Defensive line State · strengthening · 5 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 3 offsides won
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 4 offsides won
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: 3 offsides won
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: 7 offsides won
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Hypothesis 4 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 9/13 shots from inside the box
+ Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 10/15 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 10/10 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 12.6 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 5 · Own box State · mixed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: 18 shots against from inside the box (22 in total)
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 11 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: 8 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 4 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
− Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 4 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: 6 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Last season 12.5 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 6 · Threat by half State · mixed · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: own threat 0.04 → 1.42 xG, opponents 0.55 → 1.01
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: own threat 0.54 → 0.77 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.88
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: own threat 0.18 → 0.31 xG, opponents 0.19 → 0.46
Challenges
− Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: own threat 1.49 → 0.59 xG, opponents 0.26 → 0.62
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: own threat 1.90 → 0.60 xG, opponents 0.06 → 2.14
− Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: own threat 0.44 → 0.30 xG, opponents 0.45 → 2.21
Last season 51 % of goals came in the second half (25 / 49)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 7 · Shooting accuracy State · mixed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: 2/13 shots on target (15 %)
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 2/13 shots on target (15 %)
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: 3/11 shots on target (27 %)
Challenges
− Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 6/15 shots on target (40 %)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 5/10 shots on target (50 %)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: 5/11 shots on target (45 %)
Last season 32 % of shots on target (151 / 478)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 8 · Discipline State · mixed · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 2 cards, 10 fouls
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 3 cards, 16 fouls
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: 4 cards, 20 fouls
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: 0 cards, 5 fouls
− Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 1 cards, 8 fouls
− Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: 1 cards, 14 fouls
Last season 1.7 cards and 10.5 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 9 · Finishing State · mixed · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 0 goals from 1.31 expected (-1.31)
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 1 goals from 2.49 expected (-1.49)
Challenges
− Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 4 goals from 2.08 expected (+1.92)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: 1 goals from 0.49 expected (+0.51)
Last season 1.3 goals and 12.6 shots in the match, 10 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Show 58 findings
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Threat by half + own threat 0.04 → 1.42 xG, opponents 0.55 → 1.01
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Shooting accuracy + 2/13 shots on target (15 %)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Discipline − 0 cards, 5 fouls
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Duels + 56 % of duels won (64/114)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Possession and duels − possession 47 %, duels 56 %
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Set pieces − 5 corners, 6 conceded
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brentford · Own box + 18 shots against from inside the box (22 in total)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.31 expected (-1.31)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Threat by half + own threat 0.54 → 0.77 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.88
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Shooting accuracy + 2/13 shots on target (15 %)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Discipline + 2 cards, 10 fouls
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Duels + 56 % of duels won (57/101)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Possession and duels − possession 51 %, duels 56 %
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Own box − 4 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Box pressure + 9/13 shots from inside the box
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Finishing − 4 goals from 2.08 expected (+1.92)
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Threat by half − own threat 1.49 → 0.59 xG, opponents 0.26 → 0.62
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Shooting accuracy − 6/15 shots on target (40 %)
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Discipline − 1 cards, 8 fouls
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Duels + 53 % of duels won (55/104)
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Possession and duels − possession 50 %, duels 53 %
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Set pieces − 5 corners, 5 conceded
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Own box − 4 shots against from inside the box (7 in total)
Mon 14 Sep home vs Newcastle · Box pressure + 10/15 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Finishing + 1 goals from 2.49 expected (-1.49)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Threat by half − own threat 1.90 → 0.60 xG, opponents 0.06 → 2.14
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Shooting accuracy − 5/10 shots on target (50 %)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Discipline + 3 cards, 16 fouls
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Duels + 52 % of duels won (58/112)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Possession and duels − possession 33 %, duels 52 %
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Set pieces − 6 corners, 7 conceded
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brighton · Box pressure + 10/10 shots from inside the box
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Finishing − 1 goals from 0.49 expected (+0.51)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Threat by half + own threat 0.18 → 0.31 xG, opponents 0.19 → 0.46
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Shooting accuracy + 3/11 shots on target (27 %)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Discipline − 1 cards, 14 fouls
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Duels + 52 % of duels won (65/124)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Possession and duels − possession 45 %, duels 52 %
Sat 22 Aug away vs Nottingham Forest · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Threat by half − own threat 0.44 → 0.30 xG, opponents 0.45 → 2.21
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Shooting accuracy − 5/11 shots on target (45 %)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Defensive line + 7 offsides won
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Discipline + 4 cards, 20 fouls
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Duels − 45 % of duels won (45/100)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Possession and duels − possession 42 %, duels 45 %
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Set pieces − 4 corners, 3 conceded
Sat 10 Oct away vs Arsenal · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Suljetut hypoteesit (2)
Hypothesis 1 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: possession 47 %, duels 56 %
− Sun 20.9. home vs Crystal Palace: possession 51 %, duels 56 %
− Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: possession 50 %, duels 53 %
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: possession 33 %, duels 52 %
− Sat 22.8. away vs Nottingham Forest: possession 45 %, duels 52 %
− Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: possession 42 %, duels 45 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 2 · Set pieces State · closed · 4 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brentford: 5 corners, 6 conceded
− Mon 14.9. home vs Newcastle: 5 corners, 5 conceded
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brighton: 6 corners, 7 conceded
− Sat 10.10. away vs Arsenal: 4 corners, 3 conceded
Last season 4.4 corners in the match, 5.1 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: high line: opponents caught offside 19 times (league 3./20)
Progression: progression mid-table: 29.6 passes per shot, possession 45 %
Set pieces: in attack 26 corners (league 12./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 27 corners against (12./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (3+5 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 1+4); own threat holds in the second half (4.59 → 3.99 xG); opponents' threat grows (1.69 → 7.32 xG); first substitution on average at minute 62
When leading: the lead broke: 2 leads at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 1.69 → 7.32)
Goalkeeper level on show: 24 saves (league 2./20) against 1.50 xG
We track whether the save level holds as shot quality changes: one match cannot separate skill from luck.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −2.4 | −1.9 |
| Midfield | +2.6 | +6.0 |
| Forwards | −3.3 | −2.6 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The threat tilts to the second half: own threat 0.29 → 0.40 xG, opponents' 0.34 → 0.67 (Sun 6.9. away vs Everton).
Last quarter hour · Man Utd dropped 3 points after the 75th minute.
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: own threat 0.29 → 0.40 xG, opponents 0.34 → 0.67
− Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: own threat 1.06 → 0.54 xG, opponents 1.49 → 0.13
Last season 58 % of goals came in the second half (40 / 69)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Other tracked hypotheses (6)
Hypothesis 2 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 4 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: 19/33 shots from inside the box
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 17/29 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 15/21 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: 8/12 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 15.7 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 3 · Shooting accuracy State · strengthening · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 3/14 shots on target (21 %)
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 6/29 shots on target (21 %)
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: 3/16 shots on target (19 %)
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 5/21 shots on target (24 %)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: 12/33 shots on target (36 %)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: 4/12 shots on target (33 %)
Last season 36 % of shots on target (216 / 596)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 4 · Finishing State · strengthening · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 1 goals from 1.60 expected (-0.60)
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: 0 goals from 1.00 expected (-1.00)
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 0 goals from 1.81 expected (-1.81)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 2 goals from 0.69 expected (+1.31)
Last season 1.8 goals and 15.7 shots in the match, 12 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 5 · Possession and duels State · mixed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: possession 55 %, duels 44 %
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: possession 55 %, duels 47 %
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: possession 72 %, duels 41 %
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: possession 60 %, duels 65 %
− Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: possession 58 %, duels 51 %
− Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: possession 45 %, duels 55 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 6 · Own box State · mixed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 14 shots against from inside the box (18 in total)
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 11 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
− Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: 2 shots against from inside the box (6 in total)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 5 shots against from inside the box (8 in total)
Last season 11.6 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 7 · Defensive line State · mixed · 2 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 3 offsides won
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 58 findings
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Finishing − 2 goals from 0.69 expected (+1.31)
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Threat by half + own threat 0.29 → 0.40 xG, opponents 0.34 → 0.67
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Shooting accuracy + 3/14 shots on target (21 %)
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Discipline + 3 cards, 11 fouls
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Duels − 44 % of duels won (40/91)
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Possession and duels + possession 55 %, duels 44 %
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Set pieces − 3 corners, 4 conceded
Sun 6 Sep away vs Everton · Own box + 14 shots against from inside the box (18 in total)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Threat by half + own threat 0.74 → 3.83 xG, opponents 0.98 → 1.03
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Shooting accuracy − 12/33 shots on target (36 %)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Discipline − 1 cards, 7 fouls
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Duels + 65 % of duels won (55/84)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Possession and duels − possession 60 %, duels 65 %
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Set pieces − 8 corners, 4 conceded
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Ipswich · Box pressure + 19/33 shots from inside the box
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.60 expected (-0.60)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Threat by half − own threat 1.06 → 0.54 xG, opponents 1.49 → 0.13
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Goalkeeper + 6 saves
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Shooting accuracy + 6/29 shots on target (21 %)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Discipline − 0 cards, 5 fouls
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Duels − 51 % of duels won (35/69)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Possession and duels − possession 58 %, duels 51 %
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Set pieces − 13 corners, 3 conceded
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Fulham · Box pressure + 17/29 shots from inside the box
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.00 expected (-1.00)
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Threat by half + own threat 0.20 → 0.80 xG, opponents 0.09 → 1.01
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Shooting accuracy + 3/16 shots on target (19 %)
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Discipline − 1 cards, 17 fouls
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Duels − 47 % of duels won (47/100)
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Possession and duels + possession 55 %, duels 47 %
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Set pieces + 6 corners, 7 conceded
Sun 13 Sep home vs Manchester City · Own box − 2 shots against from inside the box (6 in total)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.81 expected (-1.81)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Threat by half + own threat 0.71 → 1.10 xG, opponents 1.16 → 0.10
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Shooting accuracy + 5/21 shots on target (24 %)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Discipline − 1 cards, 9 fouls
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Duels − 41 % of duels won (35/85)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Possession and duels + possession 72 %, duels 41 %
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Set pieces + 6 corners, 1 conceded
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (8 in total)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Hull City · Box pressure + 15/21 shots from inside the box
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Threat by half + own threat 0.09 → 0.79 xG, opponents 0.99 → 0.69
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Shooting accuracy − 4/12 shots on target (33 %)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Discipline + 4 cards, 13 fouls
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Duels + 55 % of duels won (61/111)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Possession and duels − possession 45 %, duels 55 %
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Set pieces − 4 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Tottenham · Box pressure + 8/12 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (4)
Hypothesis 1 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: 65 % of duels won (55/84)
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: 55 % of duels won (61/111)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 44 % of duels won (40/91)
− Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 51 % of duels won (35/69)
− Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: 47 % of duels won (47/100)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 41 % of duels won (35/85)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 2 · Set pieces State · closed · 6 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: 6 corners, 7 conceded
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 6 corners, 1 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 3 corners, 4 conceded
− Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: 8 corners, 4 conceded
− Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 13 corners, 3 conceded
− Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: 4 corners, 4 conceded
Last season 4.8 corners in the match, 4.9 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 3 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 4 saves
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 6 saves
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: 3 saves
− Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: 1 saves
− Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 2 saves
− Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: 2 saves
Last season 65 % of shots on target kept out (50 conceded / 141)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 4 · Discipline State · closed · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Everton: 3 cards, 11 fouls
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Tottenham: 4 cards, 13 fouls
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Ipswich: 1 cards, 7 fouls
− Sun 20.9. away vs Fulham: 0 cards, 5 fouls
− Sun 13.9. home vs Manchester City: 1 cards, 17 fouls
− Sat 22.8. away vs Hull City: 1 cards, 9 fouls
Last season 1.7 cards and 10.3 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-table: 8 offsides drawn; box open: 71 % of shots conceded came from inside the box
Progression: progresses directly: 26.3 passes per shot (league's most direct 4./20), possession 58 %
Set pieces: in attack 40 corners (league 2./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 23 corners against (19./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (1+8 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 3+6); own threat grows in the second half (3.09 → 7.46 xG); opponents' threat falls (5.05 → 3.63 xG); first substitution on average at minute 65
Box pressure delivers: 71 shots from inside the box (league 2./20) and 9 goals, 125 shots in total (1./20)
We track whether box pressure holds when opponents defend deeper: volume without goals is recorded as inefficiency.
No route into the box: 43 % of shots from outside the box (league 1./20) and chance quality only 0.084 xG per shot (19./20)
We track whether shot locations move closer to goal or the long-range share stays where it is.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +4.37)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +0.6 | +2.9 |
| Midfield | +2.0 | +3.1 |
| Forwards | +1.5 | −0.4 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The threat tilts to the second half: own threat 0.55 → 1.01 xG, opponents' 0.04 → 1.42 (Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds).
Last quarter hour · Brentford dropped 4 points after the 75th minute.
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: own threat 0.55 → 1.01 xG, opponents 0.04 → 1.42
− Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: own threat 0.33 → 0.17 xG, opponents 0.67 → 1.08
Last season 56 % of goals came in the second half (31 / 55)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Other tracked hypotheses (7)
Hypothesis 2 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 4 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 18/22 shots from inside the box
+ Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: 9/13 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 20/26 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: 12/14 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 10.7 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 3 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: 10 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: 10 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: 15 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
− Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 4 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Last season 13.3 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 4 · Discipline State · strengthening · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 4 cards, 13 fouls
+ Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: 2 cards, 10 fouls
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: 3 cards, 19 fouls
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: 5 cards, 24 fouls
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 1 cards, 17 fouls
− Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: 1 cards, 13 fouls
Last season 1.8 cards and 10.3 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 5 · Shooting accuracy State · strengthening · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 5/22 shots on target (23 %)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: 2/8 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: 4/14 shots on target (29 %)
Challenges
− Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
− Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 8/26 shots on target (31 %)
Last season 36 % of shots on target (147 / 405)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 6 · Goalkeeper State · mixed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 4 saves
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: 8 saves
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 1 saves
− Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: 2 saves
− Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: 2 saves
Last season 68 % of shots on target kept out (52 conceded / 162)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 7 · Finishing State · mixed · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 1 goals from 1.56 expected (-0.56)
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 3 goals from 3.96 expected (-0.96)
Challenges
− Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: 2 goals from 0.50 expected (+1.50)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: 2 goals from 1.31 expected (+0.69)
Last season 1.4 goals and 10.7 shots in the match, 14 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 8 · Defensive line State · new · 2 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: 3 offsides won
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: 3 offsides won
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 56 findings
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.56 expected (-0.56)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Threat by half + own threat 0.55 → 1.01 xG, opponents 0.04 → 1.42
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Shooting accuracy + 5/22 shots on target (23 %)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Discipline + 4 cards, 13 fouls
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Duels − 44 % of duels won (51/115)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Possession and duels + possession 53 %, duels 44 %
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Set pieces − 6 corners, 5 conceded
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Leeds · Box pressure + 18/22 shots from inside the box
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Threat by half + own threat 0.39 → 2.26 xG, opponents 0.39 → 0.44
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Shooting accuracy − 6/13 shots on target (46 %)
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Discipline + 2 cards, 10 fouls
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Duels − 43 % of duels won (41/96)
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Possession and duels − possession 40 %, duels 43 %
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Set pieces − 4 corners, 12 conceded
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Fri 18 Sep home vs Chelsea · Box pressure + 9/13 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Threat by half + own threat 0.35 → 0.85 xG, opponents 0.35 → 1.36
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Shooting accuracy + 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Discipline + 3 cards, 19 fouls
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Duels − 41 % of duels won (50/123)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Possession and duels − possession 49 %, duels 41 %
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Set pieces − 4 corners, 3 conceded
Sat 5 Sep home vs Sunderland · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Finishing + 3 goals from 3.96 expected (-0.96)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Threat by half + own threat 1.48 → 2.48 xG, opponents 0.09 → 0.38
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Shooting accuracy − 8/26 shots on target (31 %)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Discipline − 1 cards, 17 fouls
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Duels + 52 % of duels won (61/118)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Possession and duels − possession 41 %, duels 52 %
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Set pieces − 7 corners, 3 conceded
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Own box − 4 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Tottenham · Box pressure + 20/26 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Finishing − 2 goals from 0.50 expected (+1.50)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Threat by half − own threat 0.33 → 0.17 xG, opponents 0.67 → 1.08
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Goalkeeper + 8 saves
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Shooting accuracy + 2/8 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Discipline − 1 cards, 13 fouls
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Duels + 52 % of duels won (64/122)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Possession and duels − possession 43 %, duels 52 %
Sat 12 Sep away vs Bournemouth · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.31 expected (+0.69)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Threat by half + own threat 0.56 → 0.75 xG, opponents 1.28 → 0.56
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Shooting accuracy + 4/14 shots on target (29 %)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Discipline + 5 cards, 24 fouls
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Duels − 46 % of duels won (51/111)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Possession and duels − possession 48 %, duels 46 %
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Own box + 15 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Aston Villa · Box pressure + 12/14 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (3)
Hypothesis 1 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 52 % of duels won (61/118)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: 52 % of duels won (64/122)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 44 % of duels won (51/115)
− Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: 43 % of duels won (41/96)
− Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: 41 % of duels won (50/123)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: 46 % of duels won (51/111)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 2 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: possession 53 %, duels 44 %
Challenges
− Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: possession 40 %, duels 43 %
− Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: possession 49 %, duels 41 %
− Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: possession 41 %, duels 52 %
− Sat 12.9. away vs Bournemouth: possession 43 %, duels 52 %
− Sat 10.10. away vs Aston Villa: possession 48 %, duels 46 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 3 · Set pieces State · closed · 4 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Leeds: 6 corners, 5 conceded
− Fri 18.9. home vs Chelsea: 4 corners, 12 conceded
− Sat 5.9. home vs Sunderland: 4 corners, 3 conceded
− Sat 22.8. home vs Tottenham: 7 corners, 3 conceded
Last season 4.8 corners in the match, 5.4 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 13 offsides drawn
Progression: progresses directly: 23.4 passes per shot (league's most direct 2./20), possession 46 %
Set pieces: in attack 24 corners (league 16./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 27 corners against (13./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (5+8 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 2+4); own threat grows in the second half (3.66 → 7.52 xG); opponents' threat grows (2.82 → 5.24 xG); first substitution on average at minute 53 (forced reaction)
When leading: the lead broke: 2 leads at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 2.82 → 5.24)
Goalkeeper level on show: 22 saves (league 3./20) against 1.34 xG
We track whether the save level holds as shot quality changes: one match cannot separate skill from luck.
Box pressure delivers: 72 shots from inside the box (league 1./20) and 12 goals, 95 shots in total (5./20)
We track whether box pressure holds when opponents defend deeper: volume without goals is recorded as inefficiency.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.86)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −4.0 | +2.3 |
| Midfield | −2.3 | +0.6 |
| Forwards | +1.8 | −3.6 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 2
Duels have gone the team's way: 54 % of duels won (43/79) (Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton).
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 54 % of duels won (43/79)
− Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 51 % of duels won (43/85)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Other tracked hypotheses (5)
Hypothesis 2 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 13 shots against from inside the box (16 in total)
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 13 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
+ Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: 9 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Challenges
− Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 7 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Last season 10.9 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 3 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: own threat 0.15 → 0.24 xG, opponents 1.17 → 0.88
+ Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: own threat 0.39 → 0.44 xG, opponents 0.39 → 2.26
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: own threat 0.18 → 0.72 xG, opponents 0.44 → 0.94
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: own threat 0.50 → 0.66 xG, opponents 0.37 → 1.15
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: own threat 1.93 → 1.04 xG, opponents 1.06 → 0.50
− Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: own threat 1.46 → 0.24 xG, opponents 0.44 → 0.92
Last season 55 % of goals came in the second half (32 / 58)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 4 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 15/17 shots from inside the box
+ Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: 8/12 shots from inside the box
+ Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 13/18 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 13.4 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 5 · Goalkeeper State · mixed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 8 saves
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 4 saves
+ Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 4 saves
Challenges
− Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: 3 saves
− Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: 3 saves
− Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: 3 saves
Last season 67 % of shots on target kept out (52 conceded / 156)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 6 · Defensive line State · declining · 3 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 3 offsides won
Challenges
− Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 0 offsides won
− Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 59 findings
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Finishing − 1 goals from 0.39 expected (+0.61)
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Threat by half + own threat 0.15 → 0.24 xG, opponents 1.17 → 0.88
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Goalkeeper + 8 saves
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Shooting accuracy − 5/13 shots on target (38 %)
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Discipline + 4 cards, 16 fouls
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Duels − 51 % of duels won (43/85)
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Possession and duels − possession 45 %, duels 51 %
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Set pieces − 3 corners, 5 conceded
Sun 6 Sep away vs Arsenal · Own box + 13 shots against from inside the box (16 in total)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Finishing − 4 goals from 2.97 expected (+1.03)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Threat by half − own threat 1.93 → 1.04 xG, opponents 1.06 → 0.50
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Shooting accuracy − 6/17 shots on target (35 %)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Discipline − 1 cards, 6 fouls
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Duels + 54 % of duels won (43/79)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Possession and duels − possession 26 %, duels 54 %
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Set pieces − 4 corners, 7 conceded
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Own box + 13 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Brighton · Box pressure + 15/17 shots from inside the box
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.83 expected (-0.83)
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Threat by half + own threat 0.39 → 0.44 xG, opponents 0.39 → 2.26
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Shooting accuracy + 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Discipline − 0 cards, 7 fouls
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Duels + 57 % of duels won (55/96)
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Possession and duels − possession 60 %, duels 57 %
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Set pieces + 12 corners, 4 conceded
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Fri 18 Sep away vs Brentford · Box pressure + 8/12 shots from inside the box
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.70 expected (+1.30)
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Threat by half − own threat 1.46 → 0.24 xG, opponents 0.44 → 0.92
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Shooting accuracy − 6/18 shots on target (33 %)
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Discipline + 3 cards, 7 fouls
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Duels + 53 % of duels won (55/103)
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Possession and duels − possession 39 %, duels 53 %
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Set pieces − 4 corners, 6 conceded
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Mon 24 Aug away vs Fulham · Box pressure + 13/18 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Finishing − 2 goals from 0.91 expected (+1.09)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Threat by half + own threat 0.18 → 0.72 xG, opponents 0.44 → 0.94
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Shooting accuracy − 7/12 shots on target (58 %)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Discipline − 1 cards, 7 fouls
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Duels + 53 % of duels won (47/88)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Possession and duels − possession 68 %, duels 53 %
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Set pieces − 10 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 12 Sep home vs Hull City · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Finishing − 5 goals from 1.16 expected (+3.84)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Threat by half + own threat 0.50 → 0.66 xG, opponents 0.37 → 1.15
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Shooting accuracy − 6/10 shots on target (60 %)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Discipline − 0 cards, 7 fouls
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Duels + 55 % of duels won (57/104)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Possession and duels − possession 40 %, duels 55 %
Sat 10 Oct home vs Bournemouth · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Suljetut hypoteesit (5)
Hypothesis 1 · Discipline State · closed · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 4 cards, 16 fouls
+ Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 3 cards, 7 fouls
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 1 cards, 6 fouls
− Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: 0 cards, 7 fouls
− Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: 1 cards, 7 fouls
− Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: 0 cards, 7 fouls
Last season 2.5 cards and 11.2 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 2 · Set pieces State · closed · 5 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: 12 corners, 4 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 3 corners, 5 conceded
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 4 corners, 7 conceded
− Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 4 corners, 6 conceded
− Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: 10 corners, 4 conceded
Last season 6.1 corners in the match, 4.3 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 3 · Finishing State · closed · 6 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: 0 goals from 0.83 expected (-0.83)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 1 goals from 0.39 expected (+0.61)
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 4 goals from 2.97 expected (+1.03)
− Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 3 goals from 1.70 expected (+1.30)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: 2 goals from 0.91 expected (+1.09)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: 5 goals from 1.16 expected (+3.84)
Last season 1.5 goals and 13.4 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 4 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: 2/12 shots on target (17 %)
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: 5/13 shots on target (38 %)
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: 6/17 shots on target (35 %)
− Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: 6/18 shots on target (33 %)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: 7/12 shots on target (58 %)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: 6/10 shots on target (60 %)
Last season 32 % of shots on target (164 / 511)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 5 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 6.9. away vs Arsenal: possession 45 %, duels 51 %
− Sun 30.8. home vs Brighton: possession 26 %, duels 54 %
− Fri 18.9. away vs Brentford: possession 60 %, duels 57 %
− Mon 24.8. away vs Fulham: possession 39 %, duels 53 %
− Sat 12.9. home vs Hull City: possession 68 %, duels 53 %
− Sat 10.10. home vs Bournemouth: possession 40 %, duels 55 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-table: 6 offsides drawn; box open: 70 % of shots conceded came from inside the box
Progression: progression mid-table: 31.4 passes per shot, possession 46 %
Set pieces: in attack 34 corners (league 4./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 33 corners against (2./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the opening half (9+6 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 5+8); own threat falls in the second half (4.61 → 3.34 xG); opponents' threat grows (3.87 → 6.65 xG); first substitution on average at minute 64
When leading: the lead broke: 3 leads at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 3.87 → 6.65)
The duels carry: 54 % of duels won (300/555), league 3./20
We track whether the duel wins hold as opponents change their approach.
Goalkeeper level on show: 25 saves (league 1./20) against 1.75 xG
We track whether the save level holds as shot quality changes: one match cannot separate skill from luck.
The second half fades: Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -1.27)
We track whether the second-half fade turns around: do the decisive moments keep coming against less and less threat.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +2.7 | +1.0 |
| Midfield | −4.8 | −8.5 |
| Forwards | −4.5 | +6.7 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
Goal output has not followed the chances: 0 goals from 0.79 expected (-0.79) (Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland).
Last quarter hour · Fulham dropped 6 points after the 75th minute.
Next match · vs Hull City: market probability ▷ Fulham 56 %, Hull City 20 %, even though in the table Fulham are 20th and Hull City 8th.
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: 0 goals from 0.79 expected (-0.79)
− Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 2 goals from 1.35 expected (+0.65)
Last season 1.2 goals and 12.7 shots in the match, 10 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Other tracked hypotheses (5)
Hypothesis 2 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: 9 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: 17 shots against from inside the box (29 in total)
+ Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 13 shots against from inside the box (18 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: 9 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 7 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Last season 11.8 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 3 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 4 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: 11/12 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 22/25 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: 8/10 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 9/13 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 12.7 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 4 · Possession and duels State · strengthening · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: possession 58 %, duels 43 %
+ Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: possession 61 %, duels 47 %
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: possession 64 %, duels 45 %
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: possession 52 %, duels 49 %
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: possession 42 %, duels 49 %
− Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: possession 44 %, duels 48 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 5 · Discipline State · strengthening · 5 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: 2 cards, 15 fouls
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: 3 cards, 9 fouls
+ Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 2 cards, 12 fouls
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 4 cards, 10 fouls
Challenges
− Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: 1 cards, 8 fouls
Last season 2.0 cards and 10.9 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 6 · Defensive line State · mixed · 3 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 3 offsides won
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 6 offsides won
Challenges
− Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 59 findings
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.79 expected (-0.79)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Threat by half − own threat 0.46 → 0.32 xG, opponents 0.07 → 1.69
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Shooting accuracy + 0/9 shots on target (0 %)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Discipline + 2 cards, 15 fouls
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Duels − 43 % of duels won (42/97)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Possession and duels + possession 58 %, duels 43 %
Sun 30 Aug away vs Sunderland · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.62 expected (-0.62)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Threat by half − own threat 1.49 → 0.13 xG, opponents 1.06 → 0.54
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Shooting accuracy − 6/12 shots on target (50 %)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Discipline + 3 cards, 9 fouls
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Duels − 49 % of duels won (34/69)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Possession and duels − possession 42 %, duels 49 %
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Set pieces − 3 corners, 13 conceded
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Own box + 17 shots against from inside the box (29 in total)
Sun 20 Sep home vs Manchester United · Box pressure + 11/12 shots from inside the box
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.35 expected (+0.65)
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Threat by half + own threat 0.44 → 0.92 xG, opponents 1.46 → 0.24
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Shooting accuracy − 6/14 shots on target (43 %)
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Discipline + 2 cards, 12 fouls
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Duels − 47 % of duels won (49/104)
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Possession and duels + possession 61 %, duels 47 %
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Set pieces − 6 corners, 4 conceded
Mon 24 Aug home vs Chelsea · Own box + 13 shots against from inside the box (18 in total)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Finishing + 2 goals from 3.14 expected (-1.14)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Threat by half − own threat 1.60 → 1.54 xG, opponents 0.30 → 1.67
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Shooting accuracy + 6/25 shots on target (24 %)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Defensive line + 6 offsides won
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Duels − 45 % of duels won (36/80)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Possession and duels + possession 64 %, duels 45 %
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Set pieces − 7 corners, 1 conceded
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Crystal Palace · Box pressure + 22/25 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.70 expected (-0.70)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Threat by half − own threat 0.40 → 0.30 xG, opponents 0.52 → 0.76
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Shooting accuracy − 4/10 shots on target (40 %)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Discipline − 1 cards, 8 fouls
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Duels − 48 % of duels won (35/73)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Possession and duels − possession 44 %, duels 48 %
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Set pieces + 8 corners, 5 conceded
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (14 in total)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Liverpool · Box pressure + 8/10 shots from inside the box
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.87 expected (-0.87)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Threat by half + own threat 0.48 → 1.39 xG, opponents 0.11 → 1.11
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Shooting accuracy − 5/13 shots on target (38 %)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Discipline + 4 cards, 10 fouls
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Duels − 49 % of duels won (44/89)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Possession and duels + possession 52 %, duels 49 %
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Set pieces − 5 corners, 2 conceded
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Ipswich · Box pressure + 9/13 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (5)
Hypothesis 1 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: 0/9 shots on target (0 %)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 6/25 shots on target (24 %)
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: 6/12 shots on target (50 %)
− Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 6/14 shots on target (43 %)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: 4/10 shots on target (40 %)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 5/13 shots on target (38 %)
Last season 29 % of shots on target (138 / 481)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · closed · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: own threat 0.44 → 0.92 xG, opponents 1.46 → 0.24
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: own threat 0.48 → 1.39 xG, opponents 0.11 → 1.11
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: own threat 0.46 → 0.32 xG, opponents 0.07 → 1.69
− Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: own threat 1.49 → 0.13 xG, opponents 1.06 → 0.54
− Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: own threat 1.60 → 1.54 xG, opponents 0.30 → 1.67
− Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: own threat 0.40 → 0.30 xG, opponents 0.52 → 0.76
Last season 62 % of goals came in the second half (29 / 47)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Set pieces State · closed · 5 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: 8 corners, 5 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: 3 corners, 13 conceded
− Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 6 corners, 4 conceded
− Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 7 corners, 1 conceded
− Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 5 corners, 2 conceded
Last season 4.9 corners in the match, 5.5 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 4 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: 3 saves
− Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 3 saves
− Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 2 saves
− Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: 3 saves
− Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 3 saves
Last season 66 % of shots on target kept out (51 conceded / 149)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 5 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Sunderland: 43 % of duels won (42/97)
− Sun 20.9. home vs Manchester United: 49 % of duels won (34/69)
− Mon 24.8. home vs Chelsea: 47 % of duels won (49/104)
− Sat 5.9. home vs Crystal Palace: 45 % of duels won (36/80)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Liverpool: 48 % of duels won (35/73)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Ipswich: 49 % of duels won (44/89)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 13 offsides drawn
Progression: cannot get shots off: 38.8 passes per shot (league's 2./20 most) without controlling the ball, possession 54 %
Set pieces: in attack 33 corners (league 5./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 28 corners against (11./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: own end leaks late (concessions 3+7); own threat holds in the second half (4.87 → 4.60 xG); opponents' threat grows (3.52 → 6.01 xG); first substitution on average at minute 67.
When leading: the lead broke: 1 lead at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 3.52 → 6.01)
Attacking inefficiency: 6 goals from 9.47 expected (xG), a gap of -3.47, league 17./20
We track whether the finishing corrects or the deficit continues: the same metric is read after every round.
Set pieces without output: 33 corners (league 5./20) and 6 goals
We track whether set pieces start producing goals or the pressure stays barren.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −1.3 | −5.9 |
| Midfield | +3.0 | +3.1 |
| Forwards | −4.4 | +2.1 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
Goal output has not followed the chances: 1 goals from 1.75 expected (-0.75) (Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham).
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 1 goals from 1.75 expected (-0.75)
Last season 1.1 goals and 10.4 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Other tracked hypotheses (6)
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: own threat 0.07 → 1.69 xG, opponents 0.46 → 0.32
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: own threat 1.57 → 2.00 xG, opponents 0.67 → 2.14
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: own threat 0.35 → 1.36 xG, opponents 0.35 → 0.85
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Arsenal: own threat 0.23 → 1.57 xG, opponents 0.77 → 1.11
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: own threat 0.58 → 0.17 xG, opponents 0.95 → 0.79
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: own threat 0.43 → 0.25 xG, opponents 0.47 → 0.67
Last season 69 % of goals came in the second half (29 / 42)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 9/12 shots from inside the box
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: 14/17 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 10/14 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 10.4 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 4 · Duels State · mixed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 57 % of duels won (57/100)
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: 59 % of duels won (57/96)
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 59 % of duels won (73/123)
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: 46 % of duels won (52/114)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Arsenal: 41 % of duels won (37/90)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: 50 % of duels won (52/104)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 5 · Own box State · mixed · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: 12 shots against from inside the box (16 in total)
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: 8 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Arsenal: 8 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 5 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 7 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Last season 14.3 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 6 · Discipline State · mixed · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 2 cards, 9 fouls
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: 3 cards, 14 fouls
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Arsenal: 7 cards, 18 fouls
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 0 cards, 10 fouls
− Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: 1 cards, 14 fouls
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: 0 cards, 8 fouls
Last season 2.2 cards and 10.7 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 7 · Defensive line State · declining · 2 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 0 offsides won
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 57 findings
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.75 expected (-0.75)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Threat by half + own threat 0.07 → 1.69 xG, opponents 0.46 → 0.32
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Goalkeeper − 0 saves
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Shooting accuracy − 4/12 shots on target (33 %)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Discipline − 0 cards, 10 fouls
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Duels + 57 % of duels won (57/100)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Possession and duels − possession 42 %, duels 57 %
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Set pieces − 3 corners, 4 conceded
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (9 in total)
Sun 30 Aug home vs Fulham · Box pressure + 9/12 shots from inside the box
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Finishing + 3 goals from 3.57 expected (-0.57)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Threat by half + own threat 1.57 → 2.00 xG, opponents 0.67 → 2.14
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Shooting accuracy − 9/17 shots on target (53 %)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Discipline − 1 cards, 14 fouls
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Duels + 59 % of duels won (57/96)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Possession and duels − possession 45 %, duels 59 %
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Set pieces − 5 corners, 6 conceded
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Own box + 12 shots against from inside the box (16 in total)
Sun 20 Sep away vs Manchester City · Box pressure + 14/17 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.71 expected (-0.71)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Threat by half + own threat 0.35 → 1.36 xG, opponents 0.35 → 0.85
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Shooting accuracy − 5/14 shots on target (36 %)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Discipline + 2 cards, 9 fouls
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Duels + 59 % of duels won (73/123)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Possession and duels − possession 51 %, duels 59 %
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Set pieces − 3 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Brentford · Box pressure + 10/14 shots from inside the box
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Threat by half − own threat 0.58 → 0.17 xG, opponents 0.95 → 0.79
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Shooting accuracy − 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Discipline + 3 cards, 14 fouls
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Duels − 46 % of duels won (52/114)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Possession and duels + possession 62 %, duels 46 %
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Set pieces − 5 corners, 3 conceded
Sat 22 Aug away vs Ipswich · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.80 expected (-1.80)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Threat by half + own threat 0.23 → 1.57 xG, opponents 0.77 → 1.11
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Shooting accuracy + 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Discipline + 7 cards, 18 fouls
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Duels − 41 % of duels won (37/90)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Possession and duels − possession 43 %, duels 41 %
Sat 12 Sep home vs Arsenal · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.68 expected (-0.68)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Threat by half − own threat 0.43 → 0.25 xG, opponents 0.47 → 0.67
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Shooting accuracy + 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Discipline − 0 cards, 8 fouls
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Duels − 50 % of duels won (52/104)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Possession and duels − possession 62 %, duels 50 %
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Set pieces + 7 corners, 5 conceded
Sat 10 Oct home vs Brighton · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Suljetut hypoteesit (4)
Hypothesis 1 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Arsenal: 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 4/12 shots on target (33 %)
− Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: 9/17 shots on target (53 %)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 5/14 shots on target (36 %)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
Last season 32 % of shots on target (126 / 395)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 2 · Set pieces State · closed · 5 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: 7 corners, 5 conceded
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 3 corners, 4 conceded
− Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: 5 corners, 6 conceded
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 3 corners, 4 conceded
− Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: 5 corners, 3 conceded
Last season 3.7 corners in the match, 5.3 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 3 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: possession 62 %, duels 46 %
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: possession 42 %, duels 57 %
− Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: possession 45 %, duels 59 %
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: possession 51 %, duels 59 %
− Sat 12.9. home vs Arsenal: possession 43 %, duels 41 %
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: possession 62 %, duels 50 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 4 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. home vs Fulham: 0 saves
− Sun 20.9. away vs Manchester City: 1 saves
− Sat 5.9. away vs Brentford: 1 saves
− Sat 22.8. away vs Ipswich: 1 saves
− Sat 12.9. home vs Arsenal: 3 saves
− Sat 10.10. home vs Brighton: 2 saves
Last season 71 % of shots on target kept out (48 conceded / 167)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: deep line: the offside trap sprang only 4 times (19./20)
Progression: progression mid-table: 32.0 passes per shot, possession 51 %
Set pieces: in attack 27 corners (league 11./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 24 corners against (17./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (3+4 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 4+8); own threat grows in the second half (3.23 → 7.04 xG); opponents' threat grows (3.67 → 5.88 xG); first substitution on average at minute 58
Attacking inefficiency: 6 goals from 10.27 expected (xG), a gap of -4.27, league 19./20
We track whether the finishing corrects or the deficit continues: the same metric is read after every round.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +3.81)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +1.0 | +1.4 |
| Midfield | −0.9 | +2.1 |
| Forwards | +2.6 | −1.1 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The team reaches the box: 8/11 shots from inside the box (Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest).
Next match · vs Coventry: market probability ▷ Tottenham 64 %, Coventry 16 %, even though in the table Tottenham are 19th and Coventry 14th.
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 8/11 shots from inside the box
Last season 11.5 shots in the match (no box split from last season, so the comparison is shot count)
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Other tracked hypotheses (7)
Hypothesis 2 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: 20 shots against from inside the box (26 in total)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: 9 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: 9 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 5 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
− Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Last season 12.2 shots against in the match (no box split)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 3 · Finishing State · strengthening · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 0 goals from 1.06 expected (-1.06)
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: 0 goals from 1.04 expected (-1.04)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: 0 goals from 0.69 expected (-0.69)
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: 1 goals from 1.68 expected (-0.68)
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Last season 1.3 goals and 11.5 shots in the match, 11 % of shots scored
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 4 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: own threat 0.08 → 0.99 xG, opponents 0.49 → 0.43
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: own threat 0.50 → 0.54 xG, opponents 0.26 → 0.49
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: own threat 0.09 → 0.38 xG, opponents 1.48 → 2.48
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: own threat 0.64 → 0.92 xG, opponents 0.82 → 0.35
Challenges
− Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: own threat 0.36 → 0.33 xG, opponents 0.15 → 0.96
− Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: own threat 0.99 → 0.69 xG, opponents 0.09 → 0.79
Last season 58 % of goals came in the second half (28 / 48)
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 5 · Possession and duels State · strengthening · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: possession 58 %, duels 47 %
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: possession 59 %, duels 48 %
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: possession 62 %, duels 43 %
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: possession 55 %, duels 45 %
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: possession 59 %, duels 52 %
− Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: possession 64 %, duels 59 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 6 · Set pieces State · strengthening · 5 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 10 corners, 2 conceded
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: 9 corners, 7 conceded
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: 5 corners, 6 conceded
Challenges
− Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: 11 corners, 1 conceded
− Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: 4 corners, 4 conceded
Last season 5.5 corners in the match, 4.7 against
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 7 · Shooting accuracy State · mixed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 0/11 shots on target (0 %)
+ Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: 2/14 shots on target (14 %)
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: 6/17 shots on target (35 %)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: 4/9 shots on target (44 %)
− Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: 7/20 shots on target (35 %)
Last season 34 % of shots on target (150 / 436)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 8 · Defensive line Status · new · 1 match
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: 3 offsides won
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 57 findings
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.06 expected (-1.06)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Threat by half + own threat 0.08 → 0.99 xG, opponents 0.49 → 0.43
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Shooting accuracy + 0/11 shots on target (0 %)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Discipline + 2 cards, 14 fouls
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Duels + 52 % of duels won (66/127)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Possession and duels − possession 59 %, duels 52 %
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Set pieces + 10 corners, 2 conceded
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Box pressure + 8/11 shots from inside the box
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.04 expected (-1.04)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Threat by half + own threat 0.50 → 0.54 xG, opponents 0.26 → 0.49
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Goalkeeper − 0 saves
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Shooting accuracy − 6/17 shots on target (35 %)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Discipline − 1 cards, 15 fouls
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Duels − 47 % of duels won (37/78)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Possession and duels + possession 58 %, duels 47 %
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Set pieces + 9 corners, 7 conceded
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Newcastle · Box pressure + 10/17 shots from inside the box
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Threat by half + own threat 0.09 → 0.38 xG, opponents 1.48 → 2.48
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Shooting accuracy − 4/9 shots on target (44 %)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Discipline − 1 cards, 14 fouls
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Duels − 48 % of duels won (57/118)
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Possession and duels + possession 59 %, duels 48 %
Sat 22 Aug away vs Brentford · Own box + 20 shots against from inside the box (26 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Threat by half + own threat 0.64 → 0.92 xG, opponents 0.82 → 0.35
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Shooting accuracy − 7/20 shots on target (35 %)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Discipline − 1 cards, 9 fouls
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Duels + 59 % of duels won (65/111)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Possession and duels − possession 64 %, duels 59 %
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Set pieces − 11 corners, 1 conceded
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
Sat 19 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Box pressure + 12/20 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.69 expected (-0.69)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Threat by half − own threat 0.36 → 0.33 xG, opponents 0.15 → 0.96
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Shooting accuracy + 2/14 shots on target (14 %)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Discipline − 0 cards, 14 fouls
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Duels − 43 % of duels won (41/95)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Possession and duels + possession 62 %, duels 43 %
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Set pieces + 5 corners, 6 conceded
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 12 Sep home vs Everton · Box pressure + 8/14 shots from inside the box
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.68 expected (-0.68)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Threat by half − own threat 0.99 → 0.69 xG, opponents 0.09 → 0.79
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Shooting accuracy + 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Discipline + 4 cards, 16 fouls
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Duels − 45 % of duels won (50/111)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Possession and duels + possession 55 %, duels 45 %
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Set pieces − 4 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Own box + 8 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 10 Oct away vs Manchester United · Box pressure + 8/12 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (3)
Hypothesis 1 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 52 % of duels won (66/127)
+ Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: 59 % of duels won (65/111)
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: 47 % of duels won (37/78)
− Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: 48 % of duels won (57/118)
− Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: 43 % of duels won (41/95)
− Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: 45 % of duels won (50/111)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 2 · Discipline State · closed · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 2 cards, 14 fouls
+ Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: 4 cards, 16 fouls
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: 1 cards, 15 fouls
− Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: 1 cards, 14 fouls
− Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: 1 cards, 9 fouls
− Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: 0 cards, 14 fouls
Last season 2.7 cards and 12.2 fouls in the match
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 3 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. away vs Brentford: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 1 saves
− Sat 29.8. home vs Newcastle: 0 saves
− Sat 19.9. home vs Aston Villa: 3 saves
− Sat 12.9. home vs Everton: 3 saves
− Sat 10.10. away vs Manchester United: 3 saves
Last season 63 % of shots on target kept out (57 conceded / 154)
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 11 offsides drawn
Progression: progression mid-table: 38.1 passes per shot, possession 60 %
Set pieces: in attack 42 corners (league 1./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 27 corners against (14./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (0+3 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 2+8); own threat grows in the second half (2.66 → 3.85 xG); opponents' threat grows (3.29 → 5.50 xG); first substitution on average at minute 54 (forced reaction)
Attacking inefficiency: 3 goals from 6.50 expected (xG), a gap of -3.50, league 18./20
We track whether the finishing corrects or the deficit continues: the same metric is read after every round.
Set pieces without output: 42 corners (league 1./20) and 3 goals
We track whether set pieces start producing goals or the pressure stays barren.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.19)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +4.4 | −5.6 |
| Midfield | +1.5 | +6.6 |
| Forwards | +1.8 | −1.3 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
The box has been reached too easily: 14 shots against from inside the box (22 in total) (Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton).
Next match · vs Tottenham: market probability ▷ Coventry 16 %, Tottenham 64 %, even though in the table Coventry are 14th and Tottenham 19th.
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: 14 shots against from inside the box (22 in total)
− Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 2 shots against from inside the box (5 in total)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Other tracked hypotheses (6)
Hypothesis 2 · Shooting accuracy State · strengthening · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: 1/4 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 3/11 shots on target (27 %)
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 3/10 shots on target (30 %)
Challenges
− Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: 6/14 shots on target (43 %)
− Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: 6/9 shots on target (67 %)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 3 · Finishing State · strengthening · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: 0 goals from 1.33 expected (-1.33)
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 0 goals from 1.37 expected (-1.37)
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 0 goals from 1.28 expected (-1.28)
Challenges
− Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: 4 goals from 1.47 expected (+2.53)
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 4 · Defensive line State · strengthening · 4 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: 5 offsides won
+ Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: 5 offsides won
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 5 offsides won
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Hypothesis 5 · Set pieces State · strengthening · 3 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: 5 corners, 3 conceded
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 5 corners, 4 conceded
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 6 corners, 2 conceded
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Hypothesis 6 · Box pressure State · mixed · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: 12/14 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 8/12 shots from inside the box
Challenges
− Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: 1/4 shots from inside the box
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 7 · The whole system at the bottom end State · new · 6 matches
It looks like one metric rises first.
Supports
+ vs : Possession 38 % (league 19./20), own output 1.05 xG and 1.75 xG given to opponents (3./20 most): 6 metrics at the bottom end at once
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Does this hold in the coming rounds: a systemic concern only clears with several metrics moving; we track which climbs first, possession or their own output?
Show 55 findings
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.33 expected (-1.33)
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Threat by half − own threat 0.97 → 0.37 xG, opponents 0.97 → 1.83
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Shooting accuracy − 6/14 shots on target (43 %)
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Duels + 57 % of duels won (55/96)
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Possession and duels − possession 31 %, duels 57 %
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Set pieces + 5 corners, 3 conceded
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Own box + 14 shots against from inside the box (22 in total)
Sun 13 Sep home vs Brighton · Box pressure + 12/14 shots from inside the box
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Threat by half + own threat 0.04 → 0.16 xG, opponents 1.32 → 0.56
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Shooting accuracy + 1/4 shots on target (25 %)
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Defensive line + 5 offsides won
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Discipline − 1 cards, 13 fouls
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Duels − 48 % of duels won (34/71)
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Possession and duels − possession 36 %, duels 48 %
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (20 in total)
Fri 21 Aug away vs Arsenal · Box pressure − 1/4 shots from inside the box
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Finishing − 4 goals from 1.47 expected (+2.53)
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Threat by half − own threat 0.88 → 0.59 xG, opponents 1.23 → 0.64
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Shooting accuracy − 6/9 shots on target (67 %)
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Defensive line + 5 offsides won
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Discipline − 1 cards, 3 fouls
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Duels − 46 % of duels won (37/81)
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Possession and duels − possession 33 %, duels 46 %
Mon 12 Oct home vs Newcastle · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (19 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.37 expected (-1.37)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Threat by half − own threat 0.73 → 0.64 xG, opponents 1.08 → 1.04
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Shooting accuracy + 3/12 shots on target (25 %)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Defensive line + 5 offsides won
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Discipline + 2 cards, 17 fouls
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Duels − 41 % of duels won (44/107)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Possession and duels − possession 22 %, duels 41 %
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Set pieces + 5 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Own box + 14 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
Sat 5 Sep away vs Manchester City · Box pressure + 8/12 shots from inside the box
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.28 expected (-1.28)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Threat by half − own threat 1.08 → 0.20 xG, opponents 0.02 → 0.70
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Shooting accuracy + 3/11 shots on target (27 %)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Discipline − 1 cards, 11 fouls
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Duels − 44 % of duels won (36/81)
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Possession and duels + possession 69 %, duels 44 %
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Set pieces + 6 corners, 2 conceded
Sat 29 Aug home vs Hull City · Own box − 2 shots against from inside the box (5 in total)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Threat by half + own threat 0.25 → 0.43 xG, opponents 0.60 → 0.50
Sat 19 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 19 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Shooting accuracy + 3/10 shots on target (30 %)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Discipline − 0 cards, 10 fouls
Sat 19 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Duels − 51 % of duels won (54/106)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Possession and duels − possession 38 %, duels 51 %
Sat 19 Sep away vs Nottingham Forest · Own box + 12 shots against from inside the box (24 in total)
Suljetut hypoteesit (5)
Hypothesis 1 · Threat by half State · closed · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: own threat 0.04 → 0.16 xG, opponents 1.32 → 0.56
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: own threat 0.25 → 0.43 xG, opponents 0.60 → 0.50
Challenges
− Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: own threat 0.97 → 0.37 xG, opponents 0.97 → 1.83
− Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: own threat 0.88 → 0.59 xG, opponents 1.23 → 0.64
− Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: own threat 0.73 → 0.64 xG, opponents 1.08 → 1.04
− Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: own threat 1.08 → 0.20 xG, opponents 0.02 → 0.70
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 2 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: possession 69 %, duels 44 %
Challenges
− Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: possession 31 %, duels 57 %
− Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: possession 36 %, duels 48 %
− Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: possession 33 %, duels 46 %
− Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: possession 22 %, duels 41 %
− Sat 19.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: possession 38 %, duels 51 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 3 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: 57 % of duels won (55/96)
Challenges
− Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: 48 % of duels won (34/71)
− Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: 46 % of duels won (37/81)
− Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 41 % of duels won (44/107)
− Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 44 % of duels won (36/81)
− Sat 19.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 51 % of duels won (54/106)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 4 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: 4 saves
Challenges
− Sun 13.9. home vs Brighton: 2 saves
− Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: 2 saves
− Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 2 saves
− Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 1 saves
− Sat 19.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 2 saves
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 5 · Discipline State · closed · 5 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. away vs Manchester City: 2 cards, 17 fouls
Challenges
− Fri 21.8. away vs Arsenal: 1 cards, 13 fouls
− Mon 12.10. home vs Newcastle: 1 cards, 3 fouls
− Sat 29.8. home vs Hull City: 1 cards, 11 fouls
− Sat 19.9. away vs Nottingham Forest: 0 cards, 10 fouls
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: high line: opponents caught offside 19 times (league 2./20)
Progression: progression mid-table: 32.6 passes per shot, possession 38 %
Set pieces: in attack 22 corners (league 17./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 29 corners against (7./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (1+4 goals); own end leaks late (concessions 4+7); own threat falls in the second half (3.95 → 2.39 xG); opponents' threat holds (5.22 → 5.27 xG); first substitution on average at minute 58
When leading: the lead broke: 1 lead at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 5.22 → 5.27)
The whole system at the bottom end: Possession 38 % (league 19./20), own output 1.05 xG and 1.75 xG given to opponents (3./20 most): 6 metrics at the bottom end at once
We track whether any metric climbs out of the tail: a systemic concern only clears with several metrics moving.
Opponents get into the box: 63 shots against from inside the box (2nd most of 20), 105 shots in total (60 % from the box)
We track whether the number of shots conceded in the box narrows: leaking the box predicts goals conceded over a longer sample.
The second half fades: Threat fell in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half -1.56)
We track whether the second-half fade turns around: do the decisive moments keep coming against less and less threat.
The cost of indiscipline has grown: 2 cards, 15 fouls (Sun 11.10. home vs Everton).
Next match · vs Fulham: market probability ▷ Hull City 20 %, Fulham 56 %, even though in the table Hull City are 8th and Fulham 20th.
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 2 cards, 15 fouls
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Other tracked hypotheses (7)
Hypothesis 2 · Threat by half State · strengthening · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: own threat 0.57 → 0.80 xG, opponents 0.86 → 0.87
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Aston Villa: own threat 0.08 → 0.49 xG, opponents 0.57 → 1.36
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: own threat 0.02 → 0.70 xG, opponents 1.08 → 0.20
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: own threat 0.34 → 1.26 xG, opponents 1.19 → 0.25
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: own threat 0.44 → 0.94 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.72
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: own threat 1.16 → 0.10 xG, opponents 0.71 → 1.10
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 3 · Own box State · strengthening · 6 matches
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 11 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Aston Villa: 10 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: 15 shots against from inside the box (21 in total)
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: 9 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: 6 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Hypothesis 4 · Duels State · strengthening · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Aston Villa: 55 % of duels won (46/84)
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: 55 % of duels won (45/82)
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: 59 % of duels won (50/85)
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: 52 % of duels won (50/96)
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 39 % of duels won (36/93)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: 47 % of duels won (41/88)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 5 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 4 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 9/9 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: 12/22 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: 9/14 shots from inside the box
Challenges
− Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: 2/5 shots from inside the box
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 6 · Defensive line State · strengthening · 3 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 4 offsides won
+ Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: 3 offsides won
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: 3 offsides won
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Hypothesis 7 · Goalkeeper State · mixed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 4 saves
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: 5 saves
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sat 5.9. home vs Aston Villa: 1 saves
− Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: 3 saves
− Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: 3 saves
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 8 · Direct play delivers State · new · 6 matches
It looks like direct play carries even with the ball.
Supports
+ vs : Possession 33 % (20./20) and pass accuracy 72 % (20./20), yet output above expected (+1.11)
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Does this hold in the coming rounds: output stays above expected when opponents concede the ball voluntarily?
Show 57 findings
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.37 expected (+0.63)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Threat by half + own threat 0.57 → 0.80 xG, opponents 0.86 → 0.87
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Goalkeeper + 4 saves
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Shooting accuracy − 5/9 shots on target (56 %)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Discipline + 2 cards, 15 fouls
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Duels − 39 % of duels won (36/93)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Possession and duels − possession 35 %, duels 39 %
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Set pieces − 7 corners, 6 conceded
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Own box + 11 shots against from inside the box (15 in total)
Sun 11 Oct home vs Everton · Box pressure + 9/9 shots from inside the box
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.57 expected (-0.57)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Threat by half + own threat 0.08 → 0.49 xG, opponents 0.57 → 1.36
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Shooting accuracy − 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Discipline + 2 cards, 10 fouls
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Duels + 55 % of duels won (46/84)
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Possession and duels − possession 26 %, duels 55 %
Sat 5 Sep home vs Aston Villa · Own box + 10 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Threat by half + own threat 0.02 → 0.70 xG, opponents 1.08 → 0.20
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Shooting accuracy − 2/5 shots on target (40 %)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Discipline + 4 cards, 8 fouls
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Duels + 55 % of duels won (45/82)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Possession and duels − possession 31 %, duels 55 %
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Own box − 7 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 29 Aug away vs Coventry · Box pressure − 2/5 shots from inside the box
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.26 expected (+0.74)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Threat by half − own threat 1.16 → 0.10 xG, opponents 0.71 → 1.10
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Shooting accuracy − 4/8 shots on target (50 %)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Defensive line + 3 offsides won
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Discipline + 2 cards, 10 fouls
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Duels + 59 % of duels won (50/85)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Possession and duels − possession 28 %, duels 59 %
Sat 22 Aug home vs Manchester United · Own box + 15 shots against from inside the box (21 in total)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Finishing + 1 goals from 1.59 expected (-0.59)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Threat by half + own threat 0.34 → 1.26 xG, opponents 1.19 → 0.25
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Shooting accuracy + 4/22 shots on target (18 %)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Discipline + 4 cards, 10 fouls
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Duels + 52 % of duels won (50/96)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Possession and duels − possession 44 %, duels 52 %
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Set pieces − 7 corners, 4 conceded
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Newcastle · Box pressure + 12/22 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.38 expected (+0.62)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Threat by half + own threat 0.44 → 0.94 xG, opponents 0.18 → 0.72
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Shooting accuracy − 5/14 shots on target (36 %)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Discipline + 5 cards, 12 fouls
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Duels − 47 % of duels won (41/88)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Possession and duels − possession 32 %, duels 47 %
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Set pieces − 4 corners, 10 conceded
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Own box − 6 shots against from inside the box (12 in total)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Chelsea · Box pressure + 9/14 shots from inside the box
Suljetut hypoteesit (4)
Hypothesis 1 · Finishing State · closed · 5 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Sat 5.9. home vs Aston Villa: 0 goals from 0.57 expected (-0.57)
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: 1 goals from 1.59 expected (-0.59)
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 2 goals from 1.37 expected (+0.63)
− Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: 2 goals from 1.26 expected (+0.74)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: 2 goals from 1.38 expected (+0.62)
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 2 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: 4/22 shots on target (18 %)
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 5/9 shots on target (56 %)
− Sat 5.9. home vs Aston Villa: 4/11 shots on target (36 %)
− Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: 2/5 shots on target (40 %)
− Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: 4/8 shots on target (50 %)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: 5/14 shots on target (36 %)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 3 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: possession 35 %, duels 39 %
− Sat 5.9. home vs Aston Villa: possession 26 %, duels 55 %
− Sat 29.8. away vs Coventry: possession 31 %, duels 55 %
− Sat 22.8. home vs Manchester United: possession 28 %, duels 59 %
− Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: possession 44 %, duels 52 %
− Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: possession 32 %, duels 47 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 4 · Set pieces State · closed · 3 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 11.10. home vs Everton: 7 corners, 6 conceded
− Sat 19.9. away vs Newcastle: 7 corners, 4 conceded
− Sat 12.9. away vs Chelsea: 4 corners, 10 conceded
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 15 offsides drawn
Progression: progresses directly: 24.6 passes per shot (league's most direct 3./20), possession 33 %
Set pieces: in attack 24 corners (league 15./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 36 corners against (1./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: own end leaks late (concessions 3+4); own threat grows in the second half (2.61 → 4.29 xG); opponents' threat holds (4.59 → 4.50 xG); first substitution on average at minute 57
When leading: the lead broke: 2 leads at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 4.59 → 4.50)
Direct play delivers: Possession 33 % (20./20) and pass accuracy 72 % (20./20), yet output above expected (+1.11)
We track whether the direct game carries even when opponents concede the ball voluntarily.
The lead held to the end: The lead was kept more often than lost and the opponents' threat fell in the second half (xG in the 2nd half below the 1st)
We track whether the lead holds against stronger opponents and whether the opponents' threat keeps falling in the 2nd half.
The second half sharpens: Threat rose in the second half (xG 2nd – 1st half +1.68)
We track whether the second-half sharpening repeats: is it structure or the opponent.
The box has been reached too easily: 19 shots against from inside the box (33 in total) (Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United).
Last quarter hour · Ipswich gained 7 points after the 75th minute.
Opponents appear to get into the box too easily.
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: 19 shots against from inside the box (33 in total)
− Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: 5 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Next test Will shots conceded inside the box fall below eight?
Other tracked hypotheses (4)
Hypothesis 2 · Discipline State · strengthening · 6 matches
The cost of indiscipline may rise.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: 3 cards, 12 fouls
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: 4 cards, 12 fouls
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 3 cards, 16 fouls
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Fulham: 2 cards, 8 fouls
Challenges
− Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: 1 cards, 6 fouls
− Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: 0 cards, 12 fouls
Next test Will cards add up to suspensions, or fouls to goals conceded?
Hypothesis 3 · Box pressure State · strengthening · 3 matches
The team appears to get into the box repeatedly.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: 8/10 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: 9/13 shots from inside the box
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 8/12 shots from inside the box
Challenges
No counter-evidence yet.
Next test Will shots in the box stay above eight when the opponent defends deeper?
Hypothesis 4 · Finishing State · mixed · 4 matches
Goal output may keep falling short of the chances created.
Supports
+ Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: 0 goals from 0.75 expected (-0.75)
+ Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: 0 goals from 1.44 expected (-1.44)
Challenges
− Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 3 goals from 1.67 expected (+1.33)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Fulham: 2 goals from 1.22 expected (+0.78)
Next test Will the goal count move closer to the expected number in the next match?
Hypothesis 5 · Defensive line State · mixed · 4 matches
The defence appears to hold a high line.
Supports
+ Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: 4 offsides won
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: 4 offsides won
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: 0 offsides won
− Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 0 offsides won
Next test Will the offside trap keep working even against a more direct opponent?
Show 56 findings
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Threat by half + own threat 0.98 → 1.03 xG, opponents 0.74 → 3.83
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Goalkeeper + 7 saves
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Shooting accuracy − 5/9 shots on target (56 %)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Discipline + 3 cards, 12 fouls
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Duels − 34 % of duels won (29/85)
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Possession and duels − possession 40 %, duels 34 %
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Set pieces − 4 corners, 8 conceded
Sun 30 Aug away vs Manchester United · Own box + 19 shots against from inside the box (33 in total)
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Finishing + 0 goals from 0.75 expected (-0.75)
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Threat by half − own threat 0.51 → 0.25 xG, opponents 0.42 → 0.26
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Goalkeeper + 5 saves
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Shooting accuracy − 5/14 shots on target (36 %)
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Discipline − 1 cards, 6 fouls
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Duels − 45 % of duels won (40/89)
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Possession and duels − possession 45 %, duels 45 %
Fri 4 Sep home vs Liverpool · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (10 in total)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Threat by half − own threat 0.95 → 0.79 xG, opponents 0.58 → 0.17
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Shooting accuracy + 3/10 shots on target (30 %)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Defensive line + 4 offsides won
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Discipline − 0 cards, 12 fouls
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Duels + 54 % of duels won (62/114)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Possession and duels − possession 38 %, duels 54 %
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Set pieces − 3 corners, 5 conceded
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Own box − 5 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 22 Aug home vs Sunderland · Box pressure + 8/10 shots from inside the box
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Finishing + 0 goals from 1.44 expected (-1.44)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Threat by half − own threat 0.86 → 0.58 xG, opponents 1.30 → 0.93
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Goalkeeper − 1 saves
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Shooting accuracy − 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Discipline + 4 cards, 12 fouls
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Duels − 47 % of duels won (41/87)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Possession and duels − possession 48 %, duels 47 %
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Own box + 13 shots against from inside the box (21 in total)
Sat 19 Sep away vs Everton · Box pressure + 9/13 shots from inside the box
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Finishing − 3 goals from 1.67 expected (+1.33)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Threat by half − own threat 0.92 → 0.76 xG, opponents 0.20 → 0.41
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Goalkeeper − 2 saves
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Shooting accuracy − 6/12 shots on target (50 %)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Defensive line − 0 offsides won
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Discipline + 3 cards, 16 fouls
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Duels − 44 % of duels won (39/89)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Possession and duels + possession 53 %, duels 44 %
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Set pieces − 3 corners, 6 conceded
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (11 in total)
Sat 12 Sep away vs Crystal Palace · Box pressure + 8/12 shots from inside the box
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Finishing − 2 goals from 1.22 expected (+0.78)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Threat by half + own threat 0.11 → 1.11 xG, opponents 0.48 → 1.39
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Goalkeeper − 3 saves
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Shooting accuracy − 5/11 shots on target (45 %)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Discipline + 2 cards, 8 fouls
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Duels − 51 % of duels won (45/89)
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Possession and duels − possession 48 %, duels 51 %
Sat 10 Oct home vs Fulham · Own box + 9 shots against from inside the box (13 in total)
Suljetut hypoteesit (6)
Hypothesis 1 · Threat by half State · closed · 6 matches
The threat appears weighted towards the second half.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: own threat 0.98 → 1.03 xG, opponents 0.74 → 3.83
+ Sat 10.10. home vs Fulham: own threat 0.11 → 1.11 xG, opponents 0.48 → 1.39
Challenges
− Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: own threat 0.51 → 0.25 xG, opponents 0.42 → 0.26
− Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: own threat 0.95 → 0.79 xG, opponents 0.58 → 0.17
− Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: own threat 0.86 → 0.58 xG, opponents 1.30 → 0.93
− Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: own threat 0.92 → 0.76 xG, opponents 0.20 → 0.41
Next test Will the threat still grow from first half to second in a competitive match?
Hypothesis 2 · Goalkeeper State · closed · 6 matches
The goalkeeper's level may prove the difference for this team.
Supports
+ Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: 7 saves
+ Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: 5 saves
Challenges
− Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: 2 saves
− Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: 1 saves
− Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 2 saves
− Sat 10.10. home vs Fulham: 3 saves
Next test Will the shot-stopping level hold when shot quality changes?
Hypothesis 3 · Duels State · closed · 6 matches
Duels appear to carry this team's game.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: 54 % of duels won (62/114)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: 34 % of duels won (29/85)
− Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: 45 % of duels won (40/89)
− Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: 47 % of duels won (41/87)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 44 % of duels won (39/89)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Fulham: 51 % of duels won (45/89)
Next test Will the duel-win rate stay above half even against a possession-dominant opponent?
Hypothesis 4 · Possession and duels State · closed · 6 matches
Possession may not be matched by duel wins.
Supports
+ Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: possession 53 %, duels 44 %
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: possession 40 %, duels 34 %
− Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: possession 45 %, duels 45 %
− Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: possession 38 %, duels 54 %
− Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: possession 48 %, duels 47 %
− Sat 10.10. home vs Fulham: possession 48 %, duels 51 %
Next test Will the duel balance flip when the opponent presses higher?
Hypothesis 5 · Shooting accuracy State · closed · 6 matches
Shots don't appear to hit the target often enough.
Supports
+ Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: 3/10 shots on target (30 %)
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: 5/9 shots on target (56 %)
− Fri 4.9. home vs Liverpool: 5/14 shots on target (36 %)
− Sat 19.9. away vs Everton: 4/13 shots on target (31 %)
− Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 6/12 shots on target (50 %)
− Sat 10.10. home vs Fulham: 5/11 shots on target (45 %)
Next test Will the share of shots on target rise above a third?
Hypothesis 6 · Set pieces State · closed · 3 matches
Set pieces may keep coming to nothing.
Supports
No longer backed by the evidence.
Challenges
− Sun 30.8. away vs Manchester United: 4 corners, 8 conceded
− Sat 22.8. home vs Sunderland: 3 corners, 5 conceded
− Sat 12.9. away vs Crystal Palace: 3 corners, 6 conceded
Next test Will a corner or free kick produce a goal in the coming rounds?
Measured numbers for the season
Line: line mid-level: 10 offsides drawn
Progression: progression mid-table: 36.1 passes per shot, possession 45 %
Set pieces: in attack 20 corners (league 18./20), no headed goals yet; in defence 31 corners against (5./20), no headed goals conceded
Second half: output weighted to the second half (4+5 goals); own threat holds in the second half (4.33 → 4.52 xG); opponents' threat grows (3.72 → 6.99 xG); first substitution on average at minute 62
When leading: the lead broke: 1 lead at half-time, the result did not hold (opponent xG 3.72 → 6.99)
Relegated · 2025-26 profiles as an archive (Burnley, West Ham, Wolves)
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −0.8 | −4.4 |
| Midfield | −2.4 | −6.9 |
| Forwards | −1.8 | −1.8 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | +0.5 | +0.8 |
| Midfield | +3.2 | +2.3 |
| Forwards | +1.7 | −0.9 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
Last season's baseline
| Finishing goals vs xG | Chance creation assists vs xA | |
| Defenders | −0.3 | +2.3 |
| Midfield | +1.0 | −5.3 |
| Forwards | −0.2 | +6.3 |
little danger
conceded vs chances
Data profile · style, character, output ●
Player readings · 1
News picks
the key headlines · our own observation always ahead of the external ●Method, calibration and the warning archive → Track record · Take it into your own work (export/API) → Track record