This page describes the completed match context. The result is not presented as a prior forecast.
This match
Match statistics
| Metric | Southampton | Middlesbrough |
|---|---|---|
| Shots | 14 shots/match▲ | 7 shots/match |
| Shots on target | 2 shots/match▲ | 1 shots/match |
| Expected goals | 0.85 xG/match▲ | 0.29 xG/match |
| Possession | 55% | 45% |
| Corners | 6 corners/match | 3 corners/match |
| Fouls | 11 fouls/match | 17 fouls/match |
Every shot
Shot map
Every recorded shot, placed where it was taken and sized by its expected-goals value. Each team attacks towards its own end of the pitch.
- off target
- on target
- goal
- penalty
- size = xG
Southampton: 14 shots, 2 on target, 0.82 xG. Middlesbrough: 7 shots, 1 on target, 0.28 xG.
How the match built
Expected-goals timeline
Expected goals accumulated minute by minute. Circles mark the goals that were actually scored.
The step line is cumulative expected goals; circles mark goals. Final: Southampton 0.82 xG · Middlesbrough 0.28 xG.
30-second read
What the record shows
The clearest recorded pattern is: Middlesbrough's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit below their competition baselines. A second useful context is: Southampton have recorded the higher season possession share. Limitation: Evidence is usable but does not meet the strongest completeness threshold.
Middlesbrough show a distinct attacking-volume record
weakMiddlesbrough's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit below their competition baselines.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: Team shot volume is paired with the opponent's recorded shot allowance.
Window: season
| Metric | Southampton | Middlesbrough | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shots | 15 shots/match | 10.6 shots/match | 12.7 shots/match |
| Shots against | 10.6 shots/match | 10.3 shots/match | 12.1 shots/match |
Caveat: Shot volume describes activity; it does not establish finishing quality or a match outcome.
The teams have contrasting possession records
moderateSouthampton have recorded the higher season possession share.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 11.0 percentage points.
Window: season
| Metric | Southampton | Middlesbrough | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possession | 60.1% | 49.1% | 49.7% |
Caveat: Possession share does not show where possession occurred or how chances were created.
Metric comparison
Values, percentiles and samples
Southampton favored in 4 of 14 directional metrics · Middlesbrough in 6 · 4 too close
Style profile
How the teams compare
Competition percentiles describe recorded style; they do not rank likely outcomes.
Possession control
Relative share of recorded possession within the competition.
Attacking volume
Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.
Defensive resistance
Lower recorded scoring and shot allowance produces a higher descriptive percentile.
Directness proxy
Shots per possession point; a descriptive transition/directness proxy, not an outcome score.
Physicality
Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.
Set-piece relevance
Corner volume relative to competition peers.
Tempo and pressure proxy
Combined event-volume percentiles for shots, corners and fouls.
Recent form
Season, last 10 and last 5
Window
Last 5
Window
Last 10
Window
Season
Venue split
Home and away samples
Window
Home team at home / away team away
Schedule context
Rest and recent workload
Evidence quality
How much supports this analysis
- Evidence is usable but does not meet the strongest completeness threshold.
Known unknowns
- Lineups, injuries, suspensions and tactical changes are not available in the retained dataset.
- Some metrics are unavailable or below their observation minimum: cards.
Make a graphic from this match
Creator Studio builds a branded post from this match's recorded data, with its evidence grade and source cutoff carried into the export.