Championship · 2025Sat, 30 Aug 2025, 11:30 UTCFull timeLoftus Road StadiumFull-time recap

Queens Park Rangers

DLL

3–1Full-time recap

Charlton Athletic

WDL

This page describes the completed match context. The result is not presented as a prior forecast.

This match

Match statistics

Metric	Queens Park Rangers	Charlton Athletic
Shots	13 shots/match	13 shots/match
Shots on target	6 shots/match▲	3 shots/match
Expected goals	1.43 xG/match▲	0.84 xG/match
Possession	45%	55%●
Corners	1 corners/match	2 corners/match●
Fouls	16 fouls/match	7 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

Queens Park Rangers: 13 shots, 6 on target, 1.45 xG. Charlton Athletic: 13 shots, 3 on target, 0.84 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: Queens Park Rangers 1.45 xG · Charlton Athletic 0.84 xG.

30-second read

What the record shows

The clearest recorded pattern is: Charlton Athletic's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit above their competition baselines. No second pattern clears the sample and coverage gates. Limitation: At least one team has fewer than the configured season sample.

Charlton Athletic show a distinct attacking-volume record

weak

Charlton Athletic's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit above their competition baselines.

12.3 shots/match▲ShotsQueens Park Rangers · Charlton Athletic13.3 shots/match

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: Team shot volume is paired with the opponent's recorded shot allowance.

Window: season

Metric	Queens Park Rangers	Charlton Athletic	Baseline
Shots	12.3 shots/match	13.3 shots/match	12.4 shots/match
Shots against	15 shots/match	10.8 shots/match	12.5 shots/match

Caveat: Shot volume describes activity; it does not establish finishing quality or a match outcome.

Metric comparison

Team comparison

Season averages · sample sizes shown with each metric. Context, not a forecast.

Where the edge is

Queens Park Rangers favored in 0 of 13 directional metrics · Charlton Athletic in 0 · 13 too close

1.5 goals/matchGoals scoredseason · 4/40.5 goals/match

2.75 goals/matchGoals allowedseason · 4/41 goals/match

0.87 xG/matchExpected goalsseason · 4/41.15 xG/match

1.25 xG/matchExpected goals allowedseason · 4/40.84 xG/match

12.3 shots/matchShotsseason · 4/413.3 shots/match

15 shots/matchShots allowedseason · 4/410.8 shots/match

3.25 shots/matchShots on targetseason · 4/44.25 shots/match

4.5 shots/matchShots on target allowedseason · 4/42.5 shots/match

51%●Possessionseason · 4/446%

3.5 corners/matchCornersseason · 4/4●6 corners/match

4.25 corners/matchCorners allowedseason · 4/42.75 corners/match

—Cardsseason · 0/0—

10 fouls/matchFoulsseason · 4/411 fouls/match

—Passesseason · 0/0—

—Pass accuracyseason · 0/0—

—Shots inside boxseason · 0/0—

—Blocked shotsseason · 0/0—

—Goalkeeper savesseason · 0/0—

—Offsidesseason · 0/0—

0%Clean-sheet frequencyseason · 4/450%

100%Scoring frequencyseason · 4/450%

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.

Queens Park Rangers56.2

Charlton Athletic27.1

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Attacking volume

Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.

Queens Park Rangers49.3

Charlton Athletic47.9

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Defensive resistance

Lower recorded scoring and shot allowance produces a higher descriptive percentile.

Queens Park Rangers17.4

Charlton Athletic74.3

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Directness proxy

Shots per possession point; a descriptive transition/directness proxy, not an outcome score.

Queens Park Rangers43.8

Charlton Athletic72.9

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Physicality

Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.

Queens Park Rangers18.8

Charlton Athletic41.7

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 50%

Set-piece relevance

Corner volume relative to competition peers.

Queens Park Rangers16.7

Charlton Athletic83.3

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Tempo and pressure proxy

Combined event-volume percentiles for shots, corners and fouls.

Queens Park Rangers29.7

Charlton Athletic65.6

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Recent form

Season, last 10 and last 5

Window

Season

Queens Park Rangers4 matchesCharlton Athletic4 matches

1.5 goals/match▲Goals scored4/40.5 goals/match

2.75 goals/matchGoals allowed4/4▲1 goals/match

0.87 xG/matchExpected goals4/4▲1.15 xG/match

12.3 shots/matchShots4/4▲13.3 shots/match

3.25 shots/matchShots on target4/4▲4.25 shots/match

51%●Possession4/446%

3.5 corners/matchCorners4/4●6 corners/match

—Cards0/0—

10 fouls/matchFouls4/411 fouls/match

Venue split

Home and away samples

Window

Home team at home / away team away

Queens Park Rangers2 matchesCharlton Athletic2 matches

—Goals scored2/2—

—Goals allowed2/2—

—Expected goals2/2—

—Shots2/2—

—Shots on target2/2—

—Possession2/2—

—Corners2/2—

—Cards0/0—

—Fouls2/2—

Schedule context

Rest and recent workload

6.9 daysRest before fixtureprevious completed fixtures · 1/17 days

2 matchesMatches in previous 14 daysprevious completed fixtures · 1/12 matches

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade C · Limited evidencelimited

Season samples4 / 4home / away teams

Recent samples4 / 4last-five windows

FreshnessLess than one dayfrom nearest prior match

At least one team has fewer than the configured season sample.
At least one team has an incomplete last-five window.

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.
The completed-match sample is too small for broad style conclusions.

Analysis cutoff: Sat, 30 Aug 2025, 15:30 UTC · analysis-v4