Championship · 2025Sat, 23 Aug 2025, 14:00 UTCFull timeSt. Andrew's @ Knighthead ParkFull-time recap

Birmingham City

1–0Full-time recap

Oxford United

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

This match

Match statistics

Metric	Birmingham City	Oxford United
Shots	16 shots/match▲	6 shots/match
Shots on target	1 shots/match	1 shots/match
Expected goals	1.65 xG/match▲	0.38 xG/match
Possession	66%●	34%
Corners	4 corners/match●	1 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

Birmingham City: 16 shots, 1 on target, 1.64 xG. Oxford United: 6 shots, 1 on target, 0.38 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: Birmingham City 1.64 xG · Oxford United 0.38 xG.

30-second read

What the record shows

The clearest recorded pattern is: Oxford United's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit below their competition baselines. A second useful context is: Birmingham City have recorded the higher season possession share. Limitation: At least one team has fewer than the configured season sample.

Oxford United show a distinct attacking-volume record

weak

Oxford United's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit below their competition baselines.

11.7 shots/match▲ShotsBirmingham City · Oxford United11.7 shots/match

Evidence and caveat

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

Window: season

Metric	Birmingham City	Oxford United	Baseline
Shots	11.7 shots/match	11.7 shots/match	12 shots/match
Shots against	6 shots/match	14.7 shots/match	12.5 shots/match

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

The teams have contrasting possession records

weak

Birmingham City have recorded the higher season possession share.

58.7%●PossessionBirmingham City · Oxford United36%

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 22.7 percentage points.

Window: season

Metric	Birmingham City	Oxford United	Baseline
Possession	58.7%	36%	49.8%

Caveat: Possession share does not show where possession occurred or how chances were created.

Both teams have elevated fouls records

weak

Each team's season fouls average is above the competition baseline.

13.3 fouls/matchFoulsBirmingham City · Oxford United13.3 fouls/match

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: Both team averages are compared with the same competition baseline.

Window: season

Metric	Birmingham City	Oxford United	Baseline
Fouls	13.3 fouls/match	13.3 fouls/match	11.5 fouls/match

Caveat: A shared historical pattern is descriptive and may not repeat in one fixture.

Metric comparison

Team comparison

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

Where the edge is

Birmingham City favored in 0 of 13 directional metrics · Oxford United in 0 · 13 too close

1.33 goals/matchGoals scoredseason · 3/30.67 goals/match

0.67 goals/matchGoals allowedseason · 3/31.67 goals/match

1.68 xG/matchExpected goalsseason · 3/30.92 xG/match

0.71 xG/matchExpected goals allowedseason · 3/31.59 xG/match

11.7 shots/matchShotsseason · 3/311.7 shots/match

6 shots/matchShots allowedseason · 3/314.7 shots/match

2.67 shots/matchShots on targetseason · 3/33.67 shots/match

1.33 shots/matchShots on target allowedseason · 3/34 shots/match

58.7%●Possessionseason · 3/336%

3.33 corners/matchCornersseason · 3/3●4.33 corners/match

2.67 corners/matchCorners allowedseason · 3/36 corners/match

—Cardsseason · 0/0—

13.3 fouls/matchFoulsseason · 3/313.3 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—

33%Clean-sheet frequencyseason · 3/30%

100%Scoring frequencyseason · 3/333%

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.

Birmingham City85.4

Oxford United2.1

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Attacking volume

Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.

Birmingham City36.8

Oxford United34.7

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Defensive resistance

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

Birmingham City91.6

Oxford United27.1

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Directness proxy

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

Birmingham City18.8

Oxford United85.4

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Physicality

Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.

Birmingham City77.1

Oxford United77.1

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 50%

Set-piece relevance

Corner volume relative to competition peers.

Birmingham City8.3

Oxford United39.6

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Tempo and pressure proxy

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

Birmingham City34.4

Oxford United51.5

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Recent form

Season, last 10 and last 5

Window

Season

Birmingham City3 matchesOxford United3 matches

1.33 goals/match▲Goals scored3/30.67 goals/match

0.67 goals/match▲Goals allowed3/31.67 goals/match

1.68 xG/match▲Expected goals3/30.92 xG/match

11.7 shots/matchShots3/311.7 shots/match

2.67 shots/matchShots on target3/3▲3.67 shots/match

58.7%●Possession3/336%

3.33 corners/matchCorners3/3●4.33 corners/match

—Cards0/0—

13.3 fouls/matchFouls3/313.3 fouls/match

Venue split

Home and away samples

Window

Home team at home / away team away

Birmingham City2 matchesOxford United2 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

7 daysRest before fixtureprevious completed fixtures · 1/16 days

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

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade C · Limited evidencelimited

Season samples3 / 3home / away teams

Recent samples3 / 3last-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, 23 Aug 2025, 18:00 UTC · analysis-v4