Championship · 2025The Valley

Charlton Athletic 1–0 Watford · Championship

1–0Historical match

A completed match from a finished season. This page is the record of what happened.

Match at a glance

Charlton Athletic won 1–0.

Shots
1210
Shots on target
51
Expected goals
1.160.72
Possession
42%58%

Full time

What the match recorded

Charlton Athletic beat Watford 1–0. Recorded in this match (Charlton Athletic – Watford): shots 12–10, shots on target 5–1, expected goals 1.16–0.72, possession 42%–58%. This is what was recorded. It is not a claim that the result was foreseeable.

This match

Match statistics

  • Shots12 shots10 shotsCharlton Athletic 12 shots, Watford 10 shots
  • Shots on target5 shots1 shotCharlton Athletic 5 shots, Watford 1 shot
  • Expected goals1.16 xG0.72 xGCharlton Athletic 1.16 xG, Watford 0.72 xG
  • Possession42%58%Charlton Athletic 42%, Watford 58%
  • Corners3 corners2 cornersCharlton Athletic 3 corners, Watford 2 corners
  • Fouls6 fouls16 foulsCharlton Athletic 6 fouls, Watford 16 fouls

Every shot

Shot map

Every recorded shot, placed where it was taken and sized by its expected-goals value. Arrows show each team’s attacking direction.

Jeremy Ngakia · Watford · 18′ · 0.01 xG · off target or blockedRobert Apter · Charlton Athletic · 4′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedGreg Docherty · Charlton Athletic · 29′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedTyreece Campbell · Charlton Athletic · 53′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedKwadwo Baah · Watford · 58′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedRobert Apter · Charlton Athletic · 26′ · 0.03 xG · off target or blockedKwadwo Baah · Watford · 27′ · 0.03 xG · off target or blockedImrân Louza · Watford · 57′ · 0.03 xG · off target or blockedMamadou Doumbia · Watford · 45′ · 0.04 xG · off target or blockedRobert Apter · Charlton Athletic · 88′ · 0.05 xG · off target or blockedMoussa Sissoko · Watford · 9′ · 0.06 xG · off target or blockedLloyd Jones · Charlton Athletic · 40′ · 0.06 xG · on targetSonny Carey · Charlton Athletic · 66′ · 0.06 xG · on targetLloyd Jones · Charlton Athletic · 45′ · 0.08 xG · off target or blockedKwadwo Baah · Watford · 42′ · 0.09 xG · off target or blockedLuca Kjerrumgaard · Watford · 27′ · 0.10 xG · off target or blockedImrân Louza · Watford · 49′ · 0.10 xG · on targetSonny Carey · Charlton Athletic · 73′ · 0.10 xG · off target or blockedHarvey Knibbs · Charlton Athletic · 90′ · 0.20 xG · goalLloyd Jones · Charlton Athletic · 3′ · 0.21 xG · on targetHector Kyprianou · Watford · 68′ · 0.24 xG · off target or blockedCharlie Kelman · Charlton Athletic · 59′ · 0.29 xG · on target
  • off target
  • on target
  • goal
  • penalty
  • size = xG

Charlton Athletic: 12 shots, 5 on target, 1.14 xG. Watford: 10 shots, 1 on target, 0.72 xG.

How the match built

Expected-goals timeline

Expected goals accumulated minute by minute. Circles mark the goals that were actually scored.

00.751.50′HT90′Harvey Knibbs · Charlton Athletic · 90′

The step line is cumulative expected goals; circles mark goals. Final: Charlton Athletic 1.14 xG · Watford 0.72 xG.

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade D · UnavailableUnavailable — unavailable
Season samples1 / 1home / away teams
Recent samples1 / 1last-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.
  • Recorded xG is incomplete, so xG context is omitted where unavailable.

Known unknowns

  • Lineups, injuries, suspensions and tactical changes are not available in the retained dataset.
  • Some metrics are unavailable or below their observation minimum: goals_for, goals_against, xg_for, xg_against, shots, shots_on_target, possession, corners, cards, fouls.
  • The completed-match sample is too small for broad style conclusions.
  • The fixture season differs from the competition's configured active season.
Analysis cutoff: Sat, 9 Aug 2025, 15:30 UTC · analysis-v4

Unavailable analysis

The retained evidence does not clear the minimum gates.

Sections that would imply a supported comparison are intentionally omitted.