Nottingham Forest
Premier League · 2024Nottingham Forest 1–0 Crystal Palace · Premier League
A completed match from a finished season. This page is the record of what happened.
Match at a glance
Nottingham Forest won 1–0.
- Shots
- 20–20
- Shots on target
- 6–7
- Expected goals
- 1.76–0.97
- Possession
- 50%–50%
Full time
What the match recorded
Nottingham Forest beat Crystal Palace 1–0. Recorded in this match (Nottingham Forest – Crystal Palace): shots 20–20, shots on target 6–7, expected goals 1.76–0.97, possession 50%–50%. This is what was recorded. It is not a claim that the result was foreseeable.
Pre-match record
What the data showed before kick-off. Kept for reference; it did not know the result.
Nottingham Forest's recent record differs from the season
weakNottingham Forest's last-five shots average is below their season average.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: An unweighted last-five average is compared with the unweighted season average.
Window: last_5 versus season
| Metric | Last 5 | Season | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shots | 11.2 shots/match | 13.6 shots/match | 13.8 shots/match |
Caveat: Five matches are sensitive to opponent mix and isolated match states.
The teams have contrasting possession records
moderateCrystal Palace have recorded the higher season possession share.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 8.1 percentage points.
Window: season
| Metric | Nottingham Forest | Crystal Palace | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possession | 40.8% | 48.9% | 49.3% |
Caveat: Possession share does not show where possession occurred or how chances were created.
This match
Match statistics
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.
- off target
- on target
- goal
- penalty
- size = xG
Nottingham Forest: 20 shots, 6 on target, 1.74 xG. Crystal Palace: 20 shots, 7 on target, 1.00 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: Nottingham Forest 1.74 xG · Crystal Palace 1.00 xG.
History
Head-to-head
Recent meetings between these teams.
Last 5 meetings
Metric comparison
Team comparison
Season averages, with the sample size beside each metric.
Season: Nottingham Forest favored in 8 of 11 directional metrics · Crystal Palace in 1 · 2 too close
Window
Season
Window
Last 10
Window
Last 5
Window
Home–Away
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.
- Matches in previous 14 days · Both teams: 0 matches
Nottingham Forest / Crystal Palace
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.
- The fixture season differs from the competition's configured active season.
More football
Related matches
Leicester City
Tottenham Hotspur
Liverpool
Chelsea
Wolverhampton
Manchester CityTeam rankings in Premier League
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.