PitchMath
Premier League · 2023Sat, 30 Mar 2024, 15:00 UTCFull timeFull-time recap
1–1Full-time recap

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

This match

Match statistics

MetricNottingham ForestCrystal Palace
Shots12 shots/match▲10 shots/match
Shots on target5 shots/match▲3 shots/match
Expected goals0.92 xG/match1.19 xG/match▲
Possession58%●42%
Corners4 corners/match6 corners/match●
Fouls14 fouls/match12 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.

Felipe · Nottingham Forest · 2′ · 0.01 xG · off target or blockedOla Aina · Nottingham Forest · 58′ · 0.01 xG · off target or blockedCallum Hudson Odoi · Nottingham Forest · 12′ · 0.02 xG · on targetIbrahim Sangaré · Nottingham Forest · 29′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedAdam Wharton · Crystal Palace · 68′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedMorgan Gibbs-White · Nottingham Forest · 74′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedJefferson Lerma · Crystal Palace · 88′ · 0.02 xG · off target or blockedMurillo · Nottingham Forest · 22′ · 0.04 xG · off target or blockedDivock Origi · Nottingham Forest · 23′ · 0.04 xG · off target or blockedJefferson Lerma · Crystal Palace · 45′ · 0.04 xG · off target or blockedCallum Hudson Odoi · Nottingham Forest · 52′ · 0.04 xG · on targetJordan Ayew · Crystal Palace · 56′ · 0.04 xG · off target or blockedChris Wood · Nottingham Forest · 71′ · 0.07 xG · on targetGiovanni Reyna · Nottingham Forest · 74′ · 0.07 xG · on targetJean-Philippe Mateta · Crystal Palace · 44′ · 0.10 xG · off target or blockedChris Wood · Nottingham Forest · 57′ · 0.10 xG · off target or blockedDaniel Muñoz · Crystal Palace · 15′ · 0.11 xG · off target or blockedEberechi Eze · Crystal Palace · 51′ · 0.11 xG · off target or blockedJean-Philippe Mateta · Crystal Palace · 11′ · 0.14 xG · goalEberechi Eze · Crystal Palace · 69′ · 0.14 xG · on targetEberechi Eze · Crystal Palace · 38′ · 0.44 xG · on targetChris Wood · Nottingham Forest · 61′ · 0.50 xG · goal
  • off target
  • on target
  • goal
  • penalty
  • size = xG

Nottingham Forest: 12 shots, 5 on target, 0.94 xG. Crystal Palace: 10 shots, 3 on target, 1.16 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′Chris Wood · Nottingham Forest · 61′Jean-Philippe Mateta · Crystal Palace · 11′

The step line is cumulative expected goals; circles mark goals. Final: Nottingham Forest 0.94 xG · Crystal Palace 1.16 xG.

30-second read

What the record shows

The clearest recorded pattern is: Nottingham Forest's last-five goals scored average is below their season average. A second useful context is: Nottingham Forest's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit below their competition baselines. Limitation: The fixture is outside the configured active season.

Nottingham Forest's recent record differs from the season

moderate

Nottingham Forest's last-five goals scored average is below their season average.

0.8 goals/match▲Goals forLast 5 · Season1.2 goals/match
Evidence and caveat

Comparison: An unweighted last-five average is compared with the unweighted season average.

Window: last_5 versus season

MetricLast 5SeasonBaseline
Goals for0.8 goals/match1.2 goals/match1.51 goals/match

Caveat: Five matches are sensitive to opponent mix and isolated match states.

Nottingham Forest show a distinct attacking-volume record

moderate

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

11.2 shots/match▲ShotsNottingham Forest · Crystal Palace11.7 shots/match
Evidence and caveat

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

Window: season

MetricNottingham ForestCrystal PalaceBaseline
Shots11.2 shots/match11.7 shots/match13.9 shots/match
Shots against13.2 shots/match12.4 shots/match13.9 shots/match

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

History

Head-to-head

Recent meetings between these teams — history, not a forecast.

1Nottingham Forest
2Draws
0Crystal Palace
Crystal Palace — Nottingham Forest · Premier League0–0
Crystal Palace — Nottingham Forest · Premier League1–1
Nottingham Forest — Crystal Palace · Premier League1–0

Head-to-Head & Recent Meetings

Metric comparison

Team comparison

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

Where the edge is

Nottingham Forest favored in 0 of 13 directional metrics · Crystal Palace in 6 · 7 too close

1.2 goals/matchGoals scoredseason · 30/291.17 goals/match
1.73 goals/matchGoals allowedseason · 30/291.69 goals/match
1.26 xG/matchExpected goalsseason · 30/291.19 xG/match
1.45 xG/matchExpected goals allowedseason · 30/291.42 xG/match
11.2 shots/matchShotsseason · 30/2911.7 shots/match
13.2 shots/matchShots allowedseason · 30/29▲12.4 shots/match
3.67 shots/matchShots on targetseason · 30/29▲4.07 shots/match
4.5 shots/matchShots on target allowedseason · 30/29▲4.14 shots/match
40.6%Possessionseason · 30/29●41.6%
3.8 corners/matchCornersseason · 30/29●4.9 corners/match
6.6 corners/matchCorners allowedseason · 30/29▲5.07 corners/match
—Cardsseason · 0/0—
11.7 fouls/matchFoulsseason · 30/2912.1 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—
13%Clean-sheet frequencyseason · 30/29▲21%
73%Scoring frequencyseason · 30/29▲79%

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.

Nottingham Forest12.5
Crystal Palace22.5
0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Attacking volume

Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.

Nottingham Forest17.5
Crystal Palace20.8
0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Defensive resistance

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

Nottingham Forest52.5
Crystal Palace65.8
0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Directness proxy

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

Nottingham Forest47.5
Crystal Palace72.5
0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Physicality

Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.

Nottingham Forest65
Crystal Palace77.5
0–100 competition percentile · coverage 50%

Set-piece relevance

Corner volume relative to competition peers.

Nottingham Forest7.5
Crystal Palace42.5
0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Tempo and pressure proxy

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

Nottingham Forest25.6
Crystal Palace41.2
0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Recent form

Season, last 10 and last 5

Window

Season

Nottingham Forest30 matchesCrystal Palace29 matches
1.2 goals/matchGoals scored30/291.17 goals/match
1.73 goals/matchGoals allowed30/291.69 goals/match
1.26 xG/matchExpected goals30/291.19 xG/match
11.2 shots/matchShots30/2911.7 shots/match
3.67 shots/matchShots on target30/29▲4.07 shots/match
40.6%Possession30/29●41.6%
3.8 corners/matchCorners30/29●4.9 corners/match
—Cards0/0—
11.7 fouls/matchFouls30/2912.1 fouls/match

Venue split

Home and away samples

Window

Home team at home / away team away

Nottingham Forest15 matchesCrystal Palace15 matches
1.33 goals/match▲Goals scored15/151 goals/match
1.47 goals/match▲Goals allowed15/151.93 goals/match
1.22 xG/match▲Expected goals15/151.05 xG/match
12.4 shots/match▲Shots15/1510.7 shots/match
3.73 shots/matchShots on target15/15▲3.93 shots/match
42.7%●Possession15/1538.3%
4 corners/matchCorners15/154 corners/match
—Cards0/0—
10.7 fouls/matchFouls15/1511.8 fouls/match

Schedule context

Rest and recent workload

14 daysRest before fixtureprevious completed fixtures · 1/121 days
1 matchesMatches in previous 14 daysprevious completed fixtures · 1/10 matches

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade A · Strong evidencelimited
Season samples30 / 29home / away teams
Recent samples5 / 5last-five windows
FreshnessLess than one dayfrom nearest prior match
  • The fixture is outside the configured active season.
  • Recent samples and important metric coverage meet the strong evidence 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.
Analysis cutoff: Sat, 30 Mar 2024, 19:00 UTC · analysis-v4
TeamsNottingham ForestCrystal Palace
CompetitionPremier League
MethodHow PitchMath calculates this

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.

Create a graphic from this match
Nottingham Forest vs Crystal Palace — stats, xG & match recap | PitchMath