Premier League · 2025

Rotor Volgograd 0–2 Akron Togliatti · Premier League

0–2Historical match

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

Match at a glance

Akron Togliatti won 0–2.

Shots
1210
Shots on target
33
Expected goals
1.011.53
Possession
43%57%

Full time

What the match recorded

Akron Togliatti beat Rotor Volgograd 2–0. Recorded in this match (Rotor Volgograd – Akron Togliatti): shots 12–10, shots on target 3–3, expected goals 1.01–1.53, possession 43%–57%. This is what was recorded. It is not a claim that the result was foreseeable.

This match

Match statistics

  • Shots12 shots10 shotsRotor Volgograd 12 shots, Akron Togliatti 10 shots
  • Shots on target3 shots3 shotsRotor Volgograd 3 shots, Akron Togliatti 3 shots
  • Expected goals1.01 xG1.53 xGRotor Volgograd 1.01 xG, Akron Togliatti 1.53 xG
  • Possession43%57%Rotor Volgograd 43%, Akron Togliatti 57%
  • Corners11 corners2 cornersRotor Volgograd 11 corners, Akron Togliatti 2 corners
  • Fouls17 fouls13 foulsRotor Volgograd 17 fouls, Akron Togliatti 13 fouls

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade D · UnavailableUnavailable — unavailable
Season samples1 / 31home / away teams
Recent samples1 / 5last-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: Wed, 20 May 2026, 20:30 UTC · analysis-v4

Unavailable analysis

The retained evidence does not clear the minimum gates.

Sections that would imply a supported comparison are intentionally omitted.