Chelsea
Premier League · 2025This page describes the completed match context. The result is not presented as a prior forecast.
This match
Match statistics
| Metric | Chelsea | Nottingham Forest |
|---|---|---|
| Shots | 21 shots/match▲ | 6 shots/match |
| Shots on target | 5 shots/match▲ | 4 shots/match |
| Expected goals | 1.93 xG/match | 2.07 xG/match▲ |
| Possession | 68% | 32% |
| Corners | 10 corners/match | 1 corners/match |
| Fouls | 12 fouls/match | 10 fouls/match |
| Yellow cards | 3 cards/match | 1 cards/match▲ |
30-second read
What the record shows
The clearest recorded pattern is: Nottingham Forest's last-five goals scored average is above their season average. A second useful context is: Nottingham Forest's away-only shot average is below their full-season average. Limitation: Lineup availability and tactical choices are not in the retained data.
Nottingham Forest's recent record differs from the season
moderateNottingham Forest's last-five goals scored average is above 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Goals for | 3.2 goals/match | 1.26 goals/match | 1.36 goals/match |
Caveat: Five matches are sensitive to opponent mix and isolated match states.
Nottingham Forest have a visible away split
moderateNottingham Forest's away-only shot average is below their full-season average.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: Venue-only shot volume is compared with the same team's season record.
Window: away
| Metric | Away only | Season | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shots | 10 shots/match | 12.3 shots/match | 12.4 shots/match |
Caveat: Venue splits can reflect opponent mix and should be read with the listed sample.
The teams have contrasting possession records
moderateChelsea have recorded the higher season possession share.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 11.6 percentage points.
Window: season
| Metric | Chelsea | Nottingham Forest | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possession | 58.3% | 46.7% | 50.2% |
Caveat: Possession share does not show where possession occurred or how chances were created.
History
Head-to-head
Recent meetings between these teams — history, not a forecast.
Metric comparison
Values, percentiles and samples
Chelsea favored in 6 of 14 directional metrics · Nottingham Forest in 2 · 6 too close
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.
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.
Recent form
Season, last 10 and last 5
Window
Last 5
Window
Last 10
Window
Season
Venue split
Home and away samples
Window
Home team at home / away team away
Schedule context
Rest and recent workload
Evidence quality
How much supports this analysis
- 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.
More football
Related matches
Liverpool
Newcastle
Everton
Manchester City
Aston Villa
TottenhamMake 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.