Match statistics snapshot
- Nottingham Forest created the clearer chances on xG (0.95 vs 0.67, Δ 0.28).
- Nottingham Forest fired more attempts (11 vs 5 shots).
- Fulham held more of the ball (54% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Nottingham Forest | Statistic | Fulham |
|---|---|---|
0.95Lead | Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | 0.67 |
3 | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 1Lead |
5Lead | Shots inside the box | 4 |
4Lead | Shots off target | 3 |
2Lead | Shots on target | 1 |
6Lead | Shots outside the box | 1 |
11Lead | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 5 |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Nottingham Forest | Statistic | Fulham |
|---|---|---|
46% | Ball possession | 54%Lead |
80% | Pass accuracy | 80% |
321 | Accurate passes | 378Lead |
401 | Total passes | 474Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Nottingham Forest | Statistic | Fulham |
|---|---|---|
5Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Nottingham Forest | Statistic | Fulham |
|---|---|---|
5Lead | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 2 |
1 | Goalkeeper saves | 2Lead |
0.44 | Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. | 0.44 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Nottingham Forest | Statistic | Fulham |
|---|---|---|
8Lead | Fouls | 10 |
| Red cards | ||
2Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |
Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.
How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.
Fulham leads this block
Fulham leads shot quality (+55% vs Nottingham Forest)
Fulham leads (20% vs 18%).
Fulham leads shot quality (+55% vs Nottingham Forest)
Fulham leads box penetration (+76% vs Nottingham Forest)
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Nottingham Forest leads this block
Nottingham Forest leads possession efficiency (+66% vs Fulham)
Nottingham Forest leads possession efficiency (+66% vs Fulham)
Fulham — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.
Nottingham Forest leads this block
Nottingham Forest leads territorial pressure (+47% vs Fulham)
Nottingham Forest leads territorial pressure (+47% vs Fulham)
How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.
Fulham — stronger shot quality allowed
Fulham — stronger shot quality allowed
Nottingham Forest leads keeper workload (+41% vs Fulham)
Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.
Fulham leads this block
Fulham had the edge in 4 of 6 signals in this block.
Fulham leads (16.0 vs 12.0).
Fulham leads (43.2 vs 36.8).
Nottingham Forest leads (10.0 vs 8.0).
Fulham leads (0.134 vs 0.086).
Fulham leads (91.4 vs 86.6).
Even on this measure.