Sportra

Sportra Intelligence

How we gather football data, process it, and show it on match, team, and player pages

Last updated: 4 November 2026

Sportra Intelligence is Sportra's data layer: we collect match and season records, normalize and aggregate them into consistent structures, then derive comparisons, scores, and summaries you see in the app. Nothing is hand-counted from video — results come from the datasets we maintain and update.

The previews below use fixed sample data (Northbridge Athletic, Leo Castell, Northbridge Athletic vs Riverside Rovers). On the live site, the same views load for the fixture, club, or player you open.

Data pipeline

Sportra Intelligence runs in four steps for every statistics tab:

  1. Gather — Sportra loads fixture, team, and player datasets when you open the page (match detail, club season, or player season). Statistics views load their current dataset when requested; live matchday surfaces use a separate background-refresh pipeline.
  2. Process — values are cleaned (percentages, ranges, missing fields) so numbers can be compared side by side.
  3. Aggregate — season rows, home/away splits, minute buckets, and team-vs-team pairs are rolled up into the blocks shown in the UI.
  4. Present — base totals appear in tables and bars; Sportra Intelligence adds derived metrics, scores, and short narratives on top.
LayerWhat you see
Base dataShots, passes, cards, season totals, home/away splits — as gathered for that page
Sportra IntelligenceDerived rates, 0–100 scores, archetypes, impact ranks, and match comparisons

Team and player pages use the league and season you select. Match pages use that fixture only.

Overview

The same intelligence layer powers the Statistics, Players, and Predictions tabs on matches, plus Statistics on team and player profiles. Where the dataset includes a field, we show it; where it does not, we omit the derived metric rather than guess.

Labels such as archetypes, impact leaders, and comparison winners are Sportra definitions for reading the game on Sportra — they are not official competition statistics.

Team statistics — Northbridge Athletic (fictional sample)

Where: Team page → Statistics tab.

Season totals are grouped into blocks (fixture record, goals, minutes, formations, and more). Sportra Intelligence turns those blocks into charts, 0–100 scores, traits, and an archetype summary. Full season tables remain available under Full statistics tables when present.

Season data blocks

BlockContent
Fixture recordPlayed, wins, draws, losses — home, away, and total
GoalsScored and conceded — totals and averages per game
By minuteGoals and cards by time window (e.g. 0–15, 46–60)
Goal thresholdsOver/under counts (e.g. over 2.5 goals)
FormationsFormation usage counts
Form & recordsRecent W/D/L, biggest wins/losses, clean sheets, streaks

Season intelligence (0–100)

  • Home fortress — home attack share vs an even split, plus home goals vs home conceded
  • Away attack — away goal share vs an even split
  • Defensive reliability — clean sheet rate blended with goals conceded per game
  • Match chaos — share of high-scoring games from threshold data
  • Form momentum — recent form string weighted toward wins
  • Tactical flexibility — distinct formations used relative to matches played

Traits and archetype

Traits are rule-based tags (for example, a late-finisher tag when a high share of goals come after 76′). The archetype headline (such as home fortress) summarizes the season profile for quick reading.

Team detail · Statistics tabSeason intelligence — Northbridge AthleticSame view as the team Statistics tab. Season charts and scores are Sportra Intelligence; full season tables sit behind “Full statistics tables” when available.

Season intelligence ↗

Home-Dominant Attack

Much more aggressive at home; away performances lean conservative.

Fast starterSecond-half surgeLow chaos

61% of goals scored at home — clear home attacking lift (40 home vs 26 away). Away blanking is more common (6 away vs 2 home).

Peak scoring window: 16-30′ (26% of goals for).

Yellow cards peak in the 76-90′ window (29% of cautions). Late-game discipline risk is elevated.

4-2-3-1 in 84% of matches — stable tactical identity.

13 clean sheets in 38 matches (0.95 conceded per game).

18W 12D 8L in last 38 — 1.74 PPG. Results swing match-to-match.

Low-chaos — controlled scorelines

Averaging 1.7 goals scored and 0.9 conceded per match this season.

11
Match chaosOver 3.5 goal frequency (higher = more open games)

Season extremes

Biggest results, streaks, and set-piece record.

Best win streak4consecutive wins
Biggest home win4-0
Biggest away win0-3
Heaviest home loss0-2
Heaviest away loss2-0
Most goals in a home game5
Penalties10/10 scored

Form & momentum

PPG
1.74
Record
18W 12D 8L
Momentum
73%
Resilience
low
Last 38 matchesWDWDWWWWDWDWWDLLWLWWLDWWDDWLWDLDLWDLDW

Goals per game

Average scoring and concession rates for the season.

MetricHomeAwayTotal
Goals per game2.11.41.7
Conceded per game0.91.00.9

Goal markets & chaos

Over/under lines for team goals and opponent goals — full threshold matrix from Sportra.

Team goals (over/under)

Over 0.579% over

30 over · 8 under

Over 1.553% over

20 over · 18 under

Over 2.529% over

11 over · 27 under

Over 3.511% over

4 over · 34 under

Over 4.53% over

1 over · 37 under

Opponent goals (over/under)

Over 0.566% over

25 over · 13 under

Over 1.526% over

10 over · 28 under

Over 2.53% over

1 over · 37 under

Over 3.50% over

0 over · 38 under

Over 4.50% over

0 over · 38 under

Low-chaos — controlled scorelines

Scoring distribution

  • 0-15′4 goals · 6%
  • 16-30′17 goals · 26%
  • 31-45′11 goals · 17%
  • 46-60′13 goals · 20%
  • 61-75′10 goals · 15%
  • 76-90′8 goals · 12%
  • 91-105′3 goals · 5%
Full statistics tables

On the live site, expandable tables list fixture, goal, minute, and formation blocks for the selected season.

Player statistics — Leo Castell (fictional sample)

Where: Player page → Statistics tab.

Season output is merged into one profile: hero metrics, card-style attributes, derived rates, then a full stat breakdown. Non-penalty goals are shown as total goals minus penalties scored when both exist.

Stat groups

Appearances, shooting, goals, passing, tackling, duels, dribbling, fouls, cards, and penalties — combined for the selected league and season. If multiple rows exist for the same competition, counting stats are summed and the highest rating is kept.

Card attributes (scouting profile)

Each rating is scaled 0–99 from this season's stats. Higher is stronger in that area relative to elite benchmarks for the metric mix — not an absolute world ranking.

Attack
Goal threat — goals per 90 plus on-target shooting share.
Vision
Chance creation — assists per 90 and key passes per match.
Control
Ball carrying — dribble success rate and attempts per 90.
Precision
Execution quality — shot accuracy, or passing accuracy when shots are scarce.
Pressure
Drawing contact — fouls won per 90 (players who attract challenges).
Defense
Defensive actions — tackles per 90 and duel win rate.
Engine
Usage — average minutes per appearance (stamina / role).
Discipline
Card record — fewer yellow/red cards mean a higher score.
Flair
Take-on volume — dribble attempts per 90 (direct, skillful play).

Derived categories

CategoryExamplesHow it is calculated
Goal efficiencyGoals per 90, non-penalty goals per 90, shot accuracy, conversionPer 90 and shot/goal ratios
Chance creationAssists per 90, key passes per match, chance creation index(Key passes × 2) + assists
Ball carryingDribbles per 90, dribble success rateSuccessful dribbles ÷ attempts
Pressure & disciplineFouls drawn per 90, fouls per yellowVolume and discipline proxy
Defensive workTackles per 90, duel win rate, defensive actions per 90Tackles + blocks + interceptions
GoalkeepingSaves per 90, conceded per 90, save %Saves ÷ (saves + conceded)
InvolvementStarting rate, minutes per appearanceLineups ÷ appearances; minutes ÷ appearances

Some tiles include an intensity bar: value compared to a fixed Sportra benchmark, capped at 100 — a visual cue, not a league percentile.

Player detail · Statistics tabSeason intelligence — Leo CastellArchetype, card attributes (0–99 radar), derived per-90 metrics, then the full season breakdown for the selected league.

Season intelligence

Wide creator

Profile as Midfielder: creator, high usage. Archetype: Wide creator. Season rating 7.6.

  • Finisher
  • Creator
  • Ball carrier
  • Pressure magnet
  • Defensive work
  • High usage
7.6Avg rating
11Goals
9Assists
34Apps
2980′Minutes
Midfielder

Card attributes

What these ratings mean

Scouting profile

  • Attack57
  • Vision86
  • Control62
  • Precision86
  • Pressure51
  • Defense70
  • Engine99
  • Discipline3
  • Flair19

Derived metrics

How these metrics are calculated

Goals per 900.3311 goals in 2980′
Non-penalty goals per 900.155 NP (6 pens)
Shot accuracy43.6%34/78 on target
Shot conversion14.1%11 goals from 78 shots
Shots per 902.36
Penalty success86%
Assists per 900.27
Key passes per match2.172 key passes in 34 apps
Chance creation index153
Pass accuracy82%
Passes per 9063
Key pass rate3.4%
Dribbles per 901.1538 attempts
Dribble success rate57.9%22/38 won
Tackles per 901.27
Duel win rate51.8%145/280 duels
Defensive actions per 902.4882 total actions
Starting rate94%32/34 starts
Minutes per appearance882980′ in 34 apps

Full stat breakdown

Season summary

Appearances
34
Lineups
32
Minutes
2980
Position
Midfielder
Rating
7.6
Goals
11
Assists
9

Appearances & minutes

Appearances
34
Lineups
32
Minutes
2980
Position
Midfielder

Shooting

Total
78
On
34

Goals & keepers

Total
11
Assists
9

Passing

Total
2100
Key
72
Accuracy
82%

Defending

Total
42
Blocks
12
Interceptions
28

Duels

Total
280
Won
145

Dribbling

Attempts
38
Success
22

Fouls

Drawn
48
Committed
55

Discipline

Yellow
8
Red
0

Penalties

Scored
6
Missed
1
Won
3
Committed
1

Match statistics — Northbridge Athletic vs Riverside Rovers (fictional sample)

Where: Match page → Statistics tab.

Home and away team totals are paired stat-by-stat, grouped into six themes, then extended with Sportra Intelligence derived rows (efficiency, pressure, gameplay ratings).

Comparison groups

GroupExamplesNotes
AttackingxG, shots, shots on target, inside/outside box, offsides
Possession & passingPossession %, passes, pass accuracy
Set piecesCorners
Defensive & goalkeepingBlocks, saves, goals prevented
DisciplineFouls, yellow and red cardsLower is better on comparison bars
OtherAny remaining stat typesShown with a readable label

Derived match metrics

  • Shot accuracy — shots on target ÷ total shots
  • xG per shot — expected goals ÷ total shots
  • Inside box ratio — inside-box shots ÷ total shots
  • Attack pressure — (in-box shots × 2) + corners + shots on target + blocks faced
  • Gameplay ratings — aggression, control, siege pressure, clinical index, defensive compactness, chaos factor

Comparison bars highlight the leading side; fouls and cards favour the lower value.

Match detail · Statistics tabNorthbridge Athletic vs Riverside RoversHome vs away comparison bars, six raw categories, then derived tactical insights (shot accuracy, attack pressure, gameplay ratings).
Northbridge AthleticvsRiverside Rovers

Attacking

Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.

Northbridge AthleticStatisticRiverside Rovers
7
Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target.
21Lead
4
Shots on target
9Lead
3
Shots inside the box
15Lead
4
Shots outside the box
6Lead
0.77
Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count.
2.05Lead
2Lead
OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines.
4

Possession & passing

How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.

Northbridge AthleticStatisticRiverside Rovers
49%
Ball possession
51%Lead
555Lead
Total passes
502
472Lead
Accurate passes
421
85%Lead
Pass accuracy
84%

Set pieces

Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.

Northbridge AthleticStatisticRiverside Rovers
3
Corner kicks
6Lead

Defensive & goalkeeping

Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.

Northbridge AthleticStatisticRiverside Rovers
2
Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced.
11Lead
6Lead
Goalkeeper saves
3
0.2
Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average.
0.6Lead

Discipline

Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.

Northbridge AthleticStatisticRiverside Rovers
11
Fouls
9Lead
2
Yellow cards
1Lead
0
Red cards
0

Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.

Shooting efficiency

How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.

Northbridge Athletic leads this block

2Northbridge Athletic
duels won
1Riverside Rovers

Northbridge Athletic leads shot accuracy (+33% vs Riverside Rovers)

  1. 1

    Shot accuracy

    Share of attempts that tested the goalkeeper — accuracy vs volume.

    Northbridge Athletic57%57% share
    Riverside Rovers43%43% share

    Northbridge Athletic leads shot accuracy (+33% vs Riverside Rovers)

  2. 2

    xG per shot

    Average danger per attempt. Higher means better chances, not just more shots.

    Northbridge Athletic0.11053% share
    Riverside Rovers0.09847% share

    Northbridge Athletic leads (0.110 vs 0.098).

  3. 3

    Inside box ratio

    How often attacks reached the penalty area — proxy for box penetration.

    Northbridge Athletic43%38% share
    Riverside Rovers71%63% share

    Riverside Rovers leads box penetration (+67% vs Northbridge Athletic)

Tactical identity

Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.

Riverside Rovers leads this block

0Northbridge Athletic
duels won
2Riverside Rovers

Riverside Rovers leads possession efficiency (+156% vs Northbridge Athletic)

  1. 1

    xG per possession %

    Chance creation per share of the ball — separates sterile possession from threat.

    Northbridge Athletic0.01628% share
    Riverside Rovers0.04072% share

    Riverside Rovers leads possession efficiency (+156% vs Northbridge Athletic)

  2. 2

    Passes per shot

    Build-up length before shooting. Higher = more patient circulation; lower = direct vertical play.

    Northbridge Athletic7977% share
    Riverside Rovers2423% share

    Northbridge Athletic — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

Pressure & control

Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.

Riverside Rovers leads this block

0Northbridge Athletic
duels won
1Riverside Rovers

Riverside Rovers leads territorial pressure (+273% vs Northbridge Athletic)

  1. 1

    Attack pressure score

    Weighted territorial score: in-box shots (×2) + corners + on-target efforts + blocks forced.

    Northbridge Athletic1521% share
    Riverside Rovers5679% share

    Riverside Rovers leads territorial pressure (+273% vs Northbridge Athletic)

Defensive

How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.

Northbridge Athletic leads this block

2Northbridge Athletic
duels won
0Riverside Rovers

Northbridge Athletic — stronger shot quality allowed

  1. 1

    xGA per shot conceded

    Quality of chances allowed per opponent shot — lower means a compact, limiting defence.

    Northbridge Athletic0.09847% share
    Riverside Rovers0.11053% share

    Northbridge Athletic — stronger shot quality allowed

  2. 2

    Save difficulty (xG faced ÷ saves)

    xG faced divided by saves made — higher means the keeper faced tougher stops.

    Northbridge Athletic0.3457% share
    Riverside Rovers0.2643% share

    Northbridge Athletic leads keeper workload (+33% vs Riverside Rovers)

Gameplay profile

Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.

3Northbridge Athletic
duels won
3Riverside Rovers
  1. 1

    Aggression rating

    Fouls and cards combined — physical intensity and risk.

    Northbridge Athletic15.058% share
    Riverside Rovers11.042% share

    Northbridge Athletic leads (15.0 vs 11.0).

  2. 2

    Control rating

    Possession blended with pass accuracy — control without chaos.

    Northbridge Athletic41.649% share
    Riverside Rovers42.851% share

    Riverside Rovers leads (42.8 vs 41.6).

  3. 3

    Siege pressure

    Corners plus in-box shots — sustained pressure around the box.

    Northbridge Athletic6.022% share
    Riverside Rovers21.078% share

    Riverside Rovers leads (21.0 vs 6.0).

  4. 4

    Clinical index (xG/shot)

    xG per shot — finishing threat independent of volume.

    Northbridge Athletic0.11053% share
    Riverside Rovers0.09847% share

    Northbridge Athletic leads (0.110 vs 0.098).

  5. 5

    Defensive compactness

    Inverse of xGA per shot faced — higher means opponents got worse chances.

    Northbridge Athletic90.250% share
    Riverside Rovers89.050% share

    Northbridge Athletic leads (90.2 vs 89.0).

  6. 6

    Chaos factor

    Fouls, cards, and blocks — how stop-start and disruptive the match felt.

    Northbridge Athletic15.042% share
    Riverside Rovers21.058% share

    Riverside Rovers leads (21.0 vs 15.0).

Match player statistics

Where: Match page → Players tab.

Each player line from the match dataset is processed into a box score, derived rates, an impact score, optional badges, and team-level duel bars that sum both squads.

Per player

Minutes, rating, position, goals, assists, saves, cards — plus derived passing, duel, and discipline metrics for that appearance.

Impact score

  • Outfield: rating, goals, assists, key passes, shots on target, tackles, interceptions, saves, and card penalties combined into one ranking score
  • Goalkeeper: rating, saves, goals conceded, and passing volume

Badges mark standouts (best rating, playmaker, wall, and similar). Captain is shown when flagged in the data. Team totals aggregate all players on each side for head-to-head bars.

Match detail · Players tabPer-player intelligenceLeo Castell is captain in this sample — impact score, badges (e.g. Playmaker), team duel bars, and compare table.

Player intelligence ↗

Leo Castell leads the player ratings (Rating 8.4).

  • Leo Castell (M) logged the full 90 minutes with a 8.4 rating. Contributed 1 goal and 1 assist. 5 defensive actions (5.0 per 90).
  • Yann Duval (F) logged the full 90 minutes with a 7.5 rating. Contributed 1 goal and 1 assist.
  • Owen Hale (F) logged the full 90 minutes with a 7.8 rating. Contributed 1 goal.
  • Tomas Brandt played the full 90 minutes for Northbridge Athletic (rating 7.1). Completed around 20 of 28 passes (71%). Faced 8 shots on target (75% save rate).

Top performers

  • Best player
    Leo Castell
    Northbridge Athletic · Rating 8.4
  • Playmaker
    Leo Castell
    Northbridge Athletic · 6 key passes
  • Wall
    Tomas Brandt
    Northbridge Athletic · 6 saves
  • Defensive anchor
    Leo Castell
    Northbridge Athletic · 5 tackles + interceptions
  • Dribbler
    Yann Duval
    Riverside Rovers · 5 successful dribbles
  • Attacking threat
    Leo Castell
    Northbridge Athletic · Threat index 11
  • Risky player
    Leo Castell
    Northbridge Athletic · Risk score 2
  • Captain
    Leo Castell
    Northbridge Athletic · Wore the armband

Squad totals

Summed from every player on the pitch — useful for spotting which side controlled each phase.

  • Total shots

  • Passes

  • Key passes

  • Tackles

  • Duels won

  • Successful dribbles

  • Saves

Sportra impact score

Sportra blend of rating, goals, creativity, defending, and discipline.

  1. 1
    Leo Castell
    Northbridge Athletic
    118
  2. 2
    Yann Duval
    Riverside Rovers
    99
  3. 3
    Owen Hale
    Riverside Rovers
    93
  4. 4
    Tomas Brandt
    Northbridge Athletic
    89
  5. 5
    Erik Solberg
    Riverside Rovers
    79
  6. 6
    Marco Ilves
    Northbridge Athletic
    71

Player comparison

Side-by-side match box scores — sorted by rating.

PlayerRatingMinutesGoalsAssistsKey passesDef. contrib.
Leo Castell
8.4901165
Owen Hale
7.8901010
Yann Duval
7.5851131
Tomas Brandt
7.190000—
Marco Ilves
6.9780000
Erik Solberg
6.890000—

Full squad box scores

Every player with box scores, derived metrics, and expandable full stat breakdowns.

Northbridge Athletic
  • —
    Tomas Brandt
    G7.1

    90′ · 6 SV

    • 28.0 ps/90
    • 20 acc ps
    • 75% saves

    Tomas Brandt played the full 90 minutes for Northbridge Athletic (rating 7.1). Completed around 20 of 28 passes (71%). Faced 8 shots on target (75% save rate).

  • —
    Marco Ilves
    F6.9

    78′

    • 13.8 ps/90
    • 9 acc ps
    • 2.3 sh/90
    • 33% duels
    • 0% drib

    Marco Ilves (F) logged 78 minutes with a 6.9 rating. 2 shots without finding the net.

  • —
    Leo Castell
    MC8.4

    90′ · 1G · 1A

    • 68.0 ps/90
    • 58 acc ps
    • 5 def
    • 4.0 sh/90
    • 57% duels
    • 75% drib

    Leo Castell (M) logged the full 90 minutes with a 8.4 rating. Contributed 1 goal and 1 assist. 5 defensive actions (5.0 per 90).

Riverside Rovers
  • —
    Erik Solberg
    G6.8

    90′ · 3 SV

    • 24.0 ps/90
    • 21 acc ps
    • 75% saves

    Erik Solberg played the full 90 minutes for Riverside Rovers (rating 6.8). Completed around 21 of 24 passes (88%). Faced 4 shots on target (75% save rate).

  • —
    Yann Duval
    F7.5

    85′ · 1G · 1A

    • 32.8 ps/90
    • 26 acc ps
    • 1 def
    • 5.3 sh/90
    • 58% duels
    • 71% drib

    Yann Duval (F) logged the full 90 minutes with a 7.5 rating. Contributed 1 goal and 1 assist.

  • —
    Owen Hale
    F7.8

    90′ · 1G

    • 22.0 ps/90
    • 18 acc ps
    • 6.0 sh/90
    • 55% duels
    • 50% drib

    Owen Hale (F) logged the full 90 minutes with a 7.8 rating. Contributed 1 goal.

Predictions

Where: Match page → Predictions tab.

Win, draw and away shares are an estimate. Each team's expected goals average its season goals scored with the opponent's season goals conceded. Early-season rates are pulled towards a typical 1.35 goals, as if each team had already played five typical matches, and the home side gets a 10% edge. A Poisson model then turns the two rates into outcome shares. The estimate needs at least three league matches for both teams; with fewer we show no shares. It uses pre-match data only, ignores injuries and line-ups, and is a statistical guide, not betting advice.

What the tab includes

  • Estimated outcome shares (home, draw, away) and expected goals
  • Side-by-side comparison (form, attack, defence, goals, head-to-head, overall)
  • Season and streak metrics per team
  • Recent head-to-head fixtures when available
  • Charts — outcome donut, profile radar, scoreline bars, season anchors, signal grids
Match detail · Predictions tabPre-match outlookEstimated win chances, comparison radar, season anchors, and team signals — built from pre-match data, not live events.
Northbridge AthleticvsRiverside Rovers

Match DNA · Predictions ↗

Balanced — model leans Northbridge Athletic

Estimated win chances: Northbridge Athletic 54.6%, draw 25.5%, Riverside Rovers 19.9%. From 13 and 13 competition matches.

TempoMedium
VolatilityLow
Expected goalsLow
Tactical styleBalanced
Upset potentialLow
Draw riskMedium
Model confidenceHigh

Outcome model

Sportra's estimate from each team's season goal rates. It is a statistical guide, not betting advice.

Goal expectancy

1.56Expected goals0.83

From 13 and 13 competition matches

Likely scorelines (Poisson)

  • 1–014.6%
  • 1–112.1%
  • 2–011.4%
  • 2–19.5%
  • 0–09.4%

Form & momentum

Weighted momentum, recent result run, and form-window W–D–L — the live pulse before kickoff.

48MixedNorthbridge Athletic
Weighted momentum

Northbridge Athletic carries the sharper recent run (+12 momentum).

36Cold spellRiverside Rovers
Northbridge Athletic · Inconsistent in front of goalRiverside Rovers · High-risk / fragile

Northbridge Athletic

4W · 3D · 6L
Recent →WLWWLWLDLDLDL
Momentum index

Riverside Rovers

4W · 2D · 7L
Recent →WWLLLLDLDLWLW
Momentum index

Form split comparison

Wins, draws, and losses across the sampled form window

Season record

League totals anchoring the snapshot — points, goal balance, and season shape vs opponent.

Table gapNorthbridge Athletic +1

Northbridge Athletic

15 pts
23% wins

3W · 6D · 4L · 13 played

For
16
Against
13
Goal diff +3

Riverside Rovers

14 pts
31% wins

4W · 2D · 7L · 13 played

For
11
Against
24
Goal diff -13

Season shape comparison

League table W–D–L, goal balance, and form-run counts from league profile signals

Matchup edges

Attack vs opponent defense in the matchup comparison.

  • Northbridge Athletic offensive edge

    Northbridge Athletic's attack (43%) vs Riverside Rovers's defense (38%).

    +5
  • Riverside Rovers offensive edge

    Riverside Rovers runs into a stronger home defensive profile.

    -5

Goals profile

Average goals for and against — home, away, and overall splits.

Goals for Goals against
Season avg
Northbridge Athletic
1.21.0
Riverside Rovers
0.51.7
At home
Northbridge Athletic
1.40.8
Riverside Rovers
0.61.5
On the road
Northbridge Athletic
1.01.2
Riverside Rovers
0.41.9

Scoring reliability

Blank spells, clean sheets, and under/over tendencies.

  • Failed to score
    42%
    38%
  • Clean sheet
    31%
    15%
  • Under 3.5 goals
    72%
    68%

Extremes & streaks

Biggest wins and losses, plus longest win/loss runs.

Northbridge Athletic

Biggest win3-0
Biggest loss0-2
Win run 2Loss run 4

Riverside Rovers

Biggest win4-1
Biggest loss0-6
Win run 3Loss run 5

Team comparison

Comparison indices from the match data partner.

Attack rating

Attacking threat in the final third.

Northbridge Athletic43
Riverside Rovers57

Defense rating

How well each side limits chances.

Northbridge Athletic62
Riverside Rovers38

Momentum

Weighted form score (recent results count more).

Northbridge Athletic48
Riverside Rovers36

Matchup edge

Attack vs opponent defense (positive = favourable matchup).

Northbridge Athletic60
Riverside Rovers40

Volatility

Higher = more swingy results (big losses, goals against).

Northbridge Athletic35
Riverside Rovers38

Form index

Head-to-head form comparison from the model.

Northbridge Athletic40
Riverside Rovers60

H2H pull

Historical dominance in recent meetings.

Northbridge Athletic29
Riverside Rovers71
Northbridge AthleticInconsistent in front of goal
Riverside RoversHigh-risk / fragile

H2H in this snapshot

From 3 meetings included in this prediction snapshot.

1Northbridge Athletic33%
1Draws
1Riverside Rovers33%

Sample data only (Sample League · 2019–20 (illustrative)). Live pages use the same views with Sportra data for your selected fixture, team, player, league, and season.

Calculation rules

Cleaning values

  • Percentages are stored as plain numbers (58% → 58)
  • Ranges such as 3–5 use the midpoint
  • Missing values stay out of derived maths

Rates

  • Per 90: (value ÷ minutes) × 90 when minutes > 0
  • Per match: value ÷ appearances when appearances > 0
  • Ratios: shot accuracy, conversion, duel win %, pass accuracy

Match comparisons

Higher is usually better; fouls and cards favour the lower total. Ties show as neutral.

Team of the Week

Team of the Week uses the stored match rating on players who appeared in that round. It is not a season reputation score and it is not a weighted formula.

  • A player needs at least 60 minutes in a finished match in the round.
  • The position must be a known goalkeeper, defender, midfielder, or forward.
  • If a player appears twice, the higher match rating is kept.
  • The XI is 4-3-3. At most three players from one club are selected while the side is filled.
  • Ties break by rating, then goals, then assists, then player id.
  • Player of the Week is the highest-rated selected player.

Limits

  • If a stat is missing from the dataset for that page, related derived metrics are not shown.
  • Penalty shootout scores on match headers follow the PEN status and phase breakdown used elsewhere on Sportra.
  • Match, team, and player detail pages show the dataset from when the page was loaded. To see updated statistics, reload the page — we do not poll upstream on a fixed interval for those tabs.
  • Predictions reflect pre-match data only.

Questions: Contact · Data licensing: Data attribution

Frequently asked questions

What is Sportra Intelligence?

Sportra Intelligence is Sportra's derived data layer. We collect match and season records, normalize them, then derive comparisons, 0–100 scores, archetypes, and narratives — not hand-counted video tags.

Are the previews on this page real match data?

No. The interactive previews use fixed illustrative sample data with fictional clubs and players (Northbridge Athletic, Leo Castell, Northbridge Athletic vs Riverside Rovers). On live entity pages, the same UI loads real fixture, club, or player data.

Do Intelligence scores update live during a match?

Match, team, and player detail tabs show the dataset from when the page was loaded. Reload to pick up post-load corrections. Predictions reflect pre-match signals only and do not update from in-play events.

Where can I read more about sourcing?

See Data attribution for licensing boundaries and Contact for product questions.