Hearts
2–1
FT · Loss
Aberdeen
2.55xG
-1.54AFC xGD
xG1.01
Expected points 2.44–0.20
Deserved defeatThe verdict
Event data: Opta
A fair defeat.
Hearts generated more attacking volume — 30 shots and — box touches to Aberdeen's 9 and —. But Aberdeen created the better chances: 0.11 xG per shot to 0.09, and the bigger ones (3–4 big chances).
Result model · all chances
Expected points 0.20 – 2.44
From the full xG (1.01–2.55), penalty included.
Performance model · excl. penalty
Expected 0.20 pts
From non-penalty xG (1.01–2.55). Took 0.
Little fortune either way.Result and performance broadly matched.
xG timeline
Aberdeen 1.01Hearts 2.55GoalAberdeen above · opponent below · shaded = sustained pressure
Each step is a shot; the line climbs by that shot's xG. Steeper, sustained climbs (shaded) mark spells of real pressure.
The match in three battles
Chance qualitySTRONG OPPONENT EDGE
1.01 – 2.55
Expected goals
AFC xG baseline: 1.24
0.11 – 0.09
xG per shot
9 – 30
shots (AFC – Hearts)
Aberdeen produced fewer attempts, but their average chance was far as valuable.
Territory & progressionEVEN
3.01 – 3.41
Expected threat created
AFC xT baseline: 1.68
—
field tilt
59 – 82
final-third entries
Territory was relatively even, but Aberdeen's passing generated more threat than usual.
Defensive resistanceOPPONENT EDGE
2.55 xGA
chances conceded
0.92 worse than AFC baseline (1.64)
—
Hearts box touches
0.09
xG per Hearts shot
Aberdeen conceded better chances than they usually do.
Where this performance ranks
Against Aberdeen’s other matches this season — only the standout highs and lows.
A middle-of-the-road performance by this season’s standards — no category stood out as a high or low.
Form:WWWLD(last 5)
Away this season: 5-1-13, 0.00–0.00 xG avg
Detailed stats not available for this match