|
|
T. Englund (2)
|
1 - 0
|
|
|
|
1 - 1
|
J. Bergstrom (37)
|
| HT: 1-1 |
|
|
1 - 2
|
M. Watson (59)
|
|
J. Chibuike (71)
|
2 - 2
|
|
|
|
2 - 3
|
J. Bergstrom (90)
|
| FT: 2-3 |
|
| Lead durations in 90 minutes of regular time |
|
|
| Falkenberg lead duration: |
35 min
|
| Teams level in goals: |
43 min
|
| Mjällby AIF lead duration: |
12 min
|
|
|
To calculate the above duration values based on a total of 90 minutes, goals scored on
the 45th minute and during added time of the first half are considered scored on the 45th minute,
and goals scored on the 90th minute and during added time of the second half are considered scored on the 90th minute.
Lead durations tables
|
|
|
|
|
|
Result analysis (post-match data) - How often has this happened for each team this season?
|
|
Falkenberg after 30 league matches
|
Mjällby AIF after 30 league matches
|
| lost |
16/30 |
|
53%
|
| lost by a 1-goal margin |
8/30 |
|
27%
|
| scored |
22/30 |
|
73%
|
| scored 2 goals or more |
9/30 |
|
30%
|
| conceded at least 1 goal |
26/30 |
|
87%
|
| conceded 2 goals or more |
17/30 |
|
57%
|
| scored first |
14/30 |
|
47%
|
| scored first and lost |
4/30 |
|
13%
|
| scored in 1st half |
12/30 |
|
40%
|
| scored in 2nd half |
15/30 |
|
50%
|
| conceded at least once in 1st half |
14/30 |
|
47%
|
| conceded at least once in 2nd half |
20/30 |
|
67%
|
|
| won |
13/30 |
|
43%
|
| won by a 1-goal margin |
8/30 |
|
27%
|
| scored |
25/30 |
|
83%
|
| scored 2 goals or more |
16/30 |
|
53%
|
| conceded at least 1 goal |
24/30 |
|
80%
|
| conceded 2 goals or more |
13/30 |
|
43%
|
| conceded the first goal |
12/30 |
|
40%
|
| conceded the first goal and won |
2/30 |
|
7%
|
| scored in 1st half |
17/30 |
|
57%
|
| scored in 2nd half |
21/30 |
|
70%
|
| conceded at least once in 1st half |
13/30 |
|
43%
|
| conceded at least once in 2nd half |
18/30 |
|
60%
|
|
|
The table above features a summary of match outcome and events in the context of each team's seasonal stats in the league.
For example, this is Mjällby AIF's 13th win of the season, and out of a total of 30 league matches played so far, their winning percentage is now 43%.
|
|
The table below shows some of the main league-level statistics
in relation with the match result, and how often each instance has been observed so far this season in the league.
For example, the match ended in an away win, and the total number of away wins all teams combined this season is now 74, representing 31% of the 240 league matches played so far.
|
|
All teams combined out of a total of 240 matches this season in the league
|
| Home team scored |
182/240 |
|
76%
|
| Home team scored 2 goals or more |
108/240 |
|
45%
|
| Home team scored first |
121/240 |
|
50%
|
| Home team scored first and lost |
13/240 |
|
5%
|
| Away team won |
74/240 |
|
31%
|
| Away team won by a 1-goal margin |
43/240 |
|
18%
|
| Away team scored |
179/240 |
|
75%
|
| Away team scored 2 goals or more |
95/240 |
|
40%
|
|
Search league results |
| Outcome Surprise-Level relative to pre-match PPG |
| Points Per Game (before the match) |
| Falkenberg at home |
Mjällby AIF away |
Total |
| 0.93 | 1.14 |
2.07 |
| Outcome |
Outcome Surprise-Level |
| (any scoreline) |
(Losing team PPG / Total) * 100 |
| Away win |
|
44.8 |
| Scale: from 0 (less surprising) to 100 (more surprising) |
|
Latest matches' outcome surprise-levels
| Outcome | Outcome Surprise-Level | |
| 6 Dec |
Djurgardens - Varbergs |
1 - 0 |
Home win |
|
37.1 |
analysis
|
| 6 Dec |
Elfsborg - AIK Stockholm |
2 - 2 |
Draw |
|
16.3 |
analysis
|
| 6 Dec |
Falkenberg - Mjällby AIF |
2 - 3 |
Away win |
|
44.8 |
analysis
|
| 6 Dec |
IFK Goteborg - Sirius |
2 - 0 |
Home win |
|
60.7 |
analysis
|
| 6 Dec |
Kalmar FF - BK Hacken |
0 - 0 |
Draw |
|
36.0 |
analysis
|
| 6 Dec |
Malmoe FF - Ostersunds |
4 - 0 |
Home win |
|
40.4 |
analysis
|
| 6 Dec |
Norrköping - Helsingborg |
3 - 4 |
Away win |
|
74.2 |
analysis
|
| 6 Dec |
Orebro - Hammarby |
2 - 1 |
Home win |
|
45.5 |
analysis
|
| Scale: from 0 (less surprising) to 100 (more surprising) |
Details on the calculation of the Outcome surprise-level are outlined in the following blog article:
Evaluating surprising results |
