**FC Utrecht 0-2 Genk**
**What set this match apart:**
This was a very typical match: only small details set it apart; 90% of matches were more unusual than this one. The primary source of atypicality was found in the defending, which accounted for 50% of the unusualness. This was highlighted by a game with few interceptions overall (16 in total, 9th percentile of the two teams' joint volume), yet Genk was clearly ahead with 13 to FC Utrecht's 3, a +10 gap at the 96th percentile of gaps. Build-up contributed another 28% to the unusualness, while attack and duels were much less distinct.
**How it played out:**
Both sides were active in the final third, recording 20 shots inside the box (89th percentile of the two teams' joint volume) and 12 shots on target (91st percentile of the two teams' joint volume). FC Utrecht had a slight edge in these areas, recording 12 shots inside the box to Genk's 8 (70th percentile of gaps) and 7 shots on target to 5 (69th percentile of gaps). Despite this, both teams were heavily involved in defensive work, recording 60 clearances in total (95th percentile of joint volume) and 42 tackles (92nd percentile of joint volume). FC Utrecht showed a preference for patient build-up from the back, completing 263 passes in their own half compared to Genk's 153 (88th percentile of gaps). Territorial control was shared, with 349 passes in the opponent's half (87th percentile of joint volume). FC Utrecht also found more success in one-on-one situations, recording 8 successful dribbles to Genk's 5 (75th percentile of gaps).
**Verdict:**
The fair probabilities are FC Utrecht win 29%, draw 38%, and Genk win 33%. With the probabilities so close, every outcome was plausible and no result would have been scandalous. The 0-2 result is not surprising, especially with Genk creating 3 big chances to FC Utrecht's 2.
هذا التحليل مُولَّد بنموذج مطوَّر داخليًا وقد يحتوي على أخطاء · تجريبي
