**MVV Maastricht 2-0 Helmond Sport**
**What set this match apart:**
A fairly ordinary match with a few distinctive traits (56% of matches were more unusual than this one). The unusualness was primarily driven by the attacking phase (37%) and the build-up (28%). Both teams created a high volume of clear-cut scoring opportunities, with 6 big chances in total at the 86th percentile of joint volume. However, Helmond Sport was much more effective in this area, creating 5 big chances to MVV Maastricht's 1, a gap at the 95th percentile of gaps.
**How it played out:**
The attacking play was characterized by a heavy reliance on the flanks, as both teams recorded a high volume of accurate crosses (MVV Maastricht 6, Helmond Sport 7; 13 in total, 96th percentile of joint volume). While the build-up from the back was patient and safe for both sides, with 408 passes in their own half (84th percentile of joint volume), MVV Maastricht managed to generate more sustained pressure near the opponent's goal, recording 6 corners to Helmond Sport's 2 (81st percentile of gaps). In terms of direct threat, Helmond Sport was more active, making 5 shots on target to MVV Maastricht's 2 (83rd percentile of gaps). Defensively, MVV Maastricht was more proactive in cutting passing lanes with 13 interceptions to Helmond Sport's 6 (93rd percentile of gaps). Both sides were under significant pressure, evidenced by 10 blocked shots in total (89th percentile of joint volume), with Helmond Sport recording 7 blocks to MVV Maastricht's 3 (84th percentile of gaps). Helmond Sport also excelled in one-on-one situations, recording 12 successful dribbles to MVV Maastricht's 6 (89th percentile of gaps). Finally, while there were few shots from distance in the match, MVV Maastricht was clearly ahead with 5 to Helmond Sport's 1 (84th percentile of gaps).
**Verdict:**
The fair probabilities are MVV Maastricht win 19%, draw 25%, and Helmond Sport win 56%. Against the run of play: the performances pointed to a Helmond Sport win (56%), the actual result had only 19%.
Deze analyse is gemaakt door een intern ontwikkeld model en kan onnauwkeurigheden bevatten · Experimenteel