📰

Stunning comeback: Hangzhou Greentown overturn deficit to win 1-4.

📝 Match Report

How It Unfolded

Hangzhou Greentown came from behind to beat Qingdao Jonoon 1-4 at Qingdao Youth Football Stadium, Regular Season - 3, in the Super League. It was 1-0 at the break, with 4 further goals after it. Scorers: M. Edjouma (13') · Y. Wang (54', 70') · S. Guarirapa (55') · Tao Qianglong (90'). The remainder of the report sets that outcome against the pre-match model, the markets and the teams' data profiles.

The Model vs The Result

The Poisson model went into this projecting Qingdao Jonoon 1.83 xG and Hangzhou Greentown 1.28 xG, a combined 3.11. The scoreboard read 1-4 for 5 actual goals. Qingdao Jonoon fell 0.8 short of their projected output. Hangzhou Greentown outscored their 1.28 projection by 2.7. Those figures were built on strength ratings of Qingdao Jonoon attack 1.00 / defence 1.04 against Hangzhou Greentown attack 1.08 / defence 1.01, drawn from 32/32 games (Blended).

On the result, the model split it Qingdao Jonoon 50% | Draw 23% | Hangzhou Greentown 27%, with Qingdao Jonoon to win its most likely call at 50%. The actual Hangzhou Greentown win had been the model's second-ranked read at 27%, so the result diverged from the top call without being a shock.

Goals & Markets

The model rated Over 2.5 goals at 60%. The game delivered 5, so it went over — in line with the projection. Over 1.5 had been 82% and landed. Over 3.5 was 38% and came in. On both teams to score, the model sat at 61% and the match saw both sides score — another call in the model's favour. Historically the two sides average 59% Over 2.5 across their same-competition games (Qingdao Jonoon 42%, Hangzhou Greentown 77%), a base rate that agreed with today's over. Their combined BTTS history runs at 55%, which matched the both-scored outcome.

Trading Patterns vs Reality

Qingdao Jonoon's trading profile (60 games, 30 home) set some clear expectations: they score before half-time in 72% of games, and here they did; BTTS lands in 43% of their matches — today it did.

Hangzhou Greentown's trading profile (60 games, 30 away) set some clear expectations: they score before half-time in 85% of games, and here they did not; BTTS lands in 67% of their matches — today it did.

Form vs Result

On form, Hangzhou Greentown arrived the stronger side — 1.33 PPG against 0.90. Form held, and they took the win. Qingdao Jonoon (home/away splits) shipped 4 against a 1.43 concession average — a leakier day than usual. Hangzhou Greentown (home/away splits) scored 4 against a 1.43 average — above their attacking norm and conceded 1 against a 2.03 average — tighter than their form line.

In-Play Signals

Hangzhou Greentown controlled the ball (57%). The model had leaned the other way, toward Qingdao Jonoon; yet the team on the ball still took it. Hangzhou Greentown shot more often (15 to 14, 8 on target). Hangzhou Greentown were the sharper finishers, converting at 27% against 7% — the kind of finishing edge that decides games the underlying numbers call close. The scoring opened before half-time (1-0 at the interval). 4 of the 5 goals arrived after the restart.

Verdict

Grading the result against the stored data, 3 of 4 pre-match signals came in: result (miss), Over 2.5 (hit), BTTS (hit), form (hit). Partial vindication: some calls landed, others slipped. A comeback of the kind no pre-match model prices cleanly only underlines how much live momentum can override the numbers.

💡 Key Insights

⚡ Key Moments

📊 Statistics