🎯

Fixture360 only lists fixtures from a curated set of leagues, chosen specifically to keep our prediction model accurate.

📰

Reading cruise to a comfortable 1-3 victory over Shrewsbury.

📝 Match Report

How It Unfolded

Reading beat Shrewsbury 1-3 at The Croud Meadow, Regular Season - 38, in the League One. With the result on the board, the sections below measure it against everything the model and the numbers projected in advance.

The Model vs The Result

The Poisson model went into this projecting Shrewsbury 1.06 xG and Reading 1.26 xG, a combined 2.32. The scoreboard read 1-3 for 4 actual goals. Reading outscored their 1.26 projection by 1.7. Those figures were built on strength ratings of Shrewsbury attack 0.68 / defence 1.22 against Reading attack 0.92 / defence 1.20, drawn from 86/86 games (CurrentSeason).

On the result, the model split it Shrewsbury 31% | Draw 28% | Reading 41%, with Reading to win its most likely call at 41%. That is exactly how it finished — the model's leading outcome was vindicated.

Goals & Markets

The model rated Over 2.5 goals at 41%. The game delivered 4, so it went over — the opposite of the projected direction. Over 1.5 had been 67% and landed. Over 3.5 was 20% and came in. On both teams to score, the model sat at 47% and the match saw both sides score — a miss on BTTS. Historically the two sides average 47% Over 2.5 across their same-competition games (Shrewsbury 41%, Reading 54%), a base rate that pointed the other way from today's over. Their combined BTTS history runs at 52%, which matched the both-scored outcome.

Trading Patterns vs Reality

Shrewsbury's trading profile (86 games, 42 home) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 42% of their matches — today it did.

Reading's trading profile (86 games, 42 away) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 62% of their matches — today it did.

Form vs Result

On form, Reading arrived the stronger side — 1.44 PPG against 0.90. That form edge translated into the three points. Shrewsbury (home/away splits) shipped 3 against a 1.48 concession average — a leakier day than usual. Reading (home/away splits) scored 3 against a 1.19 average — above their attacking norm and conceded 1 against a 1.90 average — tighter than their form line.

Verdict

Grading the result against the stored data, 2 of 4 pre-match signals came in: result (hit), Over 2.5 (miss), BTTS (miss), form (hit). The model got the gist right while missing on the margins.

💡 Key Insights