🎯

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

📰

Chesterfield and Gillingham share the spoils in a 1-1 draw.

📝 Match Report

How It Unfolded

The points were shared at SMH Group Stadium, Regular Season - 25, as Chesterfield and Gillingham drew 1-1 in the League Two. 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 Chesterfield 1.47 xG and Gillingham 1.01 xG, a combined 2.49. The scoreboard read 1-1 for 2 actual goals. Both sides finished within a goal of their individual projections, so the scoreline sat close to the model's expected shape. Those figures were built on strength ratings of Chesterfield attack 1.08 / defence 1.15 against Gillingham attack 0.81 / defence 1.04, drawn from 40/86 games (CurrentSeason).

On the result, the model split it Chesterfield 48% | Draw 26% | Gillingham 26%, with Chesterfield to win its most likely call at 48%. The actual draw had been the model's second-ranked read at 26%, so the result diverged from the top call without being a shock.

Goals & Markets

The model rated Over 2.5 goals at 45%. The game delivered 2, so it stayed under — a call the model got right. Over 1.5 had been 71% and landed. On both teams to score, the model sat at 49% and the match saw both sides score — a miss on BTTS. Historically the two sides average 45% Over 2.5 across their same-competition games (Chesterfield 58%, Gillingham 32%), a base rate that agreed with today's under. Their combined BTTS history runs at 46%, which did not match the both-scored outcome.

Trading Patterns vs Reality

Chesterfield's trading profile (40 games, 19 home) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 50% of their matches — today it did.

Gillingham's trading profile (40 games, 19 away) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 42% of their matches — today it did; they keep a clean sheet 35% of the time, and conceded here.

Form vs Result

The form lines were close — Chesterfield 1.45 PPG, Gillingham 1.15 PPG — offering no strong steer, and the draw fit that even billing.

Verdict

Grading the result against the stored data, 1 of 3 pre-match signals came in: result (miss), Over 2.5 (hit), BTTS (miss). The data was on the wrong side of this result more often than not — a reminder that a single match sits well inside the model's variance.

💡 Key Insights