🎯

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

📰

Shrewsbury and Gillingham share the spoils in a 3-3 draw.

📝 Match Report

How It Unfolded

The points were shared at The Croud Meadow, Regular Season - 18, as Shrewsbury and Gillingham drew 3-3 in the League Two. That is the final score; the rest of this report grades it against what the data forecast beforehand.

The Model vs The Result

The Poisson model went into this projecting Shrewsbury 0.90 xG and Gillingham 1.11 xG, a combined 2.01. The scoreboard read 3-3 for 6 actual goals. Shrewsbury beat their projection by 2.1 — clinical relative to the chances the model priced in. Gillingham outscored their 1.11 projection by 1.9. Those figures were built on strength ratings of Shrewsbury attack 0.73 / defence 0.93 against Gillingham attack 0.99 / defence 0.91, drawn from 17/63 games (CurrentSeason).

On the result, the model split it Shrewsbury 29% | Draw 31% | Gillingham 40%, with Gillingham to win its most likely call at 40%. The actual draw had been the model's second-ranked read at 31%, so the result diverged from the top call without being a shock.

Goals & Markets

The model rated Over 2.5 goals at 32%. The game delivered 6, so it went over — a miss for the goals model. Over 1.5 had been 60% and landed. Over 3.5 was 14% and came in. On both teams to score, the model sat at 40% and the match saw both sides score — a miss on BTTS. Historically the two sides average 39% Over 2.5 across their same-competition games (Shrewsbury 48%, Gillingham 30%), a base rate that pointed the other way from today's over. Their combined BTTS history runs at 49%, which did not match the both-scored outcome.

Trading Patterns vs Reality

Shrewsbury's trading profile (63 games, 31 home) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 51% of their matches — today it did.

Gillingham's trading profile (63 games, 31 away) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 48% of their matches — today it did; they keep a clean sheet 35% of the time, and conceded here.

Form vs Result

On form, Gillingham arrived the stronger side — 1.35 PPG against 0.78. The form guide was only half-right: the stronger side did not lose, but could not convert the edge into a win. Shrewsbury (home/away splits) scored 3 against a 0.84 average — above their attacking norm and shipped 3 against a 1.42 concession average — a leakier day than usual. Gillingham (home/away splits) scored 3 against a 0.90 average — above their attacking norm and shipped 3 against a 1.13 concession average — a leakier day than usual.

Verdict

Grading the result against the stored data, 0 of 4 pre-match signals came in: result (miss), Over 2.5 (miss), BTTS (miss), form (miss). A poor return for the projections: the match defied the majority of what the numbers expected.

💡 Key Insights