01 · 2 legs
Safe
- Double chance York City or draw (X2)65%
- Over 1.5 goals83%
EFL League TwoSMH Group Stadium, Chesterfield13°1,4 mm20 km/h
Läs på svenskaOscar Nilsson · · Model-assisted analysis, fact-checked · How the predictions work
TEXT: A forecast of 62% for over 2.5 goals sharply contrasts with the evenly split model probabilities: Chesterfield 36%, draw 25%, and York City 39%. This discrepancy hints that the market might have overlooked York City's potential to outscore their hosts. While Chesterfield's possession control mirrors York's, the visitors have the edge both in actual points (8 to Chesterfield’s 5) and expected goals per match (1.8 compared to 1.7). This suggests that Chesterfield's slight underperformance relative to their xPoints (7.1) might correct itself against York City.
York City's real advantage shows up in their scoring potential, with expected goals of 1.67 versus Chesterfield’s 1.52. The most likely scoreline, 1-1, reflects a close game, yet the model leans toward a 1-2 away victory for York if they can capitalize on their slightly superior attacking metrics. The hosts might control possession but translating it into goals has been their Achilles' heel.
The head-to-head sample is small, so it doesn't weigh heavily against season form and expected goals, which favor York City. Chesterfield’s home advantage could be neutralized by their defensive frailties, as both sides have an identical xGA of 1.4 per match. An open game is likely, supported by both teams to score sitting at 64%.
For punters, the sharpest angle lies with York City at a value price. Given the visitors' slight edge in key attacking metrics, there’s an undeniably attractive play. While a draw is a real possibility, the numbers suggest the visitors might just edge it, making York City on the moneyline the bet to consider.
01 · 2 legs
02 · 3 legs
03 · 4 legs
No odds available yet.
Solid line = created (xG), dashed = conceded (xGA).
Last 5 matches. Circle size = pass volume, line width = combinations between players. Attacking left to right.
The same network weighted by offensive threat (xT): circle size = threat created by the player, line width = threat of the combinations. Last 5 matches, attacking left to right.
| Performance | Chesterfield | York City |
|---|---|---|
| Points | 5 | 8 |
| xPoints | 7.1 | 5.9 |
| xG per match | 1.7 | 1.8 |
| xGA per match | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| xG within 8s of winning the ball | 0.46 | 0.2 |
| xGA within 8s of losing the ball | 0.4 | 0.23 |
| Playing style | Chesterfield | York City |
|---|---|---|
| Build-up efficiency | 0.33 | 0.4 |
| Field tilt | 0.63 | 0.65 |
| xT per match | 0.91 | 1.4 |
| xTA per match | 0.86 | 0.74 |
| Won balls, offensive half | 28 | 22 |
| Pressing intensity | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| Pressing efficiency | 0.39 | 0.34 |
| Pressing efficiency, offensive half | 0.42 | 0.35 |
| Entries into the box per match | 14 | 16 |
| Entries into the box against | 10 | 11 |
| Pass completion % | 0.74 | 0.79 |
| Pass completion % under pressure | 0.7 | 0.74 |
| Passes per match | 391 | 477 |
| Passes against per match | 255 | 236 |
| Switches of play per match | 44 | 30.2 |
| Long balls per match | 49 | 35 |
| Set pieces | Chesterfield | York City |
|---|---|---|
| xG from free kicks | 0.01 | 0.04 |
| Corners per match | 3.6 | 7.3 |
| Corners against per match | 3.4 | 5.1 |
| xG per corner | 0.04 | 0.04 |
| xGA per corner against | 0.02 | 0.02 |
| First touch, offensive corners % | 0.41 | 0.36 |
| First touch, defensive corners % | 0.59 | 0.48 |
| Other | Chesterfield | York City |
|---|---|---|
| Throw-in control | 0.83 | 0.84 |
| The goalkeepers | Ryan Thomas William Boot (Chesterfield) | Alfie Shane McNally (York City) |
|---|---|---|
| Saves | 14 | 9 |
| Save % | 67% | 53% |
| xG prevented | 74% | 45% |
| Claims | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
The model gives York City a 39% win probability. Full 1X2 picture: Chesterfield 36%, draw 25%, York City 39%.
The model's most likely final score is 1-1 at 11% probability.
The model rates over 2.5 goals at 62% and under at 38%.
The probability of both teams scoring is 64% according to the model.
The same rules as the bookmakers’ builders: legs that contradict or already follow from your slip cannot be combined — for example correct score 2–1 with under 2.5 goals. The difference is that we don’t look the rules up in a table; we compute them straight from the score matrix.
Predictions come from PlaymakerAI's match model and reflect the model's assessment — not betting advice. Gamble responsibly.