01 · 2 legs
Safe
- Double chance Holstein Kiel or draw (1X)65%
- Under 3.5 goals75%
2. BundesligaHolstein-Stadion, Kiel12°8,1 mm24 km/h
Läs på svenskaErik Lindberg · · Written from the model's numbers · How the predictions work
The expected goals for both Holstein Kiel and Osnabrück are nearly identical, at 1.28 and 1.25 respectively, suggesting a tightly contested matchup. However, Kiel's slightly superior expected goals against (1.3 vs. 1.8) indicates a stronger defensive setup, possibly giving them the edge in a game where fine margins matter. Kiel's possession-oriented style aligns with their lower expected goals conceded, reinforcing a preference for control over chaos.
Despite Osnabrück having a better points tally so far, the xPoints show a subtle advantage for Kiel. This suggests the visitors may have overperformed their underlying numbers, whereas the hosts have perhaps been unlucky. The model probabilities favor Kiel at 38%, slightly tipping the scales towards the home side. Yet the most likely scorelines (1-1 at 13% and 1-0 or 0-1 at 10% each) and the over/under lean of 47% for over 2.5 goals point to a low-scoring affair.
For bettors, the draw at 28% is intriguing, but the model's lean toward Kiel cannot be ignored given their defensive efficiency. The sharpest betting angle emerges with the draw, particularly if bookmakers offer odds that suggest value. Keep an eye on draw odds around 3.50 or better, presenting a calculated opportunity.
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 | Holstein Kiel | Osnabrück |
|---|---|---|
| Points | 3 | 6 |
| xPoints | 6 | 5.7 |
| xG per match | 1.6 | 1.6 |
| xGA per match | 1.3 | 1.8 |
| xG within 8s of winning the ball | 0.18 | 0.11 |
| xGA within 8s of losing the ball | 0.25 | 0.32 |
| Playing style | Holstein Kiel | Osnabrück |
|---|---|---|
| Build-up efficiency | 0.28 | 0.32 |
| Field tilt | 0.68 | 0.41 |
| xT per match | 1.3 | 0.78 |
| xTA per match | 1.1 | 1.1 |
| Won balls, offensive half | 35 | 22 |
| Pressing intensity | 0.23 | 0.23 |
| Pressing efficiency | 0.32 | 0.27 |
| Pressing efficiency, offensive half | 0.3 | 0.2 |
| Entries into the box per match | 13 | 11 |
| Entries into the box against | 10 | 15 |
| Pass completion % | 0.78 | 0.69 |
| Pass completion % under pressure | 0.72 | 0.62 |
| Passes per match | 401 | 295 |
| Passes against per match | 301 | 480 |
| Switches of play per match | 17.9 | 11.2 |
| Long balls per match | 26 | 30 |
| Set pieces | Holstein Kiel | Osnabrück |
|---|---|---|
| xG from free kicks | 0.21 | 0.01 |
| Corners per match | 5.5 | 3.8 |
| Corners against per match | 6.1 | 6.3 |
| xG per corner | 0.04 | 0.12 |
| xGA per corner against | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| First touch, offensive corners % | 0.55 | 0.53 |
| First touch, defensive corners % | 0.5 | 0.56 |
| Other | Holstein Kiel | Osnabrück |
|---|---|---|
| Throw-in control | 0.7 | 0.71 |
| The goalkeepers | Timon Moritz Weiner (Holstein Kiel) | Jonas Krumrey (Osnabrück) |
|---|---|---|
| Saves | 10 | 16 |
| Save % | 56% | 67% |
| xG prevented | 50% | 40% |
| Claims | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
The model gives Holstein Kiel a 38% win probability. Full 1X2 picture: Holstein Kiel 38%, draw 28%, Osnabrück 34%.
The model's most likely final score is 1-1 at 13% probability.
The model rates over 2.5 goals at 47% and under at 53%.
The probability of both teams scoring is 52% 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.