01 · 2 legs
Safe
- Double chance Eskilsminne or draw (X2)63%
- Over 1.5 goals81%
Swedish Ettan14°4,5 mm37 km/h
Läs på svenskaMarcus Johansson · · Analysis from the match model · How the predictions work
Eleven percent of simulations point to a 1-1 draw, the single most common scoreline for this clash between Ängelholm and Eskilsminne. However, the visitors hold a slight edge with a 40% chance of securing the win. This tilt is grounded in Eskilsminne's marginal superiority in underlying metrics such as expected points and goals. Despite both sides enduring losing streaks, the hosts are on a rougher path, having dropped their last six matches.
The styles here contrast sharply — Ängelholm's reliance on a low defensive line and direct play faces Eskilsminne's possession-centric, high-press philosophy. This strategic divergence could lead to vulnerabilities, particularly for the hosts, against a team adept at controlling the tempo. Historical meetings have typically been goal-rich, with an average of 4.9 goals per game.
Given the model's over 2.5 goals probability at 59%, and both teams' defensive frailties, a high-scoring affair cannot be ruled out. The lean towards Eskilsminne to prevail presents potential value, especially considering their slight expected goals and points edges. A 1-2 win for the visitors appears a plausible outcome, with both teams likely finding the back of the net.
01 · 2 legs
02 · 3 legs
03 · 4 legs
Bets where the model's probability beats what the odds imply (EV+).
| Bookmaker | 1 · Ängelholm | X | 2 · Eskilsminne |
|---|---|---|---|
| Betsafe | 1.98 | 3.65 | EV+ 24% 3.10 |
| Betsson | 1.98 | 3.65 | EV+ 24% 3.10 |
| Nordicbet | 1.98 | 3.65 | EV+ 24% 3.10 |
Odds updated 16 Sept, 09:37
Head-to-head based on Ettan data since 2023.
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 | Ängelholm | Eskilsminne |
|---|---|---|
| Points | 17 | 25 |
| xPoints | 28.1 | 28.9 |
| xG per match | 1.2 | 1.3 |
| xGA per match | 1.5 | 1.4 |
| xG within 8s of winning the ball | 0.18 | 0.2 |
| xGA within 8s of losing the ball | 0.24 | 0.28 |
| Playing style | Ängelholm | Eskilsminne |
|---|---|---|
| Build-up efficiency | 0.35 | 0.36 |
| Field tilt | 0.48 | 0.51 |
| xT per match | 1.3 | 1.6 |
| xTA per match | 1.6 | 1.5 |
| Won balls, offensive half | 29 | 29 |
| Pressing intensity | 0.48 | 0.52 |
| Pressing efficiency | 0.27 | 0.27 |
| Pressing efficiency, offensive half | 0.26 | 0.26 |
| Entries into the box per match | 11 | 15 |
| Entries into the box against | 15 | 15 |
| Pass completion % | 0.76 | 0.77 |
| Pass completion % under pressure | 0.71 | 0.72 |
| Passes per match | 329 | 334 |
| Passes against per match | 389 | 349 |
| Switches of play per match | 17.2 | 21.1 |
| Long balls per match | 29 | 36 |
| Set pieces | Ängelholm | Eskilsminne |
|---|---|---|
| xG from free kicks | 0.14 | 0.14 |
| Corners per match | 4.4 | 4.6 |
| Corners against per match | 4.3 | 5.1 |
| xG per corner | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| xGA per corner against | 0.03 | 0.02 |
| First touch, offensive corners % | 0.24 | 0.35 |
| First touch, defensive corners % | 0.55 | 0.57 |
| Other | Ängelholm | Eskilsminne |
|---|---|---|
| Throw-in control | 0.52 | 0.55 |
| The goalkeepers | Robin Streifert (Ängelholm) | Ian Pettersson (Eskilsminne) |
|---|---|---|
| Saves | 60 | 73 |
| Save % | 64% | 67% |
| xG prevented | 37% | 47% |
| Claims | 142 (97%) | 109 (97%) |
The model gives Eskilsminne a 40% win probability. Full 1X2 picture: Ängelholm 35%, draw 25%, Eskilsminne 40%.
The model's most likely final score is 1-1 at 11% probability.
The model rates over 2.5 goals at 59% and under at 41%.
The probability of both teams scoring is 61% 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.