01 · 2 legs
Safe
- Antalyaspor to win56%
- Under 3.5 goals73%
Turkish 1. Lig26°14 km/h
Läs på svenska
VansporPossession controlOscar Nilsson · · Model-assisted analysis, fact-checked · How the predictions work
TEXT:
Antalyaspor's high press could be the key factor against a Van Spor FK team that, while adept at controlling possession, has struggled to convert that control into tangible results. The home side enters this clash with a slight edge in points, although the underlying metrics paint a more balanced picture. Antalyaspor's defensive solidity is reflected in their xGA of 1.4 per match, which is actually better than Van Spor FK's, giving them an edge on that front.
Van Spor FK, despite their lower points tally, boasts a marginally better xG per match at 1.2 compared to Antalya's 1.1. This suggests that the visitors have been creating enough opportunities to pose a threat. However, their defensive frailties, highlighted by an xGA of 1.6, could be their undoing against a team that thrives on high pressing and exploiting mistakes.
The model gives Antalyaspor a 56% chance of victory, with the most likely outcomes being either a narrow 1-0 win or a 1-1 draw, both at 12%. With an expected goals tally of 1.70 for the hosts, they seem poised to find the back of the net at least once. Yet, with just a 48% likelihood for over 2.5 goals, a low-scoring affair seems probable.
Interestingly, despite their form, Van Spor FK's metrics suggest they might be undervalued by the market. The xPoints disparity (Van Spor 8.9 vs Antalya 7.5) indicates that the visitors are punching above their weight and could exploit any complacency from their hosts.
For those looking for value, the statistical nuances hint at a fixture tighter than a simple points comparison implies, with Van Spor FK potentially worth a closer look, particularly if they can translate their xG promise into actual goals.
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 | Antalyaspor | Vanspor |
|---|---|---|
| Points | 9 | 6 |
| xPoints | 7.5 | 8.9 |
| xG per match | 1.1 | 1.2 |
| xGA per match | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| xG within 8s of winning the ball | 0.15 | 0.18 |
| xGA within 8s of losing the ball | 0.46 | 0.39 |
| Playing style | Antalyaspor | Vanspor |
|---|---|---|
| Build-up efficiency | 0.28 | 0.31 |
| Field tilt | 0.61 | 0.42 |
| xT per match | 1.1 | 0.84 |
| xTA per match | 0.91 | 0.98 |
| Won balls, offensive half | 21 | 18 |
| Pressing intensity | 0.22 | 0.22 |
| Pressing efficiency | 0.26 | 0.28 |
| Pressing efficiency, offensive half | 0.21 | 0.18 |
| Entries into the box per match | 14 | 10 |
| Entries into the box against | 11 | 10 |
| Pass completion % | 0.8 | 0.73 |
| Pass completion % under pressure | 0.75 | 0.69 |
| Passes per match | 419 | 295 |
| Passes against per match | 290 | 398 |
| Switches of play per match | 34.3 | 17 |
| Long balls per match | 44 | 27 |
| Set pieces | Antalyaspor | Vanspor |
|---|---|---|
| xG from free kicks | 0.04 | 0.05 |
| Corners per match | 4.9 | 4.6 |
| Corners against per match | 3.4 | 3.6 |
| xG per corner | 0.03 | 0.04 |
| xGA per corner against | 0.01 | 0.04 |
| First touch, offensive corners % | 0.44 | 0.47 |
| First touch, defensive corners % | 0.54 | 0.4 |
| Other | Antalyaspor | Vanspor |
|---|---|---|
| Throw-in control | 0.73 | 0.66 |
| The goalkeepers | Abdullah Yigiter (Antalyaspor) | Alperen Uysal (Vanspor) |
|---|---|---|
| Saves | 10 | 9 |
| Save % | 56% | 50% |
| xG prevented | 29% | 50% |
| Claims | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) |
The model gives Antalyaspor a 56% win probability. Full 1X2 picture: Antalyaspor 56%, draw 24%, Vanspor 20%.
The model's most likely final score is 1-0 at 12% probability.
The model rates over 2.5 goals at 48% and under at 52%.
The probability of both teams scoring is 49% 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.