2026/27 / INSIDE THE GAME
What lies
behind the score?
Follow the path from passing to the penalty area, from chances to shots and from matches to points. Compare different sides of the season over the same set of games.
81 completed league matches · 2026-10-26 · 18 clubs; full match coverage including xG
Select a club to highlight it across every chart.
Where does passing reach danger?
Göztepe recorded 10.13 penalty-area touches per 100 passes. This does not measure progression speed or attack quality on its own; a high pass count and reaching the box are different things.
How did passing volume translate into chances?
Beşiktaş led passing volume with 515.56 passes per match. Trabzonspor created the most big chances, 4.67 per match, from 444.78 passes.
See every value · 18 clubs
| Club | Games | Passes / game | Box touches / game | Touches / 100 passes | Big chances / game |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 474.33 | 36.89 | 7.78 | 3.89 | |
| 9 | 404.44 | 19.56 | 4.84 | 3 | |
| 9 | 444.78 | 23.67 | 5.32 | 4.67 | |
| 9 | 515.56 | 33 | 6.4 | 2.56 | |
| 9 | 466 | 29.78 | 6.39 | 4.22 | |
| 9 | 355.56 | 15.78 | 4.44 | 1.89 | |
| 9 | 418 | 17.56 | 4.2 | 2.11 | |
| 9 | 394 | 16.56 | 4.2 | 1.89 | |
| 9 | 483.67 | 21 | 4.34 | 2.44 | |
| 9 | 286.22 | 29 | 10.13 | 3.22 | |
| 9 | 362.11 | 15.89 | 4.39 | 1.44 | |
| 9 | 441.56 | 17.33 | 3.93 | 1.89 | |
| 9 | 440.33 | 21.22 | 4.82 | 2.11 | |
| 9 | 396.44 | 17.11 | 4.32 | 1.78 | |
| 9 | 443.44 | 19 | 4.28 | 2 | |
| 9 | 335.78 | 17.11 | 5.1 | 1.44 | |
| 9 | 494.89 | 20.44 | 4.13 | 1.78 | |
| 9 | 409.89 | 15.33 | 3.74 | 1.22 |
Where are shots taken?
Inside- and outside-box attempts account for all shots. A higher inside-box share alone does not establish better chances; also consider shot volume and big-chance counts.
See every value · 18 clubs
| Club | Inside shots | Outside shots | Total shots | Big chances | Big chances missed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 93 | 32 | 125 | 42 | 22 | |
| 111 | 40 | 151 | 38 | 25 | |
| 106 | 39 | 145 | 29 | 16 | |
| 69 | 30 | 99 | 16 | 12 | |
| 138 | 64 | 202 | 35 | 27 | |
| 56 | 30 | 86 | 17 | 10 | |
| 64 | 40 | 104 | 13 | 8 | |
| 67 | 42 | 109 | 13 | 9 | |
| 97 | 62 | 159 | 23 | 11 | |
| 73 | 50 | 123 | 18 | 15 | |
| 63 | 45 | 108 | 17 | 8 | |
| 66 | 49 | 115 | 19 | 13 | |
| 71 | 53 | 124 | 16 | 12 | |
| 62 | 52 | 114 | 22 | 10 | |
| 61 | 52 | 113 | 17 | 9 | |
| 76 | 66 | 142 | 27 | 14 | |
| 73 | 64 | 137 | 19 | 11 | |
| 55 | 52 | 107 | 11 | 10 |
Three sides of chance creation
Open play, non-penalty set plays and penalty xG are shown separately. These are components from one provider rather than a mixture of different xG models.
See every value · 18 clubs
| Club | Open-play xG / game | Set-play xG / game | Penalty xG / game | xG / game |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1.54 | 0.68 | 0.09 | 2.31 | |
| 1.42 | 0.42 | 0.26 | 2.11 | |
| 1.01 | 0.38 | 0.61 | 2.01 | |
| 1.57 | 0.31 | 0.09 | 1.97 | |
| 1.16 | 0.48 | 0.26 | 1.9 | |
| 1.24 | 0.33 | 0.26 | 1.84 | |
| 0.98 | 0.22 | 0.26 | 1.46 | |
| 1.11 | 0.24 | 0.09 | 1.43 | |
| 1.21 | 0.1 | 0 | 1.31 | |
| 0.89 | 0.27 | 0.09 | 1.24 | |
| 0.79 | 0.22 | 0.18 | 1.19 | |
| 0.95 | 0.23 | 0 | 1.18 | |
| 0.73 | 0.33 | 0.09 | 1.15 | |
| 0.83 | 0.31 | 0 | 1.14 | |
| 0.88 | 0.25 | 0 | 1.13 | |
| 0.65 | 0.3 | 0.09 | 1.03 | |
| 0.71 | 0.17 | 0 | 0.88 | |
| 0.44 | 0.35 | 0 | 0.79 |
What changed from the first four to the latest four?
Göztepe's net xG per match moved from -0.4 to 1.12. Opponents and home/away mix differ, so this is not proof of a coach or player effect.
Net xG = xG for minus xG against. Two equal four-game windows are used; any intervening games are excluded. Rows are ordered by the absolute size of the change.
See every value · 18 clubs
| Club | First window ends | Latest window starts | First 4 net xG / game | Latest 4 net xG / game | Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-07 | 2026-09-20 | -0.4 | 1.12 | 1.52 | |
| 2026-09-05 | 2026-09-20 | -1.06 | 0.38 | 1.44 | |
| 2026-09-04 | 2026-09-19 | 1.82 | 0.71 | -1.11 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-20 | -0.72 | -1.82 | -1.09 | |
| 2026-09-07 | 2026-09-19 | -0.07 | -1.1 | -1.04 | |
| 2026-09-07 | 2026-09-20 | 0.5 | -0.52 | -1.03 | |
| 2026-09-05 | 2026-09-20 | 1.21 | 0.37 | -0.84 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-19 | 0.07 | 0.87 | 0.8 | |
| 2026-09-05 | 2026-09-20 | 0.47 | 1.22 | 0.75 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-19 | -0.26 | 0.35 | 0.61 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-18 | 0.27 | -0.29 | -0.56 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-19 | -0.49 | 0.01 | 0.49 | |
| 2026-09-04 | 2026-09-19 | 0.04 | 0.45 | 0.41 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-20 | -0.35 | -0.65 | -0.31 | |
| 2026-09-07 | 2026-09-19 | -0.26 | -0.52 | -0.26 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-20 | 0.6 | 0.78 | 0.18 | |
| 2026-09-05 | 2026-09-18 | -0.14 | -0.06 | 0.08 | |
| 2026-09-06 | 2026-09-19 | -1.23 | -1.29 | -0.06 |
Does the attack change after half-time?
Each half’s xG is divided by the same number of matches; stoppage time belongs to its half. Changes in opposition and game state also accompany this difference.
See every value · 18 clubs
| Club | First-half xG / game | Second-half xG / game |
|---|---|---|
| 0.63 | 1.28 | |
| 0.32 | 0.83 | |
| 0.4 | 0.73 | |
| 0.27 | 0.53 | |
| 0.31 | 0.57 | |
| 0.88 | 1.13 | |
| 0.56 | 0.75 | |
| 0.53 | 0.71 | |
| 0.55 | 0.64 | |
| 0.48 | 0.56 | |
| 0.53 | 0.61 | |
| 1.12 | 1.19 | |
| 0.57 | 0.61 | |
| 0.99 | 0.99 | |
| 0.76 | 0.7 | |
| 0.99 | 0.85 | |
| 0.8 | 0.63 | |
| 1.38 | 0.72 |
How did the game turn into points?
When the first goal comes
In 77 scoring games, we grouped the first goal by time and counted the final result from the opening scorer’s side. The bars show what happened after taking the lead.
At right: win rate and wins/games.
| First goal | Games | Won | Drew | Lost | Win rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0–30′ | 51 | 36 | 7 | 8 | 70.6% |
| 31–60′ | 18 | 13 | 3 | 2 | 72.2% |
| 61–90+′ | 8 | 8 | 0 | 0 | 100% |
81 completed games through 26 October 2026; 4 goalless games and 0 unresolved first-goal orders excluded. First-half stoppage time stays in the first half. This is an early-season description, not evidence that the goal’s timing caused the result.
From half-time to the final whistle
In 43 of the 55 matches with a half-time leader, that side went on to win. Read each row separately: one half-time state can lead to three different final results.
Percentages use each row’s match count and sum to 100% apart from rounding. Stronger colours indicate a more frequent outcome. Unplayed awarded matches are excluded.
Do chances and points tell the same story?
Trabzonspor earned 19 points from matches, 4.7 above the xG-based calculation. Samsunspor was 5.2 below it. The comparison shows where results and chance production diverged.
2026/27 · 81 games · 2026-10-26
Galatasaray22 / 19
Amed SFK20 / 17.5
Trabzonspor19 / 14.3
Beşiktaş18 / 17.7
Fenerbahçe16 / 15.5
Kasımpaşa16 / 12.3
Kocaelispor15 / 12
Erzurumspor FK14 / 10
Çorum FK13 / 12
Alanyaspor12 / 9.8
Göztepe12 / 14.3
İstanbul Başakşehir11 / 12.3
Çaykur Rizespor10 / 13.4
Gaziantep FK8 / 10.1
Gençlerbirliği8 / 7.1
Konyaspor8 / 11.6
Samsunspor4 / 9.2
Eyüpspor3 / 6.9Both dots use the same points scale. For each played match, we calculated 3 × win probability + draw probability from observed xG. This compares completed games; it does not forecast the season finish.
Open point gaps for all 18 clubs
| Club | Games | Match points | xG calculation | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9 | 22 | 19.02 | +2.98 | |
| 9 | 20 | 17.55 | +2.45 | |
| 9 | 19 | 14.35 | +4.65 | |
| 9 | 18 | 17.74 | +0.26 | |
| 9 | 16 | 15.47 | +0.53 | |
| 9 | 16 | 12.27 | +3.73 | |
| 9 | 15 | 11.95 | +3.05 | |
| 9 | 14 | 10.04 | +3.96 | |
| 9 | 13 | 12.05 | +0.95 | |
| 9 | 12 | 9.75 | +2.25 | |
| 9 | 12 | 14.26 | -2.26 | |
| 9 | 11 | 12.32 | -1.32 | |
| 9 | 10 | 13.36 | -3.36 | |
| 9 | 8 | 10.14 | -2.14 | |
| 9 | 8 | 7.07 | +0.93 | |
| 9 | 8 | 11.64 | -3.64 | |
| 9 | 4 | 9.2 | -5.2 | |
| 9 | 3 | 6.88 | -3.88 |
Galatasaray finished with +5 points relative to the scores after 75 minutes. These are not extra points; they compare two score states in the same matches.
Left: points down · Right: points up · Shared zero line
See every value · 18 clubs
| Club | Points change | Games with a late gain | Games with a late loss | Games led | Win rate after leading % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 87.5 | |
| 5 | 4 | 1 | 7 | 85.71 | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 75 | |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 100 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 71.43 | |
| 1 | 2 | 2 | 5 | 80 | |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 100 | |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 80 | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 80 | |
| -2 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 42.86 | |
| -1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 60 | |
| -1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 75 | |
| 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 50 | |
| -3 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 66.67 | |
| -1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 100 | |
| -3 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 66.67 | |
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 33.33 | |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100 |
Are goals concentrated in one player?
Each club’s leading scorer is shown alongside other players and opponents’ own goals. A large share can rest on only a few goals at a low-scoring club; counts are in the table. One tied leader represents the bar; all tied leaders are named in the table.
See every value · 18 clubs
| Club | Leading scorers | Leader goals | Team goals | Share % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eldor Shomurodov | 7 | 12 | 58.33 | |
| Ahmed Abdullahi, Zak Jules | 1 | 2 | 50 | |
| Adrian Benedyczak | 6 | 13 | 46.15 | |
| Victor Osimhen | 8 | 19 | 42.11 | |
| Gift Orban | 8 | 20 | 40 | |
| Eren Tozlu, Miguel Cardoso | 3 | 8 | 37.5 | |
| Mohamed Salah | 8 | 22 | 36.36 | |
| Berkan Kutlu | 4 | 11 | 36.36 | |
| Dusan Vlahovic | 6 | 18 | 33.33 | |
| Chidozie Awaziem | 2 | 6 | 33.33 | |
| Juan | 6 | 19 | 31.58 | |
| Vedat Muriqi | 7 | 23 | 30.43 | |
| Qazim Laçi | 3 | 11 | 27.27 | |
| Logi Tomasson | 2 | 8 | 25 | |
| Alexandros Kyziridis, Cengiz Ünder, Jesús Ramírez | 4 | 18 | 22.22 | |
| Arda Usluoglu, Gaïus Makouta, Ruan | 2 | 9 | 22.22 | |
| Deian Sorescu, Kacper Kozlowski | 2 | 9 | 22.22 | |
| Adama Traoré, Franco Tongya, Ogulcan Ülgün, Ousmane Diabate, Rafael Luís, Sekou Koita, Thalisson Kelven | 1 | 7 | 14.29 |