ArticleFrontiers in sports and active living2025
AI in Bundesliga match analysis-expected possession value (EPV) vs. expected goals (xG) to predict match outcomes in soccer.
Article in Frontiers in sports and active living, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
With an increasing number of key performance indicators (KPIs) in soccer analytics, it is key to identify the most valuable KPIs. One approach to define a KPI's value is to assess its ability to predict match outcomes and future performance. Therefore, this study aims to compare the effectiveness of expected goals (xG) and expected possession value (EPV) in predicting match outcomes in both pre-match and post-match scenarios. Event and tracking data of three Bundesliga seasons (2022/23, 2023/24, & 2024/25) were used to develop four distinct match outcome prediction approaches: xG & EPV pre-match (using features including the last three match performances of teams & contextual factors) and xG & EPV post-match (using xG and EPV performances of the played match). The xG post-match prediction showed the best performance in predicting match outcomes (xG post-match: RPS = 0.148, Accuracy = 0.656; EPV post-match: RPS = 0.191, Accuracy = 0.596). In pre-match scenarios EPV showed higher prediction performance (RPS = 0.194, Accuracy = 0.583) compared to xG (RPS = 0.199, Accuracy = 0.556). Accordingly, xG holds more valuable performance information on the offensive performance of a team in post-match scenarios. In contrast, the EPV pre-match prediction showed powerful results in predicting future match outcomes and thereby showcased the predictiveness of EPV.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.