Across the opening five matchweeks of the 2026/27 Premier League season, matches averaged 2.70 non-penalty goals against 2.88 non-penalty expected goals.
Across a league, that works out at almost two goals per week that the underlying chances suggested could have been scored.
For anyone comparing football numbers through vippari, the gap is a reminder that the final score does not always describe the chances behind it. Fourteen of the 20 clubs were below their expected scoring output, while 24 team performances finished at least one goal below xG. Over the opening 50 matches of the previous season, there had been only half as many.
The chances were there even when the goals were not
Premier League sides averaged 24.8 touches in the opposition penalty area per match, only 0.6 fewer than the previous season. Non-penalty shot quality across the league also remained broadly similar.
Manchester United show why volume alone can mislead. After five games they had taken more non-penalty shots than any other side and recorded 182 touches in the opposition box, the league’s highest figure.
They had scored only eight goals and were joint-second bottom for average xG per shot.
Manchester City sat at the other end of the scale. Their average non-penalty attempt carried 0.15 xG, the best figure in the league, while their non-penalty conversion rate was 19.1%.
The difference was not just how often the two teams shot, but the quality of those attempts.
Coventry show what underperformance can look like
Coventry produced the widest early gap between goals and expected goals.
Across their first five league matches, they scored once from 4.88 xG, an underperformance of 3.88 goals. Their first goal arrived in a 1–0 win at Nottingham Forest.
That did not mean another four goals were owed to them. It showed that Coventry had created considerably more than a one-goal record suggested.
The opening sample contained several useful contrasts:
- Coventry: one goal from 4.88 xG;
- Manchester United: league-high shot volume but weak average shot quality;
- Manchester City: 0.15 xG per non-penalty shot and 19.1% conversion;
- 14 of 20 clubs: scoring below expected output.
The same gap between goals and xG could therefore come from very different attacking problems.
Shot volume and shot quality are not the same thing
Across all 20 clubs, the leading xG player at each side had collectively scored 6.8 fewer non-penalty goals than expected. Those 20 players accounted for almost 40% of the league-wide shortfall.
Everton offered one of the clearest examples. Thierno Barry accounted for 49.4% of Everton’s non-penalty xG, compared with 17.7% the previous season. He had scored twice from chances worth 3.5 xG.
When nearly half of a team’s expected scoring is concentrated in one player, one cold finishing spell can pull the whole attack below expectation.
Betting markets cannot treat xG as a promise
The distinction matters for totals, both-teams-to-score markets and player props.
A team running below xG is often described as being “due” more goals. Sometimes the gap narrows. It is not automatic.
Coventry’s 4.88 xG was more encouraging than a side creating almost nothing. Manchester United required more caution because much of their shot volume came from lower-value attempts.
Ten weak shots and five strong chances can produce similar shot counts while pointing to different scoring expectations.
Football markets may appear on the same platform as vippari casino, but xG belongs specifically to sports analysis. For totals and player lines, shot quality, minutes and the distribution of chances can all change how the numbers should be read.
Player props also need more than an accumulated xG figure, especially when one forward takes an unusually large share of his team’s chances.
Why the gap does not always close the same way
The opening five matchweeks were a small sample, but they showed several reasons why scoring can fall behind expected output.
Some gaps narrow as finishing returns to normal. Others last longer because of poor shot selection, reliance on one scorer or a system that creates plenty of attempts without enough clear chances.
That is why xG works best as context rather than prediction. It can show that a scoring record deserves a second look, but it cannot promise that the missing goals will arrive later.
