Results
Brighton & Hove Albion results 2025/2026
Brighton & Hove Albion's recorded results for 2025/2026, newest first, with the available xG behind each score. Compare outcomes with the chances created and conceded, then open a match for more detail.
Results
- Wins – draws – losses (W–D–L)
- 2 wins, 1 draw, 2 losses
7 pts 6–6 goals 0 GD
Chances
- Provider xG / xGA
- 8.91 – 6.49
- 1.78 – 1.30 per match
- xGD
- +2.42
- +0.48 per match
- xG record
- 3 with the chances, 0 with even chances, 2 against them
Comparable xG: 5 of 5 completed results.
Points vs xPts Model
7 pts 8.4 xPts
−1.4 vs xPts
Matched xPts: 5 of 5 selected results.
Model · How xPts works →Match points use 3 for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, before deductions or sanctions.
Points vs xPts uses only matches with available xPts on both sides of the comparison.
What the results say
Last 5 · Premier League · Away
Brighton & Hove Albion's mixed record sits behind chances that argue for more. They out-created the opponent in 3 of 5 matches, for +2.42 xG difference overall on 8.91–6.49. Their points total of 7 sits 1.4 below the model's 8.4 xPts, so the chances have slightly outrun the results. The loss against Leeds United came with +2.67 xGD.
Points minus xPts, match by match
Over these 5 results Brighton & Hove Albion are 1.45 points below their xPts.
- Points
- 7
- xPts
- 8.45
- Gap
- -1.45
- This match
- Match gap
- Running gap
| Date | Opponent | Points | xPts | Match gap | Running gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 14/03 | Sunderland | 3 | 1.85 | +1.15 | +1.15 |
| Sat 11/04 | Burnley | 3 | 2.17 | +0.83 | +1.98 |
| Sat 18/04 | Tottenham Hotspur | 1 | 1.07 | -0.07 | +1.91 |
| Sat 02/05 | Newcastle United | 0 | 0.50 | -0.50 | +1.41 |
| Sun 17/05 | Leeds United | 0 | 2.86 | -2.86 | -1.45 |
Scores and xG
Brighton & Hove Albion first
-
Match analysis →
Why this label · Leeds United, Sun 17/05
The team lost despite recording a positive xG difference. The outcome was weaker than that chance advantage suggests.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 0
- Post-match model xPts
- 2.86
- Points minus xPts
- -2.86
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Newcastle United, Sat 02/05
The team lost and recorded less xG than its opponent. The direction of the result aligns with the chance difference.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 0
- Post-match model xPts
- 0.50
- Points minus xPts
- -0.50
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Tottenham Hotspur, Sat 18/04
The match was drawn although the team recorded less xG. The outcome was stronger than that chance difference suggests.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 1
- Post-match model xPts
- 1.07
- Points minus xPts
- -0.07
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Burnley, Sat 11/04
The team won and had a positive xG difference. The chances support the direction of the result, without making a judgment about fairness.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 3
- Post-match model xPts
- 2.17
- Points minus xPts
- +0.83
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Sunderland, Sat 14/03
The team won and had a positive xG difference. The chances support the direction of the result, without making a judgment about fairness.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 3
- Post-match model xPts
- 1.85
- Points minus xPts
- +1.15
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated →
Biggest underperformance
Leeds United 0:1
· Away xG / xGA 3.06 – 0.39
- Goal difference
- -1
- xGD
- +2.67
- GD minus xGD
- -3.67
Among 5 comparable results.
Open match →
Reading these results
xG is the provider's estimate of chances created; xGA is the opponent's xG. xGD is the difference. Labels compare the recorded outcome with those chances; they are interpretations, not judgments about fairness.
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
How each figure on this page is read
Every xG bar is drawn on one fixed scale: full width is 7.20 xG, the same on every card and in every window, so two cards can be compared by eye. A rarer match above that is capped with a hatched end, and the figure beside the bar still gives its value.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
Goal difference minus xGD says how far a scoreline finished from the chances behind it: a 4:2 won off level chances ran nearly two goals ahead of them. The two callouts under the list name the match that ran furthest each way, and a direction with no result a full goal clear of the chances gets no card rather than a card built from a rounding.
Windows count back from the most recent recorded match, and only matches attached to this club record are included. Home and away mean the provider-designated side, not a verified physical venue. Scores describe recorded play, not shootout advancement. Unverified periods receive no chance comparison.