Tottenham Hotspur'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)
- 1 win, 2 draws, 2 losses
5 pts 5–9 goals −4 GD
Chances
- Provider xG / xGA
- 6.23 – 5.83
- 1.25 – 1.17 per match
- xGD
- +0.40
- +0.08 per match
- xG record
- 2 with the chances, 2 with even chances, 1 against them
Comparable xG: 5 of 5 completed results.
Points vs xPts Model
5 pts 7.2 xPts
−2.2 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 · All competitions · Home
Tottenham Hotspur's mixed record matches the chances at both ends. They out-created the opponent in 2 of 5 matches, for +0.40 xG difference overall on 6.23–5.83. Their points total of 5 sits 2.2 below the model's 7.2 xPts, so the chances have clearly outrun the results.
Points minus xPts, match by match
Over these 5 results Tottenham Hotspur are 2.21 points below their xPts. The gap was widest at -3.18, against Leeds United on Mon 11/05.
- Points
- 5
- xPts
- 7.21
- Gap
- -2.21
- This match
- Match gap
- Running gap
| Date | Opponent | Points | xPts | Match gap | Running gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thu 05/03 | Crystal Palace | 0 | 1.22 | -1.22 | -1.22 |
| Sun 22/03 | Nottingham Forest | 0 | 1.08 | -1.08 | -2.30 |
| Sat 18/04 | Brighton & Hove Albion | 1 | 1.58 | -0.58 | -2.88 |
| Mon 11/05 | Leeds United | 1 | 1.30 | -0.30 | -3.18 |
| Sun 24/05 | Everton | 3 | 2.03 | +0.97 | -2.21 |
Scores and xG
Tottenham Hotspur first
-
Match analysis →
Why this label · Everton, Sun 24/05
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
- 2.04
- Points minus xPts
- +0.96
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 · Leeds United, Mon 11/05
The match was drawn and the chance difference was approximately even. The two readings broadly align.
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
- 1.29
- Points minus xPts
- -0.29
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 · Brighton & Hove Albion, Sat 18/04
The match was drawn although the team recorded 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
- 1
- Post-match model xPts
- 1.58
- Points minus xPts
- -0.58
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 · Nottingham Forest, Sun 22/03
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
- 1.09
- Points minus xPts
- -1.09
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 · Crystal Palace, Thu 05/03
The team lost, while the chance difference was approximately even. The outcome was weaker than that difference alone 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
- 1.22
- Points minus xPts
- -1.22
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
Nottingham Forest 0:3
· Home xG / xGA 1.14 – 1.48
- Goal difference
- -3
- xGD
- -0.34
- GD minus xGD
- -2.66
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.