Backcheck
Pick club
Motion-blurred skater in a Pittsburgh Penguins sweater
← Wed, Sep 30 · the slate
Breakdown · PIT at PHI

Penguins shut out the Flyers, 7-0

FinalWed, Sep 30
PITPittsburgh Penguins7PHIPhiladelphia Flyers0
The verdict · earned

The Penguins earned it — the game and the expected-goals battle both.

PIT 7 · PHI 0
◆ By the ModelOct 4, 5:34 AMxG: xgboost-0.765Edited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

The Penguins' rush game was too much for Philadelphia, earning Pittsburgh a 7-0 shutout with metrics that explained the blowout.

The Flyers underperformed their expected goals by 1.97, scoring nothing despite a modest offensive volume. The Penguins overperformed by 2.25, converting rush chances with clinical efficiency. Pittsburgh built its attack on transition chances: six of seven goals came from the rush.

The Penguins controlled 71% of expected goals, a dominance built on relentless forward pressure. A. Silovs made 19 saves and stopped 1.97 goals above expected.

The Penguins' shot quality was decisive: they generated 0.077 expected goals per shot while Philadelphia managed 0.042.

N. Robertson and V. Koivunen scored in the first period. The second period was relentless, with E. Malkin on the power play, H. Lapierre, and F. Hallander scoring in rapid succession to reach 5-0. N. Robertson added a shorthanded goal in the third, and E. Chinakhov finished with a power-play tip-in.

High-danger chances finished 7-2 Pittsburgh.

Three Stars

  • #11 F. Hallander (PIT) — 1G, 2A
  • #49 S. Girard (PIT) — 2A
  • #6 K. Korczak (PIT) — 2A

The goals

  • PIT 1–0, 07:26 of the first. N. Robertson, tip-in from 16 feet, a 5% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: K. Letang, S. Crosby. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • PIT 2–0, 15:44 of the first. V. Koivunen, backhander from 10 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: S. Girard, K. Korczak. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • PIT 3–0, 05:03 of the second on the power play. E. Malkin, slap shot from 31 feet, an 8% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: H. Lapierre, T. Novak. Win probability moved 9 points.
  • PIT 4–0, 07:26 of the second. H. Lapierre, snap shot from 23 feet, a 20% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: F. Hallander, D. Carlile. 10 seconds after a PHI hit by N. Acciari.
  • PIT 5–0, 10:23 of the second. F. Hallander, wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance by the model, past D. Vladar. Assists: K. Korczak, S. Girard. 5 seconds after a PIT shot by K. Korczak.
  • PIT 6–0, 11:52 of the third shorthanded. N. Robertson, snap shot from 27 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: F. Hallander.
  • PIT 7–0, 16:37 of the third on the power play. E. Chinakhov, tip-in from 9 feet, an 11% chance by the model (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Assists: E. Karlsson, R. Rakell.

What the numbers can't tell you. Whether the finishing was luck or skill, why the benches were run the way they were, who was hurt, and anything said in the room. That is the beat's story, and it is worth reading.

The breakdown in twelve frames

Swipe it

Every number is from this page
Final · Sep 30
PIT
7
PHI
0

Penguins shut out the Flyers, 7-0

Chances 4.8 – 2.0Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

The Penguins earned this one.

Expected goals · chance value
PIT
4.75
PHI
1.97
71% of the chances29%

The board read PIT 7, PHI 0. The chances read PIT 4.8, PHI 2.0.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
PIT
+2.3
goals above expected
PIT4.75 expected · 7 scored
Expected
Scored
PHI1.97 expected · 0 scored
Expected
Scored

The Penguins scored 2.3 more than their chances were worth. That does not repeat.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+15
win-probability points
46% → 62% for PIT
PHI 100%the game, start to finish
PIT 100%P1 · P2 · P3
PITP1 07:26

N. Robertson makes it 1–0.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 07:26PITN. Robertson5%1–0
  2. P1 15:44PITV. Koivunen14%2–0
  3. P2 05:03PITE. MalkinPP8%3–0
  4. P2 07:26PITH. Lapierre20%4–0
  5. P2 10:23PITF. Hallander14%5–0
  6. P3 11:52PITN. RobertsonSH14%6–0
  7. P3 16:37PITE. ChinakhovPP11%7–0
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
PIT
53 shots
7
Final
87 shots
PHI
34 shots
0
PIT attackPHI attack
PIT PHI Goal
53
shots · 7 in
34
shots · 0 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
PITPHI
1 / 7
1.53 xG
High danger
0 / 2
0.43 xG
5 / 23
2.68 xG
Medium
0 / 11
1.04 xG
1 / 32
0.54 xG
Low
0 / 34
0.50 xG

High-danger looks: PIT 1 of 7, PHI 0 of 2.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
A. Silovs
+2.0
PIT · 19/19 · 60:00
Best save · a 24% chance, deflected from 7 ft · P3 12:23
F
D. Vladar
−2.3
PHI · 31/38 · 59:41
Best save · a 24% chance, snap from 16 ft · P3 02:19
Best skater on the ice
A+
PIT
F. Hallander
C · impact 2.94
10:55
Ice time
1–2
G – A
0.60
Own xG
69%
xG share
Impact · top 4
F. Hallander2.9A+
N. Robertson2.5A+
H. Lapierre2.4A+
S. Girard2.2A
Report card
PITPHI
OffenseA+D+
DefenseB-F
TransitionAF
Special teamsA+D-
GoaltendingAF
DisciplineB-C-
LuckA+F
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why PIT won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Won on the merits
  3. 03A. Silovs tilted the crease
Why PHI lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02D. Vladar couldn't make the stop
  3. 03PDO ran cold
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Penguins shut out the Flyers, 7-0

A model, not a newsroom. Every number on these frames comes from the NHL's play-by-play and our own models. Nothing was watched, guessed or heard from anyone.

Read the full breakdown
backcheckreport.com
01 / 12 · Final
Every goal, in order

How it happened

NHL play-by-play
1stshots 11–5
  1. 07:26PITN. Robertson(K. Letang, S. Crosby)1–0

    Tip-in from 16 feet, a 5% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: S. Crosby, E. Karlsson, R. Rakell, N. Robertson, D. Carlile · against C. Dvorak, T. Konecny, C. York, J. Drysdale, T. Foerster

  2. 15:44PITV. Koivunen(S. Girard, K. Korczak)2–0

    Backhander from 10 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: S. Girard, F. Hallander, K. Korczak, H. Lapierre, V. Koivunen · against C. Dvorak, T. Konecny, C. York, J. Drysdale, T. Foerster

2ndshots 15–7
  1. 05:03PITE. Malkinpower play(H. Lapierre, T. Novak)3–0

    Slap shot from 31 feet, an 8% chance, a shot that rarely goes in (off the rush), past D. Vladar. Win probability moved 9 points.On the ice: S. Girard, C. Dewar, B. Lizotte, K. Korczak, E. Soderblom · against N. Cates, S. Benoit, J. Drysdale, A. Bump, M. Michkov

  2. 07:26PITH. Lapierre(F. Hallander, D. Carlile)4–0

    Snap shot from 23 feet, a 20% chance (off the rush), past D. Vladar. 10s after a PHI hit by N. Acciari.On the ice: E. Malkin, T. Novak, S. Girard, K. Korczak, E. Chinakhov · against N. Seeler, C. Dvorak, T. Konecny, S. Benoit, T. Foerster

  3. 10:23PITF. Hallander(K. Korczak, S. Girard)5–0

    Wrist shot from 7 feet, a 14% chance, past D. Vladar. 5s after a PIT shot by K. Korczak.On the ice: E. Malkin, T. Novak, S. Girard, K. Korczak, E. Chinakhov · against N. Seeler, N. Acciari, N. Cates, S. Benoit, A. Bump

3rdshots 12–7
  1. 11:52PITN. Robertsonshorthanded(F. Hallander)6–0

    Snap shot from 27 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past D. Vladar.On the ice: R. Rakell, T. van Riemsdyk, E. Chinakhov, D. Carlile · against C. Dvorak, T. Konecny, O. Tippett, C. York, A. Bump

  2. 16:37PITE. Chinakhovpower play(E. Karlsson, R. Rakell)7–0

    Tip-in from 9 feet, an 11% chance (off the rush), past D. Vladar.On the ice: E. Malkin, T. van Riemsdyk, N. Robertson, H. Lapierre, D. Carlile · against N. Seeler, S. Benoit, T. Zegras, A. Bump, P. Martone

score reads PIT–PHI

Source · NHL play-by-play (api-web.nhle.com)
Process vs result

The numbers

XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
4.75
PIT chances
Goals their shots were worth
+2.3
Finishing
Goals above what those chances were worth
1.113
PIT puck luck
Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
56.9%
Shot attempts
Over half — they had the puck more
Split by club

Who controlled the game

4.75Expected goals1.97
PIT 71% of the chance quality
38Shots on goal19
7High-danger chances2
62All attempts (Corsi)47
Adjusted for score: PIT 50% · PHI 50%
Faceoffs · PHI won71%off47%neu67%def
Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
How the game was won

The danger ladder

shotsgoalsexpected
High dangerslot & crease
PIT1 / 7 · 1.53 xG
PHI0 / 2 · 0.43 xG
Medium dangermid-range
PIT5 / 23 · 2.68 xG
PHI0 / 11 · 1.04 xG
Low dangerperimeter & point
PIT1 / 32 · 0.54 xG
PHI0 / 34 · 0.50 xG

PIT went 5-for-23 from medium danger on 2.68 expected goals — 2.3 above expected.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL play-by-play
The luck layer

Finishing vs expected

expectedactual
PIT
7 G · 4.75 xG · +2.3
PHI
0 G · 1.97 xG · -2.0
012345678

PIT finished +2.3 against expected, PHI -2.0.

Source · Backcheck xG model
Shot types · rush and rebound chancesopen +
What they shot — and what went in

Shot diet

goalsshots
PIT
SNAP2/25
WRIST1/9
SLAP1/8
TIP IN2/6
BACKHAND1/3
WRAP AROUND0/2
DEFLECTED0/0
OTHER0/9
PHI
SNAP0/5
WRIST0/16
SLAP0/5
TIP IN0/2
BACKHAND0/4
WRAP AROUND0/0
DEFLECTED0/2
OTHER0/13
PIT
PHI
Off the rush
6 G on 28
2.96 xG
0 G on 19
1.36 xG
Off rebounds
0 G on 6
0.85 xG
0 G on 1
0.11 xG

Snap shots carried the volume: PIT went 2-for-25, PHI 0-for-5. PIT scored 6 of theirs off the rush.

Source · Backcheck xG model · NHL shot types
New to these numbers?

Two things happened in this game: who created the better chances, and who put the puck in the net. They are not the same thing, and this page separates them on purpose.

The one to watch is expected goals— the best single read on who deserved to win. When it disagrees with the scoreboard, that disagreement is usually the story. Nothing here is a projection; every figure is computed from this game's play-by-play. Full glossary →

xG
Expected goals. Every shot scored by how often that exact look goes in. 2.5 xG means the chances were worth about two and a half goals.
HD
High-danger chances — shots from the slot and the crease, where shots actually become goals.
Corsi
Every shot attempt, including the ones that missed or got blocked. A rough read on who had the puck.
Adj.
Score-adjusted. Teams that trail shoot more and teams that lead sit back, so this corrects the attempt count for the scoreboard.
GSAx
Goals saved above expected. A positive number means the goalie stopped more than an average goalie would have on those shots.
PDO
Shooting % plus save % — a luck gauge. It sits near 1.000 over a season, so a game far from it usually means the bounces decided it.
Shot by shot

In the net

Graded on goals saved above expected
A. Silovs
PIT · 19/19 · 1.000
started · 60:00 · win
+2.0
saved above expected
A
the night
Attempts faced
32
Avg chance faced
6.2%
Stopped vs expected
1.000 vs 0.938
Rebounds allowed
1
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger0/20.4+0.4
Medium0/111.0+1.0
Low0/190.5+0.5
Shorthanded0/110.9+0.9
Tips & deflections0/30.4+0.4
The save
24% chance stopped, a deflected from 7 ft · P3 12:23

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

D. Vladar
PHI · 31/38 · .816
started · 59:41 · loss
-2.3
saved above expected
F
the night
Attempts faced
53
Avg chance faced
9.0%
Stopped vs expected
0.868 vs 0.910
Rebounds allowed
6
By dangerG/attxGsaved
High danger1/71.5+0.5
Medium5/232.7-2.3
Low1/230.5-0.5
Shorthanded2/70.6-1.4
Tips & deflections2/60.5-1.5
The save
24% chance stopped, a snap from 16 ft · P3 02:19
The one to have back
5% chance went in, a tip-in from 16 ft · P1 07:26

A+ ≥ +2.5 saved above expected · A ≥ +1.5 · B+ ≥ +0.75 · B ≥ +0.25 · C ≥ −0.25 · D ≥ −0.75 · F below −1.5

Every skater who dressed

Who played

Rated on what they produced and how fast

Best skater on the ice by our rating: F. Hallander (PIT), 10:55 of ice, 1-2, 69% of the expected goals while he was out.

PIT18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
F. HallanderC10:551-269A+
N. RobertsonL15:022-078A+
H. LapierreC13:021-188A+
S. GirardD21:020-272A
K. KorczakD18:310-273A
K. LetangD18:440-191A
V. KoivunenR13:501-078A
R. RakellR18:320-177A
E. MalkinC15:471-082B
S. CrosbyC17:390-183B
E. KarlssonD19:590-173B
E. ChinakhovR16:581-065B
B. LizotteC13:130-060B
T. NovakC16:040-170B
D. CarlileD16:300-160B
T. van RiemsdykD20:420-064C
C. DewarC14:510-065C
E. SoderblomL12:390-048C
PHI18 skaters
SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
A. BumpL14:390-044C
N. AcciariC15:200-050C
C. DvorakC14:580-040C
O. TippettR14:110-035C
C. YorkD21:080-045C
M. MichkovR15:470-040D
T. FoersterR17:080-036D
T. KonecnyR14:470-040D
N. CatesL14:170-026D
J. DrysdaleD17:210-042D
C. GrundstromR12:010-025D
T. ZegrasC16:250-025D
S. BenoitD18:290-09D
S. CouturierC15:040-018F
T. SanheimD20:150-015F
R. RistolainenD17:400-019F
N. SeelerD19:540-013F
P. MartoneR14:050-019F

xG% = share of expected goals while on the ice · PD/PT = penalties drawn / taken · “in N min” = a per-60 rate far above the raw total. Impact = 0.75 G + 0.7 A1 + 0.55 A2 + 0.075 SOG + 0.05 BLK + 0.15 penalties drawn − 0.15 taken + 0.01 faceoff wins − 0.01 losses + 0.3 individual xG + 0.5 on-ice xG for − 0.5 on-ice xG against. Rating = 65% impact + 35% impact per 60, as a percentile among the skaters in this game.

Scratched, PIT: D. Gustafsson, I. Solovyov, R. McGroarty. Scratched, PHI: G. Wilson, D. Jiricek, N. Grebenkin. Referees Frederick L'Ecuyer and Justin Kea; linesmen Scott Cherrey and Julien Fournier.

Graded against a league-average game

Report card

Seven dimensions · A+ to F
DimensionPITPHI
Offense
▸Basis

PIT Created 4.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 7 high-danger shots (1.53 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.96 xG).

PHI Created 1.97 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.43 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.36 xG).

A+
100
D+
68
Defense
▸Basis

PIT Allowed 1.97 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.43 xG) and 19 rush shots (1.36 xG).

PHI Allowed 4.75 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 7 high-danger shots (1.53 xG) and 28 rush shots (2.96 xG).

B-
82
F
44
Transition
▸Basis

PIT Rush shots 28–19, rush xG 2.96–1.36 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

PHI Rush shots 19–28, rush xG 1.36–2.96 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

A
96
F
54
Special teams
▸Basis

PIT 2-for-4 on the power play (50%; league ≈21%) with 0.63 PP xG.

PHI 0-for-3 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.92 PP xG.

A+
100
D-
60
Goaltending
▸Basis

PIT +1.97 goals saved above expected on 19 shots against.

PHI -2.25 goals saved above expected on 38 shots against.

A
95
F
53
Discipline
▸Basis

PIT Took 4 penalties for 8 PIM vs 5 for 10 on the other side.

PHI Took 5 penalties for 10 PIM vs 4 for 8 on the other side.

B-
80
C-
70
Luck

Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

▸Basis

PIT Finishing +2.25 goals vs xG plus +1.97 GSAx of save luck = +4.22 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

PHI Finishing -1.97 goals vs xG plus -2.25 GSAx of save luck = -4.22 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

A+
100
F
41
Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
What the model flagged
STRENGTHPIT

Dangerous off the rush

6 goals on 28 rush shots worth 2.96 xG.

WARNINGPHI

Rush defense leaked all night

Gave up 28 rush shots worth 2.96 xG (6 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

Tighten neutral-zone structure and keep D gaps closed on entries.

WARNINGPHI

D. Vladar couldn't make the stop

D. Vladar allowed 7 on 38 shots (0.816) — 2.25 goals worse than expected.

Reassess the crease rotation before the next start.

LUCKPHI

PDO ran cold

Single-game PDO of 0.887 — the bounces went against them tonight.

LUCKPIT

PDO ran hot

Single-game PDO of 1.113 — the bounces went their way tonight.

STRENGTHPIT

Won on the merits

The Penguins controlled 71% of expected goals (4.75–1.97) and won 7-0 — result matched process.

87 shots · press play to watch the game back

Where the shots came from

NHL play-by-play coordinates
PIT
53 shots
7
Final
87 shots
PHI
34 shots
0
PIT attackPHI attack
PIT PHI Goal

Each club shoots toward its own end — PIT left, PHI right — the way you would watch it. A dot's size is how dangerous the look was, from distance and angle; it is a proxy for shot quality, not the xG model the article is written from. Hover a dot for the shooter and the clock.

Ranked from the box score

Three stars

Points first
Three stars · computed, not voted
F. Hallander
#11 · C · PIT
1 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 10:55 on ice · +4
S. Girard
#49 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 2 SOG · 21:02 on ice · +3
K. Korczak
#6 · D · PIT
0 G · 2 A · 3 SOG · 18:31 on ice · +3
Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
What the model said beforehand

Before the game

Written Wed, Sep 30
Open the pre-game read
Written from the numbers

The read

Edited for clarity
◆ By the ModelOct 4, 5:32 AMEdited for clarityDrafted from NHL play-by-play by Backcheck's model, worded for clarity by an AI editor that may not change a number. Nobody at Backcheck was at the rink. How this works

Pittsburgh barely wins this coin flip. The model projects a 3.3 to 3.1 Penguins victory with a 52% win probability — as close to a pick'em as the numbers get. This is a matchup where the better team doesn't win by margin, but by execution.

Pittsburgh owns the underlying play. The Penguins claim 62.2% of expected goals at even strength against Philadelphia's 30.8%, a chasm that usually decides playoff series. They drive 52.4% of shot attempts, territorial control that wears down opponents over sixty minutes. Philadelphia survives by winning their moments rather than stealing puck time — their shot attempts hover at 33.7%.

The risk is regression. Pittsburgh's PDO sits at 1.071, meaning the Penguins are converting at an unsustainable clip and allowing less than their workload should permit. Philadelphia, by contrast, sits at 0.992, running closer to their underlying numbers. Regression cuts both ways, and Pittsburgh is the side most likely to regress down toward normal.

Goaltending tips toward Pittsburgh. A. Silovs carries a minus-0.6 expected goals against average over two starts with an 88.6% save percentage, closer to normal than his team's overall dominance. A. Kolosov gets the other net. Silovs' numbers suggest Pittsburgh's deployment edge matters more than goaltending luck on this particular night.

The Penguins have scored five goals on 49 slot shots (10%) against Philadelphia's three goals on 35 (9%). Marginal edges are what close games are made of. Deny Pittsburgh that real estate and the math shifts.

What the model said beforehand

The model's lean

PIT 52%
52%
PIT
Model favorite
52%
48%
PIT50PHI

PIT by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score PIT 3.3–3.1 PHI; 16% chance it's tied after 60.

Source · Backcheck Poisson projection · season scoring rates
Season rates · 5v5

Tale of the tape

NHL stats API · our xG
PIT← edge
edge →PHI
62.2%30.8%
52.4%33.7%
3.852.02
2.344.54
6.501.33
2.504.33
1.0710.992

PIT holds 6 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (1.071 vs 0.992) says PIT has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
Form · No games yet
PIT
0-0-0
+0 GD · 3d rest
PHI
0-0-0
+0 GD · 3d rest
1.071
PIT PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
0.992
PHI PDO
Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
What decides it

Keys to the game

TACTICAL

The Penguins own the underlying play

The Penguins own the underlying play — 62.2% 5v5 xG vs 30.8%.

TACTICAL

The Penguins drive Corsi at 52.4%

The Penguins drive Corsi at 52.4% — expect territorial tilt.

WARNINGPIT

Regression watch: Penguins

The Penguins' PDO is 1.071 — running hot, expect some regression.

Weight the underlying numbers over the recent results.

TACTICAL

No daylight between these two

Win probability splits 48%–52% — margins decide this one.

Where the edges live
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 62.2% 5v5 xG vs 30.8%.
  • The Penguins drive Corsi at 52.4% — expect territorial tilt.
Regression watch
  • The Penguins' PDO is 1.071 — running hot, expect some regression.
Things to watch
  • The Penguins own the underlying play — 62.2% 5v5 xG vs 30.8%.
  • The Penguins drive Corsi at 52.4% — expect territorial tilt.
  • Goalie matchup: A. Silovs (-0.6 GSAx in 2 GP, 88.6% SV) vs A. Kolosov.
  • The Penguins' PDO is 1.071 — running hot, expect some regression.
Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

Lineups

NHL box score
PIT
Expected in goal
A. Silovs
3 days rest.958 last start

No completed game on file for this club yet.

PHI
Expected in goal
A. Kolosov
3 days rest.792 last start
Backup Joseph Woll · +2.8 GSAx this season

No completed game on file for this club yet.

Lineups are the players who dressed in each club's last game, with their minutes; clubs confirm tonight's at warm-up. Every player this preview names was in that lineup.

Keep going

Where to next

Back to the front page