Motion-blurred skater in a Nashville Predators sweater
Breakdown · DAL at NSH

Predators hold off the Stars

The verdict · coin flip

The Predators won a genuine coin flip — neither side controlled the run of play.

DAL 1 · NSH 2
◆ By the ModelOct 3, 10:41 PMxG: 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

Nashville edged Dallas 2–1. J. Saros was the story—he made the saves that mattered while Dallas generated chance after chance and found nothing. N. Hoglander's deflection at 15:49 of the first, off a set play with J. Ahcan and A. Kerfoot, gave Nashville a lead they would not relinquish.

M. Heiskanen had opened for Dallas at 00:47 off the rush, with M. Rantanen and W. Johnston setting it up. S. Stamkos tied it on the power play at 04:46 (R. O'Reilly and R. Josi the setup men), but Hoglander's tally on another Dallas penalty proved the gulf between the edges and the finish.

Dallas should have won on the expected-goals metric: 2.60–2.52, a near tie that favored Nashville. Dallas threw 30 shots on goal, Nashville 26. But Saros stopped 1.52 goals more than his workload should have allowed. Nashville converted what mattered—2 goals on 4 high-danger chances—while Dallas finished none of its two. On the power play, Nashville scored twice on five shots. C. DeSmith posted 24 saves on 26 shots.

The goals

  • DAL 1–0, 00:47 of the first. M. Heiskanen, wrist shot from 29 feet, a 14% chance by the model (off the rush), past J. Saros. Assists: M. Rantanen, W. Johnston. 10 seconds after a DAL faceoff win by M. Rantanen. Win probability moved 14 points.
  • NSH 1–1, 04:46 of the first on the power play. S. Stamkos, snap shot from 20 feet, a 19% chance by the model (off the rush), past C. DeSmith. Assists: R. O'Reilly, R. Josi. Win probability moved 15 points.
  • NSH 1–2, 15:49 of the first on the power play. N. Hoglander, deflection from 7 feet, a 22% chance by the model (off the rush), past C. DeSmith. Assists: J. Ahcan, A. Kerfoot. 1 second after a NSH blocked shot by N. Lundkvist. Win probability moved 17 points.

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 · Oct 3
DAL
1
NSH
2

Predators hold off the Stars

Chances 2.5 – 2.6Did they deserve it? →
Did they deserve it?

Dead even on chances. The Predators took it anyway.

Expected goals · chance value
DAL
2.52
NSH
2.60
49% of the chances51%

The board read DAL 1, NSH 2. The chances read DAL 2.5, NSH 2.6.

Our xG model · NHL play-by-play · all situations
Luck check
NSH
−0.6
goals above expected
NSH2.60 expected · 2 scored
Expected
Scored
DAL2.52 expected · 1 scored
Expected
Scored

The Stars left 1.5 goals on the table against what their chances were worth.

PDO = sh% + sv% · drifts to 1.000 over a season
The swing
+17
win-probability points
54% → 70% for NSH
NSH 100%the game, start to finish
DAL 100%P1 · P2 · P3
NSHP1 15:49 · PP

N. Hoglander makes it 1–2.

In-game win model · fitted on 5,248 games
Every goal, in order
  1. P1 00:47DALM. Heiskanen14%1–0
  2. P1 04:46NSHS. StamkosPP19%1–1
  3. P1 15:49NSHN. HoglanderPP22%1–2
NHL play-by-play · chance value from our xG model
Where the shots came from
DAL
47 shots
1
Final
86 shots
NSH
39 shots
2
DAL attackNSH attack
DAL NSH Goal
47
shots · 1 in
39
shots · 2 in
Every unblocked shot · press play to replay it
Chances by danger
DALNSH
0 / 2
0.38 xG
High danger
2 / 4
0.80 xG
1 / 16
1.61 xG
Medium
0 / 13
1.34 xG
0 / 47
0.53 xG
Low
0 / 35
0.46 xG

The Predators buried 2 of 4 high-danger looks.

Danger tiers by our xG model · high ≥ 20% chance
In the net
A
J. Saros
+1.5
NSH · 29/30 · 59:57
Best save · a 20% chance, snap from 32 ft · P3 11:48
B
C. DeSmith
+0.6
DAL · 24/26 · 58:24
Best save · a 22% chance, snap from 9 ft · P1 05:00
Best skater on the ice
A+
DAL
M. Heiskanen
D · impact 1.63
24:35
Ice time
1–0
G – A
0.37
Own xG
67%
xG share
Impact · top 4
M. Heiskanen1.6A+
N. Hoglander1.3A+
J. Ahcan0.9A+
S. Stamkos1.2A
Report card
DALNSH
OffenseCC+
DefenseCC+
TransitionD+B
Special teamsDA+
GoaltendingB-A-
DisciplineDB
LuckD+B-
Seven dimensions, A+ to F · basis on the breakdown
Why it went the way it went
Why NSH won
  1. 01Dangerous off the rush
  2. 02Power play cashed in
  3. 03Clinical in the slot
Why DAL lost
  1. 01Rush defense leaked all night
  2. 02Cold finishing night
  3. 03Paraded to the penalty box
Our storyline model · reasoning on the breakdown
The numbers, checked
BACKCHECK

Predators hold off the Stars

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 9–15
  1. 00:47DALM. Heiskanen(M. Rantanen, W. Johnston)1–0

    Wrist shot from 29 feet, a 14% chance (off the rush), past J. Saros. 10s after a DAL faceoff win by M. Rantanen. Win probability moved 14 points.On the ice: E. Lindell, M. Rantanen, M. Heiskanen, W. Johnston, J. Hryckowian · against S. Stamkos, R. O'Reilly, B. Skjei, A. Kerfoot, N. Perbix

  2. 04:46NSHS. Stamkospower play(R. O'Reilly, R. Josi)1–1

    Snap shot from 20 feet, a 19% chance (off the rush), past C. DeSmith. Win probability moved 15 points.On the ice: B. Skjei, A. Kerfoot, N. Perbix, J. Drury, A. Edstrom · against M. Rantanen, N. Lundkvist, T. Harley, W. Johnston, J. Hryckowian

  3. 15:49NSHN. Hoglanderpower play(J. Ahcan, A. Kerfoot)1–2

    Deflection from 7 feet, a 22% chance (off the rush), past C. DeSmith. 1s after a NSH block. Win probability moved 17 points.On the ice: B. Skjei, R. Colton, N. Perbix, J. Drury, A. Edstrom · against T. Myers, M. Rantanen, W. Johnston, L. Bichsel, J. Hryckowian

2ndshots 9–5no goals
    3rdshots 12–6no goals

      score reads DAL–NSH

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

      The numbers

      XGBoost xG · NHL play-by-play
      2.60
      NSH chances
      Goals their shots were worth
      −0.6
      Finishing
      Goals below what those chances were worth
      1.023
      NSH puck luck
      Above 1.000 — the bounces went their way
      44.4%
      Shot attempts
      Under half — they were outshot
      Split by club

      Who controlled the game

      2.52Expected goals2.60
      NSH 51% of the chance quality
      30Shots on goal26
      2High-danger chances4
      65All attempts (Corsi)52
      Adjusted for score: DAL 58% · NSH 42%
      Faceoffs · NSH won50%off83%neu42%def
      Source · NHL play-by-play · XGBoost xG
      How the game was won

      The danger ladder

      shotsgoalsexpected
      High dangerslot & crease
      DAL0 / 2 · 0.38 xG
      NSH2 / 4 · 0.80 xG
      Medium dangermid-range
      DAL1 / 16 · 1.61 xG
      NSH0 / 13 · 1.34 xG
      Low dangerperimeter & point
      DAL0 / 47 · 0.53 xG
      NSH0 / 35 · 0.46 xG

      NSH went 0-for-13 from medium danger on 1.34 expected goals — 1.3 left on the table.

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

      Finishing vs expected

      expectedactual
      DAL
      1 G · 2.52 xG · -1.5
      NSH
      2 G · 2.60 xG · -0.6
      0123

      DAL finished -1.5 against expected, NSH -0.6.

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

      Shot diet

      goalsshots
      DAL
      WRIST1/23
      TIP IN0/4
      SLAP0/6
      BACKHAND0/7
      SNAP0/3
      DEFLECTED0/1
      WRAP AROUND0/2
      POKE0/1
      BAT0/0
      OTHER0/18
      NSH
      WRIST0/11
      TIP IN0/10
      SLAP0/6
      BACKHAND0/4
      SNAP1/5
      DEFLECTED1/2
      WRAP AROUND0/0
      POKE0/0
      BAT0/1
      OTHER0/13
      DAL
      NSH
      Off the rush
      1 G on 20
      1.29 xG
      2 G on 24
      1.86 xG
      Off rebounds
      0 G on 5
      0.55 xG
      0 G on 3
      0.40 xG

      Wrist shots carried the volume: DAL went 1-for-23, NSH 0-for-11. NSH scored 2 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
      C. DeSmith
      DAL · 24/26 · .923
      started · 58:24 · loss
      +0.6
      saved above expected
      B
      the night
      Attempts faced
      38
      Avg chance faced
      6.8%
      Stopped vs expected
      0.947 vs 0.932
      Rebounds allowed
      3
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger2/40.8-1.2
      Medium0/131.3+1.3
      Low0/210.5+0.5
      Shorthanded2/30.6-1.4
      Tips & deflections1/110.7-0.3
      The save
      22% chance stopped, a snap from 9 ft · P1 05:00
      The one to have back
      19% chance went in, a snap from 20 ft · P1 04:46

      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

      J. Saros
      NSH · 29/30 · .967
      started · 59:57 · win
      +1.5
      saved above expected
      A
      the night
      Attempts faced
      47
      Avg chance faced
      5.4%
      Stopped vs expected
      0.979 vs 0.946
      Rebounds allowed
      5
      By dangerG/attxGsaved
      High danger0/20.4+0.4
      Medium1/161.6+0.6
      Low0/290.5+0.5
      Shorthanded0/60.5+0.5
      Tips & deflections0/50.3+0.3
      The save
      20% chance stopped, a snap from 32 ft · P3 11:48
      The one to have back
      14% chance went in, a wrist from 29 ft · P1 00:47

      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: M. Heiskanen (DAL), 24:35 of ice, 1-0, 67% of the expected goals while he was out.

      DAL18 skaters
      SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
      M. HeiskanenD24:351-067A+
      M. RantanenR23:550-153A
      W. JohnstonC22:500-152A
      R. HintzC16:030-055B
      O. BäckC9:380-052C
      J. BennL13:120-068C
      S. SteelC16:090-055C
      R. FaksaC10:280-073C
      J. RobertsonL18:500-062D
      A. HyryR12:290-043D
      T. HarleyD25:570-046D
      T. SeguinC12:340-025D
      N. LundkvistD19:010-034D
      C. BlackwellC7:290-036F
      L. BichselD15:120-027F
      T. MyersD14:270-027F
      E. LindellD19:110-040F
      J. HryckowianC14:300-030F
      NSH18 skaters
      SkaterTOIG-AxG%Grade
      N. HoglanderL11:371-086A+
      J. AhcanD5:490-175A+
      S. StamkosC20:021-050A
      A. KerfootC16:230-158A
      R. JosiD24:380-145A
      R. O'ReillyC19:530-137B
      A. EdstromC13:590-063B
      M. WoodR16:060-056B
      A. WilsbyD14:330-068B
      W. TrudeauD12:150-067B
      F. ForsbergL21:400-077B
      B. SkjeiD18:050-052C
      J. DruryC13:380-063C
      N. PerbixD18:390-051C
      J. MarchessaultR16:220-039C
      M. BourqueC18:050-050D
      R. ColtonC15:190-046D
      N. HagueD21:000-040D

      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, DAL: K. Capobianco, J. Kiviranta. Scratched, NSH: I. Lyubushkin, J. Annunen, R. Schaefer. Referees Garrett Rank and Beau Halkidis; linesmen Shandor Alphonso and Ryan Jackson.

      Graded against a league-average game

      Report card

      Seven dimensions · A+ to F
      DimensionDALNSH
      Offense
      ▸Basis

      DAL Created 2.52 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 2 high-danger shots (0.38 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.29 xG).

      NSH Created 2.60 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; 4 high-danger shots (0.80 xG) and 24 rush shots (1.86 xG).

      C
      73
      C+
      77
      Defense
      ▸Basis

      DAL Allowed 2.60 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 4 high-danger shots (0.80 xG) and 24 rush shots (1.86 xG).

      NSH Allowed 2.52 xG against a ~2.70 league-average game; conceded 2 high-danger shots (0.38 xG) and 20 rush shots (1.29 xG).

      C
      73
      C+
      77
      Transition
      ▸Basis

      DAL Rush shots 20–24, rush xG 1.29–1.86 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

      NSH Rush shots 24–20, rush xG 1.86–1.29 (rush-based; public data has no zone entries).

      D+
      67
      B
      83
      Special teams
      ▸Basis

      DAL 0-for-1 on the power play (0%; league ≈21%) with 0.46 PP xG.

      NSH 2-for-3 on the power play (67%; league ≈21%) with 0.55 PP xG.

      D
      66
      A+
      100
      Goaltending
      ▸Basis

      DAL +0.60 goals saved above expected on 26 shots against.

      NSH +1.52 goals saved above expected on 30 shots against.

      B-
      81
      A-
      90
      Discipline
      ▸Basis

      DAL Took 3 penalties for 6 PIM vs 1 for 2 on the other side.

      NSH Took 1 penalties for 2 PIM vs 3 for 6 on the other side.

      D
      65
      B
      85
      Luck

      Grades bounces, not skill — C is neutral

      ▸Basis

      DAL Finishing -1.52 goals vs xG plus +0.60 GSAx of save luck = -0.92 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

      NSH Finishing -0.60 goals vs xG plus +1.52 GSAx of save luck = +0.92 total. This grades luck, not skill — C is neutral, A is very lucky.

      D+
      68
      B-
      82
      Source · NHL play-by-play · xG engine · luck graded separately
      What the model flagged
      WARNINGDAL

      Rush defense leaked all night

      Gave up 24 rush shots worth 1.86 xG (2 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

      STRENGTHNSH

      Clinical in the slot

      2 goals on 4 high-danger shots (50% conversion on 0.80 xG).

      STRENGTHNSH

      Dangerous off the rush

      2 goals on 24 rush shots worth 1.86 xG.

      STRENGTHNSH

      Power play cashed in

      2-for-3 on the power play (67%) on 0.55 PP xG.

      WARNINGNSH

      Rush defense leaked all night

      Gave up 20 rush shots worth 1.29 xG (1 goals) — transition gaps were there every period.

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

      LUCKDAL

      Cold finishing night

      Scored 1 on 2.52 xG — -1.52 vs expected. The looks were there; the finish will come back.

      86 shots · press play to watch the game back

      Where the shots came from

      NHL play-by-play coordinates
      DAL
      47 shots
      1
      Final
      86 shots
      NSH
      39 shots
      2
      DAL attackNSH attack
      DAL NSH Goal

      Each club shoots toward its own end — DAL left, NSH 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
      R. Josi
      #59 · D · NSH
      0 G · 1 A · 0 SOG · 24:38 on ice
      M. Heiskanen
      #4 · D · DAL
      1 G · 0 A · 5 SOG · 24:35 on ice · +1
      M. Rantanen
      #96 · R · DAL
      0 G · 1 A · 3 SOG · 23:55 on ice · +1
      Ranked from the box score — points first · Backcheck
      What the model said beforehand

      Before the game

      Written Sat, Oct 3
      Open the pre-game read
      Written from the numbers

      The read

      Edited for clarity
      ◆ By the ModelOct 3, 9:09 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

      Dallas and Nashville meet as near-equals on paper. The model gives the Stars a 52% edge—3.2 expected goals for Dallas, 3.1 for Nashville. But that slight projection masks a deeper story: possession and variance.

      The Stars dominate shot attempts at 49.3% to Nashville's 41.0%, controlling the flow of the game. That territorial advantage compounds in expected goals: Dallas generates 53.8% of 5v5 chances to 37.3% for Nashville. But goaltending narrows the gap. J. Saros has posted 90.0% save percentage with +0.3 goals saved above expected in one appearance; J. Oettinger carries 90.9% save percentage with +0.6 goals saved above expected, also in one game.

      J. Oettinger takes the net on no rest, facing a second consecutive start that suggests either a tired opener or a backup option. His high-danger save percentage is 75.0%—a vulnerability Nashville can probe at the slot, where the Predators have scored 3 of 26 chances (12%). Dallas leans on the point: the Stars have scored 3 goals on 15 attempts from the blue line (20%).

      Nashville's shooting luck sits elevated (0.977); Dallas lags (0.867). Both regress toward the mean. When two teams face variance pressure, the underlying edge—shot attempts and expected goals—decides the night. If Dallas sustains its possession advantage and defends the slot, structure prevails. If Nashville capitalizes on a tired Oettinger or converts another prime chance, the model breaks down.

      What the model said beforehand

      The model's lean

      DAL 52%
      52%
      DAL
      Model favorite
      52%
      48%
      DAL50NSH

      DAL by 4 points of win probability — effectively a coin flip. Projected score DAL 3.2–3.1 NSH; 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
      DAL← edge
      edge →NSH
      53.8%37.3%
      49.3%41.0%
      3.232.11
      2.773.55
      0.001.00
      4.003.00
      0.8670.977

      DAL holds 4 of 6 process categories — and the luck row (0.867 vs 0.977) says NSH has been getting the bounces, which tends not to last.

      Source · NHL stats API + our xG · 5v5
      Form · Last 1
      DAL
      0-1-0
      -4 GD · 0d rest
      NSH
      0-1-0
      -2 GD · 1d rest
      0.867
      DAL PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      0.977
      NSH PDO
      Luck gauge · drifts to 1.000
      What decides it

      Keys to the game

      WARNINGDAL

      J. Oettinger on a back-to-back

      J. Oettinger projects to start on no rest, the second night of a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or tired legs.

      Test the goalie early with traffic and second-chance pressure.

      TACTICAL

      The Stars own the underlying play

      The Stars own the underlying play — 53.8% 5v5 xG vs 37.3%.

      TACTICAL

      The Stars drive Corsi at 49.3%

      The Stars drive Corsi at 49.3% — expect territorial tilt.

      TACTICALDAL

      Goalie Weakness: Stars

      Below-average on high-danger saves. Prioritize quality over quantity.

      Their goalie (Jake Oettinger) leaks HD — 75.0% HD SV. Get to the slot.

      Where the edges live
      • The Stars own the underlying play — 53.8% 5v5 xG vs 37.3%.
      • The Stars drive Corsi at 49.3% — expect territorial tilt.
      Regression watch
      • The Predators' PDO is 0.977 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      • The Stars' PDO is 0.867 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Things to watch
      • The Stars own the underlying play — 53.8% 5v5 xG vs 37.3%.
      • The Stars drive Corsi at 49.3% — expect territorial tilt.
      • Goalie matchup: J. Oettinger (+0.6 GSAx in 1 GP, 90.9% SV) vs J. Saros (+0.3 GSAx in 1 GP, 90.0% SV).
      • J. Oettinger is on a back-to-back — watch for a backup start or a tired starter.
      • The Predators' PDO is 0.977 — running cold, due for positive regression.
      Last game's lineup · confirmed at warm-up

      Lineups

      NHL box score
      DAL
      vs STL · Fri, Oct 2
      Expected in goal
      J. Oettinger
      back-to-back.909 last start58:17 played
      Back-to-back: the backup often gets this one. Treat the starter as unconfirmed.
      Forwards · 12
      • O. Bäck12:03
      • R. Faksa11:07
      • J. Benn10:03
      • S. Steel11:19
      • J. Robertson19:39
      • J. Kiviranta10:18
      • R. Hintz16:57
      • A. Hyry13:07
      • J. Hryckowian17:12
      • W. Johnston21:49
      • T. Seguin14:55
      • M. Rantanen22:10
      Defence · 6
      • M. Heiskanen26:45
      • N. Lundkvist15:22
      • L. Bichsel16:02
      • E. Lindell18:43
      • T. Harley20:59
      • T. Myers13:13
      NSH
      vs MIN · Thu, Oct 1
      Expected in goal
      J. Saros
      1 day rest.900 last start58:19 played
      Forwards · 12
      • F. Forsberg19:29
      • A. Kerfoot13:20
      • J. Drury12:50
      • N. Hoglander10:32
      • M. Bourque17:25
      • R. Schaefer11:35
      • M. Wood17:22
      • R. Colton12:15
      • J. Marchessault17:20
      • A. Edstrom10:50
      • R. O'Reilly21:31
      • S. Stamkos18:46
      Defence · 6
      • A. Wilsby16:05
      • R. Ufko15:27
      • N. Hague15:23
      • N. Perbix18:04
      • R. Josi24:53
      • B. Skjei20:53

      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