Santon Park 0 - 8 Mexham County

Key Events:

• 6' Mexham County Safet Antić scores, assisted by Lorenzo Testa
• 9' Yellow card to Mexham County Helmut Kuhn
• 18' Mexham County Gerard Millet scores, assisted by Yasuo Torii
• 20' Mexham County Safet Antić scores, assisted by Helmut Kuhn
• 34' Mexham County Safet Antić scores
• 35' Mexham County Helmut Kuhn scores, assisted by Safet Antić
• 44' Yellow card to Mexham County Safet Antić
• 50' Yellow card to Mexham County Yasuo Torii
• 55' Mexham County Gerard Millet scores, assisted by Victor Rodriguez
• 67' Yellow card to Santon Park Seungwoo Jeong
• 78' Mexham County Yujun Miura scores, assisted by Safet Antić
• 89' Mexham County Dario Lovrić scores, assisted by Gerard Millet

Expected Goals (xG) Analysis: The Gazzetta chance-quality estimate gave Santon Park 0.26 xG and Mexham County 3.32, against the actual score of 0-8. Mexham County therefore scored well above its projected total, converting eight times from 13 shots, all on target. That is emphatic finishing on top of a substantial attacking advantage, though the gap between 3.32 xG and eight goals makes clear that the scoreboard ran far ahead of the chances’ estimated value. Santon Park managed one shot, which was on target, but its 0.26 xG reflects how little that possession produced in dangerous areas. The hosts had 53 per cent of the ball and an 83 per cent pass-accuracy rate; Mexham County had 47 per cent possession and 82 per cent accuracy. The figures suggest that control of the ball and control of the match were, on this occasion, separate departments.

The score was already 5-0 by half-time, after Mexham County scored five times between the sixth and 35th minutes. Safet Antić supplied three of those goals, with Gerard Millet and Helmut Kuhn adding one apiece before the break. The second half brought another three goals, spaced from Gerard Millet’s finish in the 55th minute to Dario Lovrić’s in the 89th. Mexham County also had more fouls and yellow cards, while the corner count was level at one each; neither set-piece tally explains a contest settled so decisively in open play.

For Santon Park, nine tackles and a majority of possession could not compensate for the single shot. Mexham County needed no advantage in possession to produce an eight-goal win: it found the target with every recorded shot and finished with eight goals, five more than its xG estimate. The result leaves little ambiguity about the afternoon’s defining feature. Santon Park had the ball more often; Mexham County made far more of what it did with it.