Quedbury City 5 - 0 Seadle

Key Events:

• 18' Quedbury City Roy Burger scores, assisted by Vladimir štimac
• 27' Yellow card to Quedbury City Vladimir štimac
• 31' Yellow card to Seadle Xinping Boon
• 33' Quedbury City Luca Colombo scores, assisted by Roy Burger
• 36' Yellow card to Seadle Bruno Rossi
• 44' Quedbury City Vladimir štimac scores, assisted by Roy Burger
• 54' Yellow card to Seadle Saliou Sow
• 55' Quedbury City Augusto Maggi scores, assisted by Luca Colombo
• 62' Quedbury City Carlos Fuentes scores, assisted by Roy Burger
• 87' Yellow card to Quedbury City Bruno Rossi
• 90' Yellow card to Seadle Friedrich Unger

Expected Goals (xG) Analysis: Quedbury City scored five from an xG of 3.74, finishing 1.26 goals above the chance-quality estimate. That is an emphatic return, though not one detached from the evidence: the hosts put 14 of 16 shots on target and found five different moments to turn pressure into goals. Seadle, meanwhile, produced an xG of 1.86 and seven shots on target, but finished without scoring—1.86 below expectation. The gap between the visitors’ shooting output and their final tally is the sharpest contrast in the numbers. With possession at 53%-47% and pass accuracy at 84%-81%, this was not a story of one side keeping the ball to the point of disappearance; it was Quedbury City converting far more decisively.

• No Seadle players reached a rating of 7.0 or higher.

The scoreline was settled before the closing stretch, but the match did not become entirely quiet: the cards arrived on both sides, with four for Seadle and two for Quedbury City. Seadle had more corners and dribbles, and its seven shots on target suggest the visitors did find routes to test the hosts. The missing piece was the finish. Quedbury City, by contrast, turned a little over half of possession into five goals and had its most influential player involved in four of them. A 5 - 0 result leaves little doubt about the winner; the xG figures add a useful footnote, showing that the margin was broader than chance quality alone predicted, while the visitors’ blank was the more striking underachievement.