Graing Rovers 0 - 8 Faret City

Key Events:

• 8' Yellow card to Graing Rovers Phillip Lewis
• 11' Faret City Cesar Suarez scores
• 26' Faret City Neil Robinson scores, assisted by Antony Bishop
• 54' Faret City Aydan Petkov scores, assisted by Francisco Tavares
• 62' Faret City Antony Bishop scores
• 70' Faret City Cesar Suarez scores
• 73' Faret City Cesar Suarez scores, assisted by Aydan Petkov
• 79' Faret City Antony Bishop scores, assisted by Paulo Semedo
• 87' Faret City Aydan Petkov scores, assisted by Tengiz Chikhladze

Expected Goals (xG) Analysis: The chance-quality estimate put Graing Rovers at 0.26 xG and Faret City at 4.2. The hosts’ single shot, which was on target, produced no goal; Faret City scored eight from 19 shots, 15 of them on target. That is a substantial overperformance against xG, even allowing for the visitors’ clear superiority in shot volume and quality. The numbers point to an attack that repeatedly found opportunities, then finished at an extraordinary rate. Possession tells a different story only at first glance: Graing Rovers had 55 per cent of the ball, but Faret City made its 45 per cent count with far more threat in front of goal.

The gap was visible in the supporting figures as well as the score. Faret City made 16 tackles to the hosts’ three and registered 19 attempts to Graing Rovers’ one, while the visitors also conceded fewer fouls. Graing Rovers completed a higher share of passes and attempted more dribbles, but neither measure translated into a meaningful supply of shots. The goal sequence began in the 11th minute and continued after the break, with Cesar Suarez completing a hat-trick and Antony Bishop and Aydan Petkov each scoring twice. It was sustained attacking output, rather than a single brief flurry.

• No standout performers (rating 7.0+) recorded for Graing Rovers.

For Graing Rovers, possession and passing accuracy offered little comfort against a match in which they managed one shot and conceded eight goals. Faret City were not merely more productive; they were dramatically more effective than their 4.2 xG would ordinarily suggest. The final score was 0-8, and the figures leave the central explanation plain: the visitors created far more, then finished with remarkable precision.