In a tightly contested match during week 10, Wolverhampton Wanderers and Crystal Palace played out a thrilling 2-2 draw. Both sides showed resilience, with the game swinging back and forth, but neither team could find the winning goal. Wolves and Palace traded blows, and the stats reveal just how evenly matched this encounter was.
Key Stats Breakdown
Crystal Palace outshot Wolves with 14 attempts to Wolves’ 9, reflecting Palace’s more aggressive approach in the final third. Despite this, Wolves were slightly more efficient, with 6 shots on target compared to Palace’s 5. Palace led in expected goals (xG) with a cumulative 2.48, largely due to their quality chances inside the box, whereas Wolves managed a respectable 1.15 xG.
Both teams saw frequent fouls (Wolves with 7, Palace with 9), underscoring the physical nature of the match. Palace also led with 62 touches in the opponent’s half, indicating their desire to push forward and control the tempo.
Match Momentum
The momentum graph paints a picture of back-and-forth action, with Crystal Palace pressing forward more aggressively in the latter stages. Wolves had their share of opportunities but were largely on the defensive as Palace continued to probe their backline. The two goals scored by Wolves came in quick succession, showcasing their clinical ability to capitalize on brief spells of dominance.
Shot Analysis
Crystal Palace created the higher-quality chances, focusing their attacks in and around Wolves’ penalty area, reflected in their higher xG per shot of 0.177. Palace managed to score twice, converting on chances near the six-yard box, underscoring their effectiveness close to goal.
Wolves, on the other hand, made fewer attempts but were slightly more clinical. Their shots on target primarily came from central positions just outside the six-yard area, as indicated by their shot map. Both goals by Wolves were well-placed efforts within high-probability areas, giving them a slight edge in efficiency.
Possession and Passing Tactics
The pass maps reveal contrasting styles in possession. Wolves showed a more compact structure, with heavy passing sequences through central players like Toti and João Gomes. The Wolves midfielders were often tasked with recycling possession, looking for openings to play the ball forward to key attackers like Pablo Sarabia.
Crystal Palace, meanwhile, spread the play out wide, with Tyrick Mitchell and Ibrahima Sarr active on the flanks. Palace’s passing network demonstrated their willingness to push the ball into wide areas before cutting inside, as Kamada and Hughes sought to link play between defense and attack. This strategy kept Wolves’ defense stretched and allowed Palace to create chances from the wings.
Wolves and Palace demonstrated their strengths in this gritty draw. Wolves’ defensive structure and efficient shooting kept them in the game, while Palace’s wide play and sustained pressure highlighted their attacking intent. A hard-fought draw, but both teams walk away wishing they had snatched all three points.