West Ham United will be scratching their heads after this one. A match they largely controlled in shots and xG ended in a frustrating 1-0 defeat to a Wolves side that needed just one moment of composure to clinch all three points. It was a day when the stats said one thing, but the scoreline told another story.

? Stat Breakdown: West Ham Wasteful, Wolves Ruthless

West Ham created more and shot more — and it wasn’t particularly close.

Shots: West Ham 9 – Wolves 9

xG: West Ham 1.96 – Wolves 0.80

Shots on Target: West Ham 1 – Wolves 2

Touches in Box: West Ham 16 – Wolves 11

Possession: West Ham 53% – Wolves 47%

Despite having double the xG, West Ham couldn’t convert. Wolves, on the other hand, scored with their lowest quality chance of the match (xG 0.03), courtesy of Jørgen Strand Larsen in the 20th minute.

? Match Momentum: All Hammers, But No Hammer Blow

From the xG timeline, West Ham were the more consistent threat throughout the 90 minutes. After conceding early, their cumulative xG climbed steadily, especially in the second half. Wolves, meanwhile, offered little after their goal, but it turned out to be all they needed. It was a classic example of absorbing pressure and nicking a result.

? Shot Map Analysis: 1.96 xG, 0 Goals — West Ham’s Frustration

West Ham’s shot map tells the story. A flurry of attempts in and around the six-yard box, but only one effort found the target. Seven shots went wide, and three were blocked – an attacking output that deserved more than a blank.

Wolves, conversely, had just one high-value chance (xG 0.11) and one goal from the tightest of angles. Their efficiency was the difference.

? Possession & Passing: West Ham’s Build-Up v Wolves’ Directness

West Ham’s pass map reveals a clean, structured buildup from the back. Ward-Prowse was the metronome in midfield, supported by Lucas Paquetà and Ferguson in advanced areas. Wide outlets in Jarrod Bowen and Luis Guilherme saw decent involvement, but there was a lack of final-third penetration.

Wolves’ pass map paints a different picture — compact and direct. João Gomes and Bellegarde played closer to the defensive line, while Semedo and Aït-Nouri offered vertical progression. The buildup was risk-averse but functional, especially after going ahead.

? Final Word

This was a classic case of football’s cruel edge. West Ham walked away with 2.0 xG, decent control, and absolutely nothing to show for it. Wolves defended deep, scored early, and survived. It wasn’t pretty, but it was effective. In a tight Premier League table, it’s these gritty one-goal wins that make the difference.