Skip to content
Compare Wimbledon vs Reading

Wimbledon vs Reading Head-to-Head Stats and Form Comparison

Compare Wimbledon vs Reading: head-to-head stats, recent form, goals, defensive record and strength indicators from last matches.

Wimbledon Wimbledon Home Team
Reading Reading Away Team
Wimbledon
36.7
D D L D L L W D W L

Last 10 Matches

Reading
51.9
D D L D W W W W L L

Performance Radar

Wimbledon
Reading

Categories Won

3

Wimbledon

2

Draw

10

Reading

Statistical Comparison

Win Percentage
20%

2W, 4D, 4L

40%

4W, 3D, 3L

Goals Scored / Match
0.8

8 / 10 matches

1.5

15 / 10 matches

Goals Conceded / Match
1.4

14 / 10 matches

0.8

8 / 10 matches

Goal Difference
-6

-6

+7

+7

Clean Sheet
30%

3 / 10 matches

50%

5 / 10 matches

Over 2.5 Goals
40%

4 / 10 matches

30%

3 / 10 matches

Both Teams to Score
40%

4 / 10 matches

30%

3 / 10 matches

Top Scorer
J. Stockley (1 goals)
J. Marriott (3 goals)
Most Goals by Half
1st Half: 1 / 2nd Half: 7
1st Half: 4 / 2nd Half: 11
Home Win Rate
17%

1W / 6 matches

25%

1W / 4 matches

Away Win Rate
25%

1W / 4 matches

50%

3W / 6 matches

Schedule Strength (SoS)
49.1

League Difficulty: 45.0, Opponent Quality: 51.9

47.8

League Difficulty: 45.0, Opponent Quality: 49.7

Elite Opponent Record
0%

0W / 0 matches

0%

0W / 0 matches

Expected Goals (xG)
0.78

Actual: 0.8 | Diff: +0.02

1.49

Actual: 1.5 | Diff: +0.01

Adjusted Power Rating
36.7

Attack: 26.4, Defense: 52.9, Form: 19.8

51.9

Attack: 48.9, Defense: 71.7, Form: 39.1

Goal Timing Analysis

0-15'

2
1

16-30'

31-45'

2

46-60'

61-75'

1

76-90+'

1
Wimbledon
Reading
Wimbledon

Power Rating Breakdown

36.7

Overall

Attack 26.4
Defense 52.9
Form 19.8
Consistency 64.0
Reading

Power Rating Breakdown

51.9

Overall

Attack 48.9
Defense 71.7
Form 39.1
Consistency 50.5

Strength of Schedule

Measures the difficulty of opponents faced. Higher = tougher schedule.

League Difficulty

45.0 vs 45.0

Opponent Quality

51.9 vs 49.7

Elite Opponent Record

0% vs 0%
Wimbledon logo Wimbledon
D
Reading (51%)
D
L Orient (54%)
L
Huddersfield (54%)
D
Newport (46%)
L
QPR (58%)
L
Wealdstone (50%)
W
Charlton (49%)
D
Norwich (45%)
Reading logo Reading
D
Wimbledon (44%)
D
Wycombe (44%)
L
Luton (59%)
D
Bromley (48%)
W
Charlton (49%)
W
Crawley (48%)
W
Newport (51%)
W
Woking (47%)

Opponent Quality: Quality blends league strength, recent points form, goal difference, and home/away context. It is not only club size or reputation.

Opponent Breakdown
Opponent Breakdown
Score
Opp. Quality
Reading H
0 - 0 D
51%
L Orient A
1 - 1 D
54%
Huddersfield A
0 - 3 L
54%
Newport H
1 - 1 D
46%
QPR H
2 - 3 L
58%
Wealdstone A
0 - 1 L
50%
Charlton H
2 - 0 W
49%
Norwich H
0 - 0 D
45%
Sutton A
2 - 1 W
62%
Huddersfield H
0 - 4 L
50%
Opponent Breakdown
Opponent Breakdown
Score
Opp. Quality
Wimbledon A
0 - 0 D
44%
Wycombe H
1 - 1 D
44%
Luton H
3 - 4 L
59%
Bromley A
1 - 1 D
48%
Charlton H
3 - 0 W
49%
Crawley A
1 - 0 W
48%
Newport A
4 - 0 W
51%
Woking A
2 - 0 W
47%
Getafe A
0 - 1 L
55%
Blackpool H
0 - 1 L
52%

AI Analysis

Surface-level numbers suggest a competitive matchup, but the Strength of Schedule correction tells a different story. The favorite has earned their metrics against stiffer competition, exposing a meaningful performance gap between these two sides.

With comparable strength of schedule figures (49.1 vs 47.8), the opposition quality faced by both sides has been largely equivalent, giving these head-to-head stats greater analytical validity.

Reading holds the attacking edge with 1.5 goals per match versus Wimbledon's 0.8, though the gap isn't insurmountable.

Reading's backline outperforms Wimbledon's, with 0.8 goals conceded per match versus 1.4.

Wimbledon has not faced any elite-level opponents in their recent matches, making it difficult to assess their ceiling.

Reading has not faced any elite-level opponents in their recent matches, making it difficult to assess their ceiling.

Crunching the numbers, this match averages out to 2.2 total goals. Going Under 2.5 carries the stronger statistical case, with the BTTS market looking unlikely given current form.

❄️ Form Momentum: Wimbledon is struggling for form, winning just 2 of their last 10 matches. Teams in this state often lack the confidence to compete in tight moments.

📈 Form Momentum: Reading has been remarkably consistent, maintaining a steady 1.5 points per game over their last 10 matches. This stability makes them a predictable but reliable force.

💡 Why This Matters: The 15.2-point power rating gap between these teams translates to approximately a 85% win probability for Reading. In practical terms, Reading would win 8 out of 10 such matchups.

The numbers point firmly toward Reading in this contest. Their superior power rating of 51.9, compared to 36.7 for the opposition, reflects a meaningful edge across the metrics that matter most when projecting an outcome.

These two teams drew 0-0 in the League One (2026-08-22). The stalemate suggests these sides are closely matched, and another tight contest could be on the cards. With the previous match ending in a draw, neither side holds a psychological edge. Both teams will feel they have a genuine chance of winning.

Match Simulator

AI-powered match simulation based on real statistics

Wimbledon

Wimbledon

VS
Reading

Reading

In H2H (head-to-head) matchups, to eliminate momentary fluctuations and coincidences, we limit our analyses to an optimal depth of exactly 10 matches. Neither less, nor more. This focused approach is our undisputed gold standard, revealing the tactical and psychological supremacy teams hold over each other in its purest form. We do not dwell on the noise of the past; we concentrate on the millimetric precision of current form.

Compare Another Pair

Comparison Summary

This head-to-head comparison analyzes the last 10 matches of each team, evaluating attack power, defensive strength, form consistency, and overall performance metrics. The power ratings are calculated using a weighted algorithm that considers goals scored, goals conceded, win rate, and recent form trends.

Wimbledon

2W 4D 4L · 8 goals scored · 14 conceded

Reading

4W 3D 3L · 15 goals scored · 8 conceded

Popular Teams

We use cookies & local storage to enhance your experience. Learn more

Login / Register

5 + 2 = ?
or