Skip to content
Compare Cambridge U vs Gillingham

Cambridge U vs Gillingham Head-to-Head Stats and Form Comparison

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

Cambridge U Cambridge U Home Team
Gillingham Gillingham Away Team
Cambridge U
50.1
D W W D D W D W L D

Last 10 Matches

Gillingham
36.6
D L L W W L W W L L

Performance Radar

Cambridge U
Gillingham

Categories Won

9

Cambridge U

3

Draw

3

Gillingham

Statistical Comparison

Win Percentage
40%

4W, 5D, 1L

40%

4W, 1D, 5L

Goals Scored / Match
1.1

11 / 10 matches

1.0

10 / 10 matches

Goals Conceded / Match
0.6

6 / 10 matches

1.8

18 / 10 matches

Goal Difference
+5

+5

-8

-8

Clean Sheet
60%

6 / 10 matches

40%

4 / 10 matches

Over 2.5 Goals
40%

4 / 10 matches

60%

6 / 10 matches

Both Teams to Score
40%

4 / 10 matches

30%

3 / 10 matches

Top Scorer
B. Knight (4 goals)
G. McCleary (2 goals)
Most Goals by Half
1st Half: 4 / 2nd Half: 7
1st Half: 1 / 2nd Half: 9
Home Win Rate
60%

3W / 5 matches

33%

2W / 6 matches

Away Win Rate
20%

1W / 5 matches

50%

2W / 4 matches

Schedule Strength (SoS)
44.4

League Difficulty: 43.0, Opponent Quality: 45.4

45.9

League Difficulty: 42.5, Opponent Quality: 48.2

Elite Opponent Record
0%

0W / 0 matches

0%

0W / 0 matches

Expected Goals (xG)
1.06

Actual: 1.1 | Diff: +0.04

0.85

Actual: 1.0 | Diff: +0.15

Adjusted Power Rating
50.1

Attack: 34.6, Defense: 75.5, Form: 37.8

36.6

Attack: 32.0, Defense: 38.4, Form: 38.4

Goal Timing Analysis

1

0-15'

1

16-30'

3

31-45'

4

46-60'

1
2

61-75'

76-90+'

2
Cambridge U
Gillingham
Cambridge U

Power Rating Breakdown

50.1

Overall

Attack 34.6
Defense 75.5
Form 37.8
Consistency 63.7
Gillingham

Power Rating Breakdown

36.6

Overall

Attack 32.0
Defense 38.4
Form 38.4
Consistency 39.7

Strength of Schedule

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

League Difficulty

43.0 vs 42.5

Opponent Quality

45.4 vs 48.2

Elite Opponent Record

0% vs 0%
Cambridge U logo Cambridge U
D
Bromley (48%)
W
Wigan (36%)
W
Barnet (56%)
D
Norwich (50%)
D
Northampton (39%)
W
Preston (39%)
D
Crewe (51%)
W
Barrow (38%)
Gillingham logo Gillingham
D
Fleetwood (56%)
L
Walsall (36%)
L
Luton (59%)
W
Ebbsfleet (55%)
W
Millwall (47%)
L
Charlton (49%)
W
Dover (36%)
W
Shrewsbury (33%)

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
Bromley A
1 - 1 D
48%
Wigan H
3 - 2 W
36%
Barnet H
2 - 1 W
56%
Norwich A
0 - 0 D
50%
Northampton H
0 - 0 D
39%
Preston A
1 - 0 W
39%
Crewe A
0 - 0 D
51%
Barrow H
3 - 0 W
38%
Grimsby H
1 - 2 L
51%
Bromley A
0 - 0 D
46%
Opponent Breakdown
Opponent Breakdown
Score
Opp. Quality
Fleetwood A
0 - 0 D
56%
Walsall H
0 - 3 L
36%
Luton H
0 - 3 L
59%
Ebbsfleet A
2 - 1 W
55%
Millwall H
1 - 0 W
47%
Charlton H
0 - 1 L
49%
Dover A
3 - 0 W
36%
Shrewsbury H
1 - 0 W
33%
Barnet A
2 - 6 L
60%
Grimsby H
1 - 4 L
51%

AI Analysis

While the data leans decisively toward one side, dismissing the underdog would be premature. Adjusting for strength of schedule brings the margins closer together, yet the broader trend holds firm throughout the analysis.

The level of competition each team has encountered is broadly aligned (SoS: 44.4 vs 45.9), which adds credibility to any direct statistical comparisons drawn between these two sides.

Cambridge U (1.1 goals per match) and Gillingham (1.0 goals per match) present comparable offensive threats, making this an evenly contested attacking matchup.

The numbers tell a compelling defensive story for Cambridge U — 0.6 goals conceded per game and 6 clean sheets put them well ahead of Gillingham, who give up 1.8 goals per match at the other end.

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

Gillingham 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: Cambridge U has been remarkably consistent, maintaining a steady 1.7 points per game over their last 10 matches. This stability makes them a predictable but reliable force.

💡 Why This Matters: The 13.5-point power rating gap between these teams translates to approximately a 84% win probability for Cambridge U. In practical terms, Cambridge U would win 8 out of 10 such matchups.

While Cambridge U holds a measurable edge in the adjusted standings, the 13.5-point differential in power ratings indicates a competitive matchup rather than a clear-cut outcome.

Match Simulator

AI-powered match simulation based on real statistics

Cambridge U

Cambridge U

VS
Gillingham

Gillingham

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.

Cambridge U

4W 5D 1L · 11 goals scored · 6 conceded

Gillingham

4W 1D 5L · 10 goals scored · 18 conceded

Popular Teams

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

Login / Register

5 + 2 = ?
or