Skip to content
Compare Plymouth vs Reading

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

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

Plymouth Plymouth Home Team
Reading Reading Away Team
Plymouth
66.0
W W W W W D W D W L

Last 10 Matches

Reading
39.7
W L L D L L L D W L

Performance Radar

Plymouth
Reading

Categories Won

12

Plymouth

2

Draw

1

Reading

Statistical Comparison

Win Percentage
70%

7W, 2D, 1L

20%

2W, 2D, 6L

Goals Scored / Match
2.0

20 / 10 matches

0.9

9 / 10 matches

Goals Conceded / Match
0.9

9 / 10 matches

1.1

11 / 10 matches

Goal Difference
+11

+11

-2

-2

Clean Sheet
40%

4 / 10 matches

20%

2 / 10 matches

Over 2.5 Goals
70%

7 / 10 matches

30%

3 / 10 matches

Both Teams to Score
60%

6 / 10 matches

40%

4 / 10 matches

Top Scorer
L. Tolaj (4 goals)
L. Wing (2 goals)
Most Goals by Half
1st Half: 6 / 2nd Half: 14
1st Half: 3 / 2nd Half: 6
Home Win Rate
33%

1W / 3 matches

25%

1W / 4 matches

Away Win Rate
86%

6W / 7 matches

17%

1W / 6 matches

Schedule Strength (SoS)
46.5

League Difficulty: 45.0, Opponent Quality: 47.5

49.9

League Difficulty: 45.0, Opponent Quality: 53.2

Elite Opponent Record
0%

0W / 0 matches

0%

0W / 0 matches

Expected Goals (xG)
1.84

Actual: 2.0 | Diff: +0.16

0.84

Actual: 0.9 | Diff: +0.06

Adjusted Power Rating
66.0

Attack: 64.3, Defense: 67.6, Form: 67.6

39.7

Attack: 30.0, Defense: 63.3, Form: 20.0

Goal Timing Analysis

3

0-15'

1
2

16-30'

1
1

31-45'

1
3

46-60'

1
2

61-75'

2
4

76-90+'

1
Plymouth
Reading
Plymouth

Power Rating Breakdown

66.0

Overall

Attack 64.3
Defense 67.6
Form 67.6
Consistency 63.7
Reading

Power Rating Breakdown

39.7

Overall

Attack 30.0
Defense 63.3
Form 20.0
Consistency 59.2

Strength of Schedule

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

League Difficulty

45.0 vs 45.0

Opponent Quality

47.5 vs 53.2

Elite Opponent Record

0% vs 0%
Plymouth logo Plymouth
W
Truro (50%)
W
Torquay (59%)
W
Bath (44%)
W
Northampton (32%)
W
Port Vale (53%)
D
Bradford (50%)
W
Wimbledon (41%)
D
Exeter (42%)
Reading logo Reading
W
Woking (48%)
L
Getafe (55%)
L
Blackpool (52%)
D
Rotherham (42%)
L
Cardiff (63%)
L
Doncaster (66%)
L
Lincoln (61%)
D
Huddersfield (54%)

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
Truro A
1 - 0 W
50%
Torquay A
1 - 0 W
59%
Bath A
3 - 0 W
44%
Northampton A
3 - 2 W
32%
Port Vale H
2 - 1 W
53%
Bradford A
1 - 1 D
50%
Wimbledon A
3 - 1 W
41%
Exeter H
2 - 2 D
42%
Barnsley A
3 - 0 W
48%
Bolton H
1 - 2 L
56%
Opponent Breakdown
Opponent Breakdown
Score
Opp. Quality
Woking A
2 - 0 W
48%
Getafe A
0 - 1 L
55%
Blackpool H
0 - 1 L
52%
Rotherham A
1 - 1 D
42%
Cardiff H
1 - 3 L
63%
Doncaster A
0 - 1 L
66%
Lincoln H
1 - 2 L
61%
Huddersfield A
1 - 1 D
54%
Wigan H
3 - 0 W
47%
Stevenage A
0 - 1 L
44%

AI Analysis

When we look at the raw statistics, both teams appear to be in form, but applying the Strength of Schedule adjustment reveals a significant quality gap. The favorite has been tested against tougher opposition and has consistently delivered.

With comparable strength of schedule figures (46.5 vs 49.9), the opposition quality faced by both sides has been largely equivalent, giving these head-to-head stats greater analytical validity.

Plymouth possess a formidable attacking unit, with L. Tolaj accounting for 4 goals and the squad maintaining an impressive 2.0 goals per game — a threat no opponent can afford to overlook.

Both defenses are comparable, with Plymouth conceding 0.9 and Reading conceding 1.1 per match.

Plymouth 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.

Plymouth is a strong road performer with a 86% away win rate, proving they can deliver results regardless of venue.

Statistical modeling projects 2.5 goals in this fixture. The data points Under 2.5 as the value threshold, while BTTS stands at possible based on both sides' scoring records.

🔥 Form Momentum: Plymouth is in scorching form, winning 7 of their last 10 matches with 20 goals scored. This level of consistency is difficult to sustain but devastating while it lasts.

❄️ Form Momentum: Reading 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.

📊 Key Trend: The form trajectories are diverging. Plymouth is on the rise with 7W in last 10, while Reading shows signs of decline with 2W in last 10.

💡 Why This Matters: The 26.3-point power rating gap between these teams translates to approximately a 85% win probability for Plymouth. In practical terms, Plymouth would win 8 out of 10 such matchups.

Based on the available data, Plymouth holds the stronger position heading into this matchup. A power rating of 66.0 against 39.7 underlines their overall quality advantage and makes them the logical pick to come out on top.

Match Simulator

AI-powered match simulation based on real statistics

Plymouth

Plymouth

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.

Plymouth

7W 2D 1L · 20 goals scored · 9 conceded

Reading

2W 2D 6L · 9 goals scored · 11 conceded

Popular Teams

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

Login / Register

5 + 2 = ?
or