Porto's control tells only half the story in narrow win

FC Porto left Barcelos with a 1-0 win, but this was not a night of relentless attacking. GIL Vicente kept the match level until Borja Sainz scored in the 63rd minute. The clearest difference was the quality of the chances: Porto made more of its possession, while GIL Vicente managed only two shots on target from ten attempts.

The first half ended goalless. FC Porto had the larger share of the ball, with 58 per cent possession, while GIL Vicente had 42 per cent. Neither side turned that spell into a goal before the break. Porto changed Gabri Veiga for Hwang In-Beom at half-time, then brought on Samu for André Silva in the 60th minute.

GIL Vicente made three changes at the hour, with the score still 0-0. Three minutes later, Borja Sainz put Porto ahead. That goal changed the task for the home team: its next two changes came while trailing, and Marvin Elimbi Gilbert was sent off in the 84th minute. The red card came after the goal, so it did not create Porto's lead, but it further narrowed GIL Vicente's chance to respond.

There was only one goal to explain. Borja Sainz scored for FC Porto in the 63rd minute, turning a match that had been goalless at half-time into an away lead. The scoreline records the decisive action, while the wider numbers help show why it mattered: Porto had four shots on target and an expected goals figure of 1.13. GIL Vicente had two shots on target and an expected goals figure of 0.43.

The goal also altered the shape of the final half-hour. GIL Vicente had already made three changes at 0-0, but its next two came after falling behind. Porto's changes at 72 minutes followed with the lead intact, including Borja Sainz making way for Santiago Giménez. The late dismissal of Marvin Elimbi Gilbert came with Porto still 1-0 ahead. It did not add to the score, but meant GIL Vicente finished the match with ten players.

GIL Vicente stayed in the game for more than an hour and Lucão made three saves. Jonathan Buatu also had a strong defensive night by his own measure: his rating of 7.2 was 0.22 above his season average. But the attack did not offer enough to make that defensive work count. GIL Vicente's 42 per cent possession was below its 51.56 per cent average and ranked seventh of its nine matches compared.

Ten shots sounds like a reasonable base, but only four came from inside the box and just two were on target. The inside-box total was below the season average of 7.89 and ranked seventh of nine; expected goals were 0.43 against an average of 1.29, ranking sixth across seven comparisons. GIL Vicente's three corners were close to its 3.22 average. Its 17 fouls, however, were above the 13.56 average. The main weakness was not simply a lack of attempts: too few became dangerous chances.

FC Porto had 58 per cent possession, above its 55 per cent season average and its third-highest mark across nine matches compared. It also won eight corners, more than its average of 6.89. Those figures reflect pressure, but not a particularly productive attacking return by Porto's own standards. Its 12 shots were below the 15.78 average, and its four on target fell short of the 6.22 average.

The quality and location of the attempts tell a similar story. Porto had seven shots inside the box, against an average of 10.78, and its expected goals of 1.13 were well below 2.17. Both measures ranked seventh across the relevant comparisons: nine matches for shots inside the box and seven for expected goals. Porto still made the better chances and kept GIL Vicente to two saves for Diogo Costa to make. The win was deserved, but the attack did not reach its usual season level.

For GIL Vicente, Jonathan Buatu rated 7.2, 0.22 above his season average of 6.98. Lucão's 7.18 was 0.30 above his 6.88 average, and his three saves helped keep the score level until the 63rd minute. Santi García rated 7.13, his best comparison with his own average among the GIL Vicente players listed: 0.44 above 6.69. Murilo's 6.55 was 0.41 below his 6.96 average.

Borja Sainz was the standout for Porto. His 7.87 rating was 0.81 above his season average of 7.06, and he scored the only goal. Jan Bednarek rated 7.9, 0.42 above his 7.48 average, while Jakub Kiwior was 0.20 above his own. There were quieter returns too: Pablo Rosario rated 6.39, 0.65 below his 7.04 average, and Victor Mow Froholdt was 0.58 below his. These comparisons underline that Porto's win came with strong individual performances, but not from every part of the team.

Expected goals favoured Porto: 1.13 to 0.43, an expected margin of 0.70 goals. The actual margin was one, so the final score was close to that measure rather than a sign of a major gap in chance creation. GIL Vicente were not simply unlucky. Its expected goals ranked sixth of seven comparisons and sat 0.86 below its average; Porto's figure was 1.04 below its own average.

The market data points in the same direction, but much more strongly. The single bookmaker represented in the data gave Porto a 98.9 per cent probability before the result was recorded. The expected-goals probabilities were less emphatic: 53.4 per cent for an away win, 32.5 per cent for a draw and 14 per cent for a home win. Both measures favoured Porto, while the gap between them shows how much more certain the market was than the chance-based measure.

This result leaves two different questions. FC Porto took the points while producing fewer shots, shots on target and expected goals than its season averages. GIL Vicente, meanwhile, had a defensive platform that kept the match level until the second half, but its own attacking numbers were low by comparison with its usual output. The standings data places Porto first on 24 points from eight matches and GIL Vicente sixth on 14 from eight. The result adds to the contrast between their positions, but does not change the underlying issue: GIL Vicente need more of their attempts to become clear chances.

• Whether GIL Vicente can lift its shots inside the box above the four recorded here, against a season average of 7.89.
• Whether FC Porto can turn possession into more shots on target than the four recorded here, against an average of 6.22.
• How GIL Vicente's defence responds after Marvin Elimbi Gilbert's red card in the 84th minute.