Porto’s sharper chances decide a close contest in Guimarães

FC Porto beat Vitória SC 2-1, with the result turning on the difference between volume and threat. Vitória had more shots and put more on target, but FC Porto’s expected goals were higher and Diogo Costa made five saves. The home side found an equaliser, only for Martim Fernandes to restore Porto’s lead soon after.

FC Porto took the lead in the 38th minute. Alberto Baio assisted Borja Sainz, giving the visitors a 1-0 half-time advantage. Vitória SC had to chase the game, but the first change came only after 26 minutes had passed while they were behind. Porto made three substitutions in the 58th minute, before Vitória introduced Alan in the 64th.

Alan’s arrival brought the moment Vitória needed: he scored in the 77th minute, assisted by Gustavo, to make it 1-1. The level score lasted nine minutes. Pepê Aquino set up Martim Fernandes in the 86th minute, and Porto went ahead again. Vitória had more shots overall, but its late push could not find another goal before the final whistle.

The opening goal came from the combination of Baio and Sainz. Baio supplied the assist for Sainz’s finish in the 38th minute, making it 1-0 to FC Porto before the interval. The goal gave Porto something to protect, and Vitória’s first-half problem was that its greater shot count had not yet produced a goal. The score stayed that way until the second half.

Vitória’s response came from a substitute. Alan replaced Samu in the 64th minute and scored 13 minutes later, with Gustavo credited with the assist. That made it 1-1 and brought the home side level after a long spell chasing the match. Porto’s answer was just as direct in its effect: Pepê Aquino assisted Martim Fernandes in the 86th minute, restoring the visitors’ lead. The timing left Vitória little time to find another equaliser. The goals came from three named contributors, and the last connection proved decisive.

Vitória SC finished with 16 shots, just below its season average of 16.82 and its fifth-highest total in 11 matches. Six were on target, above its average of 4.45 and its fourth-highest return in those 11 matches. That is the clearest evidence that Vitória did enough to test Diogo Costa. Yet its expected goals were 0.72, against a season average of 1.45. That was its sixth figure across nine matches, so the extra shots did not translate into its usual level of chance quality.

The split of those attempts helps explain the gap: eight came from inside the box and eight from outside, with two blocked. The inside-box total was below the 10.36 average and ranked eighth of 11 matches; corners were also down, at four against 5.36 on average. Vitória had 47 per cent possession, 6.18 percentage points below its average and its eighth-ranked figure in 11 matches. Still, it scored through Alan and made Costa work for five saves. Its goalkeeper made two saves, but Porto’s 1.64 expected goals underline that the defence faced the clearer danger. Vitória’s issue was not simply a lack of attempts; it was getting more of them into better positions.

FC Porto won despite having fewer attempts than usual. Its 12 shots were 4.18 below its season average of 16.18 and ranked eighth across 11 matches. Four hit the target, compared with an average of 6.45, while seven came from inside the box against an average of 10.82. Those were also low season rankings: seventh for shots on target and eighth for shots inside the box. Five corners were below the 6.82 average, and the total ranked ninth of 11.

The crucial contrast is that Porto still created more expected goals: 1.64, although that was below its 2.22 average and ranked seventh of nine matches. Porto had 53 per cent possession, also below its 55.82 average, and its seventh-ranked figure in 11 matches. Four blocked attempts show that not all of its shots got through, but the side made its better chances count. Diogo Costa’s five saves were important too, especially with Vitória’s six shots on target. Porto’s 11 fouls were below its 13.82 average and ranked third-lowest among its 11 matches. It did not dominate its usual attacking measures; it won by combining more threatening chances with a goalkeeper who kept the lead intact.

Alan scored after coming on and finished with a rating of 7.86, though no season rating is supplied for him, so that figure cannot be measured against his own average. Gustavo assisted the equaliser and rated 6.82, almost level with his 6.83 season average. Diogo Costa was a major factor at the other end: his rating of 7.89 was 0.73 above his own average of 7.16, alongside five saves.

Martim Fernandes scored the winner and rated 7.54, which was 2.92 above his own average of 4.62. Pepê Aquino assisted that goal and rated 7.30, 0.53 above his 6.77 average. Vitória’s Arnel Jakupovic had five shots but only one on target; his rating of 6.34 was 0.51 below his 6.85 average. Oumar Camara’s 5.97 was 0.90 below his average of 6.87, while Beni’s 6.13 was 0.82 below 6.95. Those comparisons point to the difference between Porto’s decisive contributions and several below-average performances for Vitória.

Expected goals favoured FC Porto: 1.64 to Vitória SC’s 0.72, a margin of 0.92. The actual goal margin was one, only 0.08 wider than that expected margin. That is a close match between the chance-quality measure and the final score, not evidence that Porto won by a large distance. Vitória’s 16 shots and six on target explain why the contest remained live, but the lower expected-goals figure suggests many attempts were less threatening.

The market told an even stronger story before the result. Its recorded probabilities gave Porto a 98.7 per cent chance, with 1.3 per cent for a draw and zero for a Vitória win; the data covers one bookmaker. Porto’s win matched that expectation, while the expected-goals gap was far narrower than the market gap. Together, the measures say the result was deserved on the chances created, but the match itself was more competitive than the pre-match pricing suggested.

This result gives both sides a clear point to carry into their next match: their shot totals alone do not tell the story. Vitória SC produced more attempts than Porto, yet its expected goals were less than half the visitors’ figure. Porto converted its stronger chance profile into a win, even though its shots, shots on target and possession were all below their season averages. The supplied standings had Porto first on 30 points after 10 matches, while Vitória SC were 13th on nine points after 10. This match was the 11th round, so those table figures describe the position before it.

For Vitória, Alan’s goal offered a response, but the difference between eight shots inside the box and eight from outside is worth watching alongside its expected-goals figure. For Porto, the win came with 12 shots and four on target, both below average, so repeating the result may depend on keeping its chances sharper. Diogo Costa’s five saves also made a substantial difference in a game where Vitória tested him often. Three details will show whether the same pattern returns:

• Whether Vitória SC can raise its expected goals above 0.72 and find more attempts inside the box.
• Whether FC Porto can move its shots on target closer to its 6.45-match average.
• Whether Diogo Costa’s five-save contribution is needed again when Porto faces a high on-target total.