Lecce's recorded results for 2025/2026, newest first, with the available xG behind each score. Compare outcomes with the chances created and conceded, then open a match for more detail.
Results
- Wins – draws – losses (W–D–L)
- 3 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss
10 pts 6–4 goals +2 GD
Chances
- Provider xG / xGA
- 5.11 – 7.97
- 1.02 – 1.59 per match
- xGD
- -2.86
- -0.57 per match
- xG record
- 2 with the chances, 0 with even chances, 3 against them
Comparable xG: 5 of 5 completed results.
Points vs xPts Model
10 pts 5.2 xPts
+4.8 vs xPts
Matched xPts: 5 of 5 selected results.
Model · How xPts works →Match points use 3 for a win, 1 for a draw and 0 for a loss, before deductions or sanctions.
Points vs xPts uses only matches with available xPts on both sides of the comparison.
What the results say
Last 5 · All competitions · All venues
Lecce's winning record runs ahead of the chances they created and conceded. They out-created the opponent in 2 of 5 matches, for −2.86 xG difference overall on 5.11–7.97. Their points total of 10 sits 4.8 above the model's 5.2 xPts, so the results have clearly outrun the chances. The win against Pisa came with −1.35 xGD.
Points minus xPts, match by match
Over these 5 results Lecce are 4.76 points above their xPts.
- Points
- 10
- xPts
- 5.24
- Gap
- +4.76
- This match
- Match gap
- Running gap
| Date | Opponent | Points | xPts | Match gap | Running gap |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sat 25/04 | Hellas Verona | 1 | 1.68 | -0.68 | -0.68 |
| Fri 01/05 | Pisa | 3 | 0.48 | +2.52 | +1.84 |
| Sat 09/05 | Juventus | 0 | 0.45 | -0.45 | +1.39 |
| Sun 17/05 | Sassuolo | 3 | 0.61 | +2.39 | +3.78 |
| Sun 24/05 | Genoa | 3 | 2.02 | +0.98 | +4.76 |
Scores and xG
Lecce first
-
Match analysis →
Why this label · Genoa, Sun 24/05
The team won and had a positive xG difference. The chances support the direction of the result, without making a judgment about fairness.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 3
- Post-match model xPts
- 2.02
- Points minus xPts
- +0.98
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Sassuolo, Sun 17/05
The team won despite recording less xG than its opponent. That contrast does not make the win impossible or establish why it happened.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 3
- Post-match model xPts
- 0.61
- Points minus xPts
- +2.39
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Juventus, Sat 09/05
The team lost and recorded less xG than its opponent. The direction of the result aligns with the chance difference.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 0
- Post-match model xPts
- 0.46
- Points minus xPts
- -0.46
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Pisa, Fri 01/05
The team won despite recording less xG than its opponent. That contrast does not make the win impossible or establish why it happened.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 3
- Post-match model xPts
- 0.48
- Points minus xPts
- +2.52
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated → -
Match analysis →
Why this label · Hellas Verona, Sat 25/04
The match was drawn although the team recorded a positive xG difference. The outcome was weaker than that chance advantage suggests.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
- Points
- 1
- Post-match model xPts
- 1.68
- Points minus xPts
- -0.68
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
Learn how xG and xPts are calculated →
Biggest overperformance
Pisa 2:1
· Away xG / xGA 0.88 – 2.23
- Goal difference
- +1
- xGD
- -1.35
- GD minus xGD
- +2.35
Among 5 comparable results.
Open match →
Reading these results
xG is the provider's estimate of chances created; xGA is the opponent's xG. xGD is the difference. Labels compare the recorded outcome with those chances; they are interpretations, not judgments about fairness.
xPts is our post-match model's 3 × win probability + draw probability using the match's provider xG, not a pre-match forecast.
How each figure on this page is read
Every xG bar is drawn on one fixed scale: full width is 7.20 xG, the same on every card and in every window, so two cards can be compared by eye. A rarer match above that is capped with a hatched end, and the figure beside the bar still gives its value.
An xGD of at least +0.25 is positive; at most −0.25 is negative; between them is approximately even. The band uses unrounded figures and is an editorial guide, not a statistical confidence threshold. The chip on each result reads one of three ways: backed by the chances, with even chances, or against them. Counted over the selection, those three are the xG record on the Chances card — 5–1–0 reads as five results with the chances, one even and none against them.
Goal difference minus xGD says how far a scoreline finished from the chances behind it: a 4:2 won off level chances ran nearly two goals ahead of them. The two callouts under the list name the match that ran furthest each way, and a direction with no result a full goal clear of the chances gets no card rather than a card built from a rounding.
Windows count back from the most recent recorded match, and only matches attached to this club record are included. Home and away mean the provider-designated side, not a verified physical venue. Scores describe recorded play, not shootout advancement. Unverified periods receive no chance comparison.