Burnley v Reading
How the SharpXI model rated this Championship fixture — every call it made on shots, cards and fouls, set against what actually happened on the day.
Before Burnley beat Reading 2–1, the SharpXI model made 14 confident calls on the player markets and 11 landed — the strongest being Mamadou Loum for 1+ fouls committed (81%, had 2). Its clearest miss: Junior Hoilett for 1+ fouls committed (72%, had 0). Every probability here was published before kick-off, priced the same way as every other fixture — one game is noise, not a verdict.
Player markets — the model's calls
Each probability is the model's own number for the headline (1+) line, before any bookmaker margin. The result column is what the player actually recorded.
| Player | Market | Line | Model | Actual | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mamadou Loum | fouls committed | 1+ | 81% | 2 | ✓ |
| Benson Manuel | shots total | 1+ | 75% | 1 | ✓ |
| Yakou Méïté | fouls committed | 1+ | 75% | 3 | ✓ |
| Nathan Tella | fouls drawn | 1+ | 74% | 1 | ✓ |
| Jay Rodriguez | shots total | 1+ | 74% | 2 | ✓ |
| Junior Hoilett | fouls committed | 1+ | 72% | 0 | ✗ |
| Benson Manuel | fouls drawn | 1+ | 71% | 2 | ✓ |
| Yakou Méïté | shots total | 1+ | 70% | 2 | ✓ |
| Josh Brownhill | fouls committed | 1+ | 69% | 1 | ✓ |
| Anass Zaroury | fouls committed | 1+ | 68% | 1 | ✓ |
| Nathan Tella | shots total | 1+ | 68% | 3 | ✓ |
| Andy Yiadom | fouls committed | 1+ | 68% | 0 | ✗ |
| Tom Ince | shots total | 1+ | 68% | 2 | ✓ |
| Jóhann Guðmundsson | shots total | 1+ | 65% | 0 | ✗ |
How these are modelled: Fouls committed · Shots total · Fouls drawn
Team & match markets
| Market | Line | Model | Actual | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Match cards | O4.5 | 27% | 7 cards | ✓ |
How these are modelled: Match cards
Dig deeper
Past meetings
- Reading 0–0 Burnley Apr 2023
Frequently asked
How did the SharpXI model do on Burnley v Reading?
11 of its 14 most-confident calls landed. The board on this page lists every one with the model's pre-kickoff probability next to what actually happened, hits and misses in the same table.
What did the model get wrong on Burnley v Reading?
The most confident call it got wrong was Junior Hoilett at 72% for fouls committed — shown in the same table as the hits, marked with a cross. A record that hides its misses isn't a record, so we don't.
Are these probabilities hindsight?
No. Each one is the number the model produced from data available before kick-off, using the same settings as every other fixture on the site — nothing was refitted after the result. That is the only way a per-match report means anything.
Does one match tell you if the model is any good in the Championship?
No, and we'd rather say so. A single fixture is a handful of calls and mostly noise; the season-long, market-by-market record — including the markets that fail to beat a naive guess — is on the track record page.
SharpXI models probabilities from public match data; it does not take bets or guarantee outcomes. Prices are entered per leg in the tool. 18+ — please gamble responsibly.