Little Common vs Haywards Heath Town preview

England flag 2026/2027 FA Cup, England
FA Cup
Full Time
Extra Preliminary Round
Unknown - 77'
Goal
|
Goal
Unknown - 32', 42', 59', 75'

CONTEXT

Little Common hosted Haywards Heath Town in a match that concluded with a 1-4 scoreline. The home side trailed 0-2 at halftime before adding a single goal in the second period. Haywards Heath Town, identified as the deviation team, secured the victory despite Little Common being listed as the stronger side. No red cards were issued to either team during the contest. Expected goals figures remained unavailable throughout the analysis. Possession and efficiency metrics were not recorded in the provided data. The outcome reflected a significant deviation level from initial projections.

TL;DR

  • Structural deviation: Final score: Little Common 1-4 Haywards Heath Town. Haywards Heath Town showed a significant deviation from the pre-match structural baseline.
  • Efficiency shift: The efficiency shift remained in line with available indicators.
  • xG alignment: Expected goals data was unavailable so alignment could not be assessed.
  • Market alignment: The result proved consistent with the recorded market alignment status.
  • xG expectations: No expected goals values were present to form specific expectations.
  • Event impact: No notable events such as red cards altered the match flow.
  • Red card distortion: Zero red cards occurred so no distortion from dismissals took place.
No standings statistics available.
No head-to-head records found.
0.5+ goals: 85%
1.5+ goals: 70%
2.5+ goals: 50%
3.5+ goals: 25%
Confidence: High (≥8 matches)

Quality vs Volume

Home: xG 1.8, Shots 12, xG/Shot 0.15
Away: xG 1.5, Shots 14, xG/Shot 0.11

Open Play vs Set Play

Open Play: 65%
Set Play: 35%

Expected Points

TeamxPts
Home1.8
Away1.2
ℹ️ Methodology: Expected Goals (xG) measures shot quality
No referee statistics available.
Little Common Little Common
Little Common
VS
Haywards Heath Town Haywards Heath Town
Haywards Heath Town
0
Avg Points / Game (Last 100 Matches)
0
0 i
Avg Points / Game (Last 6 Matches)
0 i
0
Head to Head (Wins - Draws - Losses)
0 - 0 - 0
0

Team Power Ranking

i
What is Power Ranking?
Power score: composite of opponent-weighted form (last 6 & 20 games) and league position over last 3 seasons.
50
50
0 (Weakest) 100 (Strongest)
Metric
Little Common
Haywards Heath Town
Power Score
50
50
League Position
-
-
Global Rank
-
-

Form Analysis Opponent-Weighted

Line chart of recent results (points/trend). Friendlies excluded by default. Hover for opponent, result, xG/xGA and power ranking — based on last 6 matches.

vs
Little Common Opponent-weighted form score
Haywards Heath Town Opponent-weighted form score
Win (3 pts) Draw (1 pt) Loss (0 pts) Little Common Haywards Heath Town

Heatmaps Ball coordinates

Attack and defence zones from ball position data. Filters: last 6 matches (overall/home/away), time period, competition.

vs

Little Common

Left / Center / Right
Opposition half density
vs season average

Haywards Heath Town

Left / Center / Right
Opposition half density
vs season average
Possession Efficiency data not available for this match.

Set Pieces Efficiency Attack & Defence

Set-piece reliance and strength using expected metrics and actual outcomes for each team.

Little Common ⚠ Proxy
vs
⚠ Proxy Haywards Heath Town
Created Set-piece attacking threat
Little Common Haywards Heath Town
Set-piece xG Share Share of total expected goals generated from set pieces. Higher = more set-piece reliant in attack.
Goals per Match Average set-piece goals scored per match.
vs Expected (xG) Goals scored minus set-piece xG. Positive = overperforming; Negative = underperforming expectations.
vs
Conceded Set-piece defensive exposure
Little Common Haywards Heath Town
Set-piece xGA Share Share of total expected goals conceded from set pieces. Higher = more exposed to set pieces defensively.
Conceded per Match Average set-piece goals conceded per match.
vs Expected (xGA) Goals conceded minus set-piece xGA. Positive = conceding more than expected (bad); Negative = conceding less than expected (good).
vs
xG set-piece data unavailable for both teams. Values estimated using proxy metrics (shots, dangerous attacks). Confidence: Medium.
Little Common
Haywards Heath Town
xG Share = set-piece xG ÷ total xG
vs Expected = goals − set-piece xG

Counter / Transition Attack & Defence

What happens in the 15 seconds immediately after possession changes hands — based on Last 6 matches.

Little Common
vs
Haywards Heath Town
Attack After Winning Possession transition → offence
Little Common Haywards Heath Town
Goals per Match Average goals scored within 15s of winning the ball per match. ↑ better
Shots per Match Average shots taken within 15s of winning the ball per match. ↑ better
Dangerous Attacks Average dangerous attacks launched within 15s of winning possession per match. ↑ better
Defence After Losing Possession loss → defensive exposure
Little Common Haywards Heath Town
Goals Conceded Average goals conceded within 15s of losing the ball per match. ↓ better
Shots Conceded Average shots conceded within 15s of losing the ball per match. ↓ better
Dangerous Attacks Conceded Average dangerous attacks allowed within 15s of losing possession per match. ↓ better
Little Common
Haywards Heath Town
Window = 15s post-possession change
Index = 0–1 composite score
Pressure Index data not available for this match.

General Information

Date & Time
Competition
2026/2027 FA Cup, England · Extra Preliminary Round
Stadium
,
Capacity
N/A
Pitch Surface
N/A
Weather
☀️ 12°C, Fair

Squad

Squad

No data available

Squad

Kieron Rowe
Kieron Rowe Midfielder

Events

2ND-HALF
Event
5th Goal
77'
75'
Event
4th Goal
59'
Event
3rd Goal
1ST-HALF
42'
Event
2nd Goal
32'
Event
1st Goal

CONCLUSION

Haywards Heath Town completed a 1-4 away win after establishing a 0-2 halftime lead against Little Common. The stronger designated side failed to recover in the second half despite scoring once. Absence of expected goals prevented deeper performance quantification yet the final margin stood clear. No disciplinary actions influenced proceedings and efficiency remained aligned with noted parameters. The significant deviation by the winners highlighted a clear performance gap on the day. Overall the result delivered a decisive outcome without additional complicating factors from the data set.