Match analysisAI-assisted
Hull City 1–1 Brentford: what changed at minute 63?
Hull City's win probability moved from 75.4% to 24.1%. Compare the match sequence with 1.62–1.71 xG.
By xG Lab ·
The recorded evidence
On 25 October 2026, Hull City and Brentford finished 1–1. The verified goal sequence was: Hull City at minute 24 (1–0); Brentford at minute 63 (1–1).
At kick-off the model assigned Hull City 36.7%, the draw 26.4% and Brentford 36.9%. At minute 62, the home win probability was 75.4%; at minute 63 it was 24.1%. This was the largest consecutive home probability change before the settled endpoint, at 51.3 percentage points. Values are independently rounded. At the later checkpoint the draw was 51.7% and the away win probability was 24.2%.
Hull City recorded 1.62 xG and Brentford recorded 1.71. Total xG sums the scoring probabilities of chances; it does not establish average shot quality or a deserved result. The replay model uses pre-match strengths, score, remaining time and recorded red cards, rather than updating from live xG. The final checkpoint is settled by the actual result.
What the minute 63 movement does and does not show
The recorded goal sequence is Hull City at minute 24 (1–0); Brentford at minute 63 (1–1). Read against the checkpoints, Hull City led after the first recorded score change, and at minute 62 the home win probability stood at 75.4%, with the draw at 19.7% and Brentford at 5.0%. The next recorded score change was the Brentford goal at minute 63, and the checkpoint at that minute shows Hull City at 24.1%, the draw at 51.7% and Brentford at 24.2%. The observation is that the recorded score change and the largest probability movement sit in the same sampled minute, a change of 51.3 percentage points.
The swing is defined only as the largest consecutive change in the home win probability, so the data supports describing timing, not a wider explanation. The recorded data contains no information on how the match was played around either goal, and none should be inferred from the curve. The probabilities respond to score, remaining time, pre-match strengths and recorded red cards, so the movement is a mechanical reflection of the scoreline at that checkpoint.
Reading the xG totals alongside the curve
Final xG also cannot alter the recorded score. The last checkpoint at minute 90 shows 100.0% for the draw, 0.0% for Hull City and 0.0% for Brentford, which is simply the settled result of 1–1, not a pre-whistle estimate.
The data behind this analysis
| Minute | Hull City win | Draw | Brentford win |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0′ | 36.7% | 26.4% | 36.9% |
| 62′ | 75.4% | 19.7% | 5.0% |
| 63′ | 24.1% | 51.7% | 24.2% |
| 90′ | 0.0% | 100.0% | 0.0% |
Method, sources and limitations
This article uses a fixed snapshot captured on 2026-10-28. The latest data used is dated 2026-10-25. The snapshot stays fixed as the underlying tools update.
xG values use xG Lab’s licensed TheStatsAPI feed; other providers may produce different values. Probabilities come from xG Lab’s model using pre-match strengths, score, remaining time and recorded red cards. The model does not update strengths from live xG. The replay follows recorded minute checkpoints, including available stoppage time, with a settled final endpoint. Figures are rounded.
Short samples are descriptive and are not adjusted for opposition strength. A goals-minus-xG gap does not by itself isolate finishing skill or forecast future results. Pre-match probabilities are uncertain snapshots and may change with later data.
Prepared by xG Lab with AI assistance, following the analysis methods and editorial standards our team designed. Every figure is checked against the data snapshot above before publication. Interpretations should be read with these limitations.