AFC Wimbledon vs Reading: match statistics
Reading demonstrates a clear offensive advantage over AFC Wimbledon, scoring an average of 1.46 goals per away match with a shot conversion rate of 13%, while the hosts average only 0.77 goals per home match with a 7% conversion rate. The key factor is Reading's attacking efficiency - 4.38 shots on target per away match compared to the hosts' 2.38, which indicates a significantly better quality of chances created. AFC Wimbledon struggles to score, failing to find the net in 54% of home matches, which, given Reading's solid form (1.6 points per match in the last 5 games), makes the visitors the favorites. The goal difference of both teams at their home grounds is 0, however, Reading shows greater stability with a 38% draw rate away from home, which makes that scenario also plausible. Considering all statistics, Reading should secure at least a point, with an edge towards a full victory.
AFC Wimbledon vs Reading: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
AFC Wimbledon played against Reading in EFL League One (England). The game was played on February 7, 2026. Final score: 3:2.
Recent form
AFC Wimbledon has 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses over its last five games, averaging 0.80 points per game. Reading has 2 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss, with 1.60 points per game.
Scoring records
AFC Wimbledon scores 1.04 goals per game and allows 1.29. Reading scores 1.39 and allows 1.25. Games in this league average 2.54 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 43% of AFC Wimbledon's games and 64% of Reading's. The Over 2.5 rates are 43% and 43%, compared with league averages of 51% for BTTS and 49% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
Reading has the higher season xG average, 1.34 to 1.10 per game. AFC Wimbledon takes 9.9 shots per game, while Reading takes 11.9.
First-half and second-half trends
AFC Wimbledon leads at halftime in 21% of its games and scores 0.64 goals per game after halftime. Reading leads at halftime in 32% and scores 0.79 after halftime.
When the teams score
AFC Wimbledon's most productive scoring window is minutes 61-75 (9 goals). For Reading, it is minutes 76-90+ (9 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
League One games average 2.54 goals. Both teams score in 51% of games, and 49% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
Before this game, one previous meeting was available. The record was 1 home win, 0 draws and 0 away wins. Those games averaged 3.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 100% of them.
Archived pre-match analysis
This analysis was prepared before kick-off. The conclusions use only information available before the match and do not include the final result or post-match statistics.
General match analysis
Reading demonstrates a clear offensive advantage over AFC Wimbledon, scoring an average of 1.46 goals per away match with a shot conversion rate of 13%, while the hosts average only 0.77 goals per home match with a 7% conversion rate. The key factor is Reading's attacking efficiency - 4.38 shots on target per away match compared to the hosts' 2.38, which indicates a significantly better quality of chances created. AFC Wimbledon struggles to score, failing to find the net in 54% of home matches, which, given Reading's solid form (1.6 points per match in the last 5 games), makes the visitors the favorites. The goal difference of both teams at their home grounds is 0, however, Reading shows greater stability with a 38% draw rate away from home, which makes that scenario also plausible. Considering all statistics, Reading should secure at least a point, with an edge towards a full victory.
View the statistical overviewStats by half
Game stats
Pre-game profile— what do the season numbers say?
This team profile combines season stats and recent form. In-game statistics appear after the final whistle.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.
Shooting quality
| AFC Wimbledon | Reading | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 26% | 35% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.40 | 0.33 |
xG per shot around 0.08 usually means long-range attempts; 0.15+ usually means box chances. The style label comes from possession, shot volume and conversion.
* xG (expected goals) says how many goals a team should score from its chances. If actual goals are above xG, finishing is above average; if below xG, chances are being missed.
Team form— who is in better shape?
Last five games and season record, overall, at home and away.
Reading is 100% better for: last-5 form.
0.8 pts / game - AFC Wimbledon · 1.6 pts / game - Reading
Goals— how do both teams score and concede?
How many goals both teams score and concede, plus how often they keep a clean sheet or fail to score.
Reading is 34% better for: goals scored per game.
1.04 goals / game - AFC Wimbledon · 1.39 goals / game - Reading
AFC Wimbledon scores in 57% of games (16 of 28 meczów), while Reading keeps a clean sheet in 25% (7 of 28 meczów).
Reading scores in 89% of games (25 of 28 meczów), while AFC Wimbledon keeps a clean sheet in 21% (6 of 28 meczów).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* Statistics include both teams' home and away games this season.
Both teams scored (BTTS)— how often do both teams score?
How often games involving these teams produce goals at both ends, compared with the league average.
Goal patterns
BTTS and goal count
Goal count (Over/Under)— how often do these games cross the goal lines?
See how often games involving these teams clear each goal line, for the full game and each half.
Full game - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under - AFC Wimbledon
Over / Under - Reading
1st half
2nd half
Game halves— when do the teams score more often?
How teams split performance between first and second half: goals, points, clean sheets and half-time state.
Reading is 15% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.21 pts / game - AFC Wimbledon · 1.39 pts / game - Reading
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
AFC Wimbledon - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 21% of games and wins 36%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Allows 0.4 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
Reading - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 32% of games and wins 36%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Allows 0.4 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 0.60 | 1.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Average goals per game | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| 1 goal | 40% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 0% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 40% |
| No goal | 100% | 60% |
| Goal difference | -2 | -1 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 0.80 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.4 | 1.2 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Average goals per game | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 40% |
| No goal | 60% | 0% |
| Goal difference | -1 | +2 |
* Table colors show frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate and red is rare. They are not team ratings.
Goals by minute— when do goals arrive?
The parts of a game in which both teams score and allow the most goals.
Most dangerous in minutes 61-75 (9 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (12). Late-goal balance (76-90): -7 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (9 goals). Concedes most in 61-75 (9). Late-goal balance (76-90): +2 - wins late phases.
* Buckets 31-45 and 76-90 include added-time goals.
Additional team indicators— what do xG, efficiency and form show?
A comparison of chance quality, results and trends from completed games this season.
Game profile
AFC Wimbledon
Reading
* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range use public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical game profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed games from the season.
League context— is this a high-scoring league?
How both teams compare with league-wide averages (League One).
Teams vs league
| AFC Wimbledon | Liga | Reading | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | ▼ 2.32 | 2.54 | ▲ 2.64 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 43% | 51% | ▲ 64% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 43% | 49% | ▼ 43% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 21% | 27% | ▼ 25% |
| Goal before half-time | ▼ 57% | 68% | ▲ 71% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 86% | 81% | ▲ 89% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Lineups and player events
Verified starters, substitutes and recorded player events for this match.
Home team
Starting lineup
Away team
Starting lineup
Match timeline
Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.
Referee and managers
Open their season profiles to compare match records, goals and disciplinary trends.
Head-to-head
Record from AFC Wimbledon's perspective: 1 win, 0 draws and 0 losses against Reading. Games average 3.00 goals, and both teams scored in 100% of them.
FAQ
What was the result of AFC Wimbledon vs Reading?
The EFL League One match finished AFC Wimbledon 3:2 Reading. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before AFC Wimbledon vs Reading?
AFC Wimbledon score 1.04 goals per game on average and Reading 1.39. The EFL League One average is 2.54 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 49% of games. Both teams score in 43% of AFC Wimbledon's matches and 64% of Reading's.
What form are AFC Wimbledon and Reading in?
Over the last 5 games AFC Wimbledon have a 1-1-3 record (0.80 points per game) and Reading 2-2-1 (1.60 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for AFC Wimbledon vs Reading?
Here you can check the pre-match numbers for AFC Wimbledon vs Reading: form, H2H, goals and Over/Under. The pick itself, value and reasoning are published in the NoFluffPicks app.