PEC Zwolle vs Feyenoord: match statistics

Feyenoord is the clear favorite in this fixture: they sit 2nd in the table versus PEC Zwolle in 13th, have scored 68 goals this season compared to PEC’s 44 and possess a superior away goal difference (+8 vs +2 for the hosts). The gap in form and defense is pronounced — PEC have scored 6 and conceded 16 in their last 5 matches (3.2 goals conceded per game), while Feyenoord have scored 7 and conceded 4 in the same period (0.8 per game) and average 1.8 points across their last five matches versus 0.8 for PEC. Quality of chances favors the visitors: Feyenoord average 14.69 shots and 5.31 on target away, PEC at home 10.13 and 3.69 — with similar conversion rates (12% vs 13%), the higher volume of shots translates into a goals edge. This is supported by xG: Fey have an average xG for 1.71 away versus PEC’s 1.17 xG for at home, while PEC concede 1.68 xG against, indicating more high-quality chances for opponents. Given these figures and PEC’s recent defensive issues, I forecast a Feyenoord win.

Both teams possess tangible offensive strengths: PEC Zwolle averages 2.29 goals per match (xG 2.09), while Feyenoord averages 1.81 goals (xG 1.71), indicating both sides create scoring opportunities. Zwolle’s defense is however vulnerable – in the last 5 matches they conceded an average of 3.2 goals (16 conceded), whereas Feyenoord conceded 0.8 goals in the last 5 (4 conceded); season long concession averages are 1.35 vs 1.31. BTTS metrics support the forecast: Zwolle has BTTS 76% on the season and 60% in the last 5, while Feyenoord has 50% on the season and 80% in the last 5, against a league BTTS average of 63%. Additionally, Zwolle registers on average 7.12 shots on target and 18.41 total shots versus Feyenoord’s 5.31 and 14.69, and matches over 2.5 goals occur for both teams at 59–63%, favoring goal exchange. Considering 76% vs 50% season BTTS, 60% vs 80% in the last 5, Zwolle’s high xG 2.09 and Zwolle’s very weak defense in the last 5 (3.2 conceded), I tip BTTS - Yes with a probability of 75% (No 25%).

I project approximately 3.14 total goals in this match: 1.70 for PEC Zwolle and 1.44 for Feyenoord, calculated as the average of attacking xG and defensive xG (2.09 vs 1.31 → 1.70; 1.71 vs 1.16 → 1.44). Seasonal stats show PEC have 88% of matches over 1.5 goals, Feyenoord 81%, and the over 2.5 rate is 59% for PEC and 63% for Feyenoord, which supports a scenario of at least two goals. In the last 5 fixtures PEC scored 6 and conceded 16 goals (avg 1.2 scored, 3.2 conceded), while Feyenoord in their last 5 scored 7 and conceded 4 (1.4 scored, 0.8 conceded) — the home side’s weak defense increases the risk of a higher-scoring outcome. The rate of both teams scoring is 76% for PEC and 50% for Feyenoord, and the league average is 3.17 goals per game; therefore the strongest signal is Over 1.5 (estimated 95% probability); I assess Over 2.5 at about 70% and Over 3.5 at about 40%.

Season-long metrics favor PEC Zwolle: the hosts average xG of 2.09 versus Feyenoord’s 1.71, attempt more shots (18.41 vs 14.69) and score an average of 2.29 goals per game compared to the visitors’ 1.81, which translates into a higher home points average (2.12 vs 1.63). At Half-Time PEC led in 53% of matches this season, scoring 1.00 and conceding 0.47 on average by the break, while Feyenoord records 0.94 scored and 0.75 conceded at Half-Time — this supports a lead for the hosts after 45 minutes. However, in the last 5 matches PEC has only a 20% win rate and led at the break in 20% of games, and in the same sample they concede an average of 2.0 goals after Half-Time, whereas Feyenoord has a 40% win rate and led at Half-Time in 40% of games, which increases the risk of a turnaround. Combining the long-term advantage in xG/shots with PEC’s short-term poor form, I forecast 24% for 1/1 as the strongest signal, while also assigning meaningful probabilities to 2/2 (22%) and 2/1 (15%) given the hosts’ weaker second halves. Recommendation: I select 1/1 as the primary scenario, because season-long advantages in xG (2.09 vs 1.71) and leads at the break (53% vs 44%) are the strongest single indicators, despite the post-break risk.