Gateshead vs Forest Green Rovers: match statistics
Forest Green Rovers clearly surpasses Gateshead in terms of quality and seasonal form. The hosts occupy 23rd place in the table with a disastrous record of 7-5-20 and a goal difference of -35, while the visitors rank 6th with a solid record of 16-11-8. Gateshead wins only 7% of matches at home, loses 73%, and concedes an average of 2.4 goals per game, failing to keep a single clean sheet. Forest Green presents significantly better efficiency on the road with 35% wins, a higher conversion rate (11% vs 8%), and better xG (1.68 vs 1.6). Despite the weaker recent form of both teams (Gateshead: llwwd, Forest Green: llldl), the difference in class and seasonal statistics speaks decisively in favor of the visitors. The high percentage of draws for Forest Green away (35%) also justifies some probability of a points split, but an away victory remains the most likely scenario.
Gateshead vs Forest Green Rovers: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Gateshead played Forest Green Rovers in National League (England). The match was played on 28 February 2026. Final score: 0:2.
Current form
Gateshead: 2-1-2, 1.40 points/match. Forest Green Rovers: 0-1-4, 0.20 points/match.
Goal statistics
Gateshead scores 1.22 and concedes 2.31 goals per match. Forest Green Rovers scores 1.66 and concedes 1.20. League average: 2.90 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Gateshead 56%, Forest Green Rovers 71%. Over 2.5: Gateshead 75%, Forest Green Rovers 51%. League level: BTTS 57%, Over 2.5 56%.
xG, shots and style
Forest Green Rovers has higher xG: 2.02 vs 1.42. Gateshead: 10.9 shots per match, Forest Green Rovers: 16.7.
Match halves
Gateshead: half-time lead 19%, second-half goals 0.59. Forest Green Rovers: half-time lead 31%, second-half goals 0.94.
Goals by minute
Gateshead: 0-15 (10 goals). Forest Green Rovers: 46-60 (13 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
National League: 2.90 goals per match, BTTS 57%, Over 2.5 56%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 1 previous H2H matches were available: 0-0-1. Average goals 4.00, BTTS 100%.
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
Forest Green Rovers clearly surpasses Gateshead in terms of quality and seasonal form. The hosts occupy 23rd place in the table with a disastrous record of 7-5-20 and a goal difference of -35, while the visitors rank 6th with a solid record of 16-11-8. Gateshead wins only 7% of matches at home, loses 73%, and concedes an average of 2.4 goals per game, failing to keep a single clean sheet. Forest Green presents significantly better efficiency on the road with 35% wins, a higher conversion rate (11% vs 8%), and better xG (1.68 vs 1.6). Despite the weaker recent form of both teams (Gateshead: llwwd, Forest Green: llldl), the difference in class and seasonal statistics speaks decisively in favor of the visitors. The high percentage of draws for Forest Green away (35%) also justifies some probability of a points split, but an away victory remains the most likely scenario.
View the statistical overviewHalf-by-half
Match statistics
Pre-match profile— what do the season numbers say?
This is a team profile based on season data and form. Match-flow statistics are shown only after the fixture is played.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Attack and defence comparison for both teams in the current season.
Shooting quality
| Gateshead | Forest Green Rovers | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 32% | 36% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.13 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.35 | 0.27 |
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 matches and season record, overall and split by home and away matches.
Gateshead is 600% better for: last-5 form.
1.4 pts / match - Gateshead · 0.2 pts / match - Forest Green Rovers
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.
Forest Green Rovers is 36% better for: goals scored per match.
1.22 goals / match - Gateshead · 1.66 goals / match - Forest Green Rovers
Forest Green Rovers is 93% better for: goals conceded per match.
2.31 goals / match - Gateshead · 1.2 goals / match - Forest Green Rovers
Gateshead scores in 59% of matches (19 of 32 matches), while Forest Green Rovers keeps a clean sheet in 23% (8 of 35 matches).
Forest Green Rovers scores in 89% of matches (31 of 35 matches), while Gateshead keeps a clean sheet in 6% (2 of 32 matches).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* Statistics include both teams' home and away matches in the current season.
Both teams scored (BTTS)— how often do both teams score?
How often both teams' matches have goals on both sides, compared with the league average.
Goal patterns
BTTS and goal count
Goal count (Over/Under)— how often do these matches cross the goal lines?
How often matches involving these teams clear goal thresholds, in the full match and in each half.
Full match - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under - Gateshead
Over / Under - Forest Green Rovers
1st half
2nd half
Match 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.
Forest Green Rovers is 59% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
0.81 pts / match - Gateshead · 1.29 pts / match - Forest Green Rovers
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Gateshead - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 19% of matches and wins 22%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
Forest Green Rovers - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 31% of matches and wins 46%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.80 | 2.20 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.4 | 0.4 |
| Average goals in match | 2.2 | 1.4 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 60% |
| No goal | 40% | 20% |
| Goal difference | -3 | +3 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.40 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.2 | 1.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.8 | 0.4 |
| Average goals in match | 2.0 | 1.4 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 80% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 40% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 60% |
| No goal | 80% | 20% |
| Goal difference | -8 | +3 |
* Colours in tables show event frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate, red is rare. It is frequency, not a team rating.
Goals by minute— when do goals arrive?
Match phases in which both teams most often score and concede.
Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (10 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (17). Late-goal balance (76-90): -13 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 46-60 (13 goals). Concedes most in 0-15 (10). Late-goal balance (76-90): +5 - 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 based on completed matches from the current season.
Match profile
Gateshead
Forest Green Rovers
* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range are calculated from public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical match profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed matches from the season.
League context— is this a high-scoring league?
How both teams compare with league-wide averages (National League).
Teams vs league
| Gateshead | Liga | Forest Green Rovers | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 3.53 | 2.90 | • 2.86 |
| Both teams scored | • 56% | 57% | ▲ 71% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 75% | 56% | ▼ 51% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 6% | 24% | • 23% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 91% | 72% | ▲ 83% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 88% | 80% | • 80% |
^ 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.
Referee context
See how often this referee shows cards, awards penalties and how their matches tend to finish.
Head-to-head
Previous meeting: Gateshead 0 - 0 - 1 Forest Green Rovers. Average goals 4.00, both teams scored in 100% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Gateshead vs Forest Green Rovers?
The National League match finished Gateshead 0:2 Forest Green Rovers. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Gateshead vs Forest Green Rovers?
Gateshead score 1.22 goals per game on average and Forest Green Rovers 1.66. The National League average is 2.90 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 56% of games. Both teams score in 56% of Gateshead's matches and 71% of Forest Green Rovers's.
What form are Gateshead and Forest Green Rovers in?
Over the last 5 games Gateshead have a 2-1-2 record (1.40 points per game) and Forest Green Rovers 0-1-4 (0.20 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Gateshead vs Forest Green Rovers?
The statistical background for Gateshead vs Forest Green Rovers — form, head-to-head, goals, BTTS and Over/Under — is on this page. The tip with full reasoning and a value assessment is in the NoFluffPicks app.