Udinese and Lecce, who meet today, both have among the league's worst xGDs (Statz: Udinese −3.1, Lecce −5.6). Neither side's table position is mainly bad luck.
Back to the trend of the day: Two struggling Italian football teams meet, and a coach's job may be at stake
Poly Rating · from the trend of the day
Serie A Expected Points Table 2026-27
Cagliari sit fifth on 13 points from chances worth just 5.4 to 6.7, and every model that rates them says no Serie A side has outrun its chances by more.
- No. 1: Cagliari
- 10 places
01Final list
The leading AIs each built their own list of ten independently. Here is one result that is easy to check: every place has a reason, a source, and the list of AIs that included it.
A bright badge means this AI put the entry on its list. A dim badge means it did not.
- 1
Cagliari
13 points from chances worth 5.4–6.7: every model rates this the league's biggest overperformance. An xGD near −5 says a fall is likelier than a rebound.
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: see list · ChatGPT: see list · Gemini: 6 · DeepSeek: see list
What each AI noted 4
- Claude
Named differently in its own list: open the full list.
see list - ChatGPT
Named differently in its own list: open the full list.
see list - Geminiplace 6
Renowned as Serie A's ultimate survival specialist, Nicola faces internal scrutiny after 1 win in 6 matches tests the Sardinian project.
Source ↗ - DeepSeek
Named differently in its own list: open the full list.
see list
4 AIs put it here - 2
Lazio
Third on 16 points from chances worth 8.9–10; an Opta-based model goes as low as 6. Their +7 goal difference rests on an almost-even +0.6 xGD.
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Gemini, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: 10 · ChatGPT: see list · DeepSeek: see list
3 AIs put it here - 3
Frosinone
The promoted side is 4th on 13 points; two models agree they earned about 7.5. An xGA of 15.0, among the league's worst, marks the defence as the deeper problem.
Included it: Claude, DeepSeek. Did not include: ChatGPT, Meta, Gemini, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: see list · DeepSeek: see list
2 AIs put it here - 4
Monza
4 points from chances worth 9.3–9.4, with a positive xGD in both models. This is the clearest rebound case: good chances, poor finishing.
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: 2 · ChatGPT: see list · Gemini: 3 · DeepSeek: 1
What each AI noted 4
- Claudeplace 2
Bookmakers price his sacking at 1.80–1.85, shortest in the league, yet his team has the 9th-best xG (9.9) and a −5.3 xPts gap.
Source ↗ - ChatGPT
Named differently in its own list: open the full list.
see list - Geminiplace 3
Still hunting for his first league victory with Monza, holding 4 points while board patience thins in the shadow of Palladino's legacy.
Source ↗ - DeepSeekplace 1
Bookmakers make him 1.75 to go — yet Monza's 9.44 xPTS is more than double their 4 actual points.
Source ↗
4 AIs put it here - 5
Bologna
5 points against 9.8–10.4 expected. The table says crisis, the chances say top half. Two reads of Statz disagree on the figure (9.8 vs 10.4).
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: 8 · ChatGPT: 7 · Gemini: 9 · DeepSeek: 4
What each AI noted 4
- Claudeplace 8
Replaced Tedesco on 16 Sep at 1 point; Bologna now have 5, but the biggest xPts gap (−5.4) argues for patience.
Source ↗ - ChatGPTplace 7
Bologna’s five points versus 9.8 xPts make the underlying case for patience stronger than its raw points tally suggests.
Source ↗ - Geminiplace 9
Five draws in six matches create frustration under European spotlight, though underlying 10.4 xPTS suggests victories will soon arrive.
Source ↗ - DeepSeekplace 4
5 points from 10.41 xPTS: a new coach with a strong patience case, inside a club that has already changed once.
Source ↗
4 AIs put it here - 6
Venezia
Bottom on 3 points from about 7–8 expected. They create plenty (11.1 xG) but concede 15.1 xGA, so only part of the gap is bad luck.
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: see list · ChatGPT: 9 · Gemini: 4 · DeepSeek: 7
What each AI noted 4
- Claude
Named differently in its own list: open the full list.
see list - ChatGPTplace 9
Six defeats in six triggered the change, though Venezia’s 10.2 xG against 0 points gives a real finishing-patience argument.
Source ↗ - Geminiplace 4
Four defeats in six fixtures rekindle memories of past relegation battles, though Venice executives highlight difficult opening scheduling.
Source ↗ - DeepSeekplace 7
A new coach with a 7.02 xPTS squad, but only 3 points and a -10 goal difference: the first win buys time, not safety.
Source ↗
4 AIs put it here - 7
Fiorentina
4 points and 18th. Statz rates their chances at 9.3 points, Understat at 7.2: both see bad luck, but they differ by two points on how much. Statz has the league's worst GD gap (−8.2).
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Gemini, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: 5 · ChatGPT: 6 · DeepSeek: 9
What each AI noted 3
- Claudeplace 5
He replaced Grosso at 0 points and the team still sits 18th on 4, but its xGD is +1.2 and the model says 9.3 points.
Source ↗ - ChatGPTplace 6
His three-match spell ended after three defeats: a clear results case, but an unusually short runway.
Source ↗ - DeepSeekplace 9
A new coach at a club that sacked its last one after three games: 4 points from 7.19 xPTS is a fragile start.
Source ↗
3 AIs put it here - 8
Atalanta
9 points from chances worth 4.2–5.7, with an xGD between −4.6 and −6.6: mid-table results hiding a bottom-half process.
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Gemini, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: 9 · ChatGPT: see list · DeepSeek: see list
3 AIs put it here - 9
Genoa
4 points from about 7 expected in both models, but an xGD of −2.8 means the chances are weak too. That makes them only a partial rebound case.
Included it: Claude, Gemini, DeepSeek. Did not include: ChatGPT, Meta, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: 4 · Gemini: 5 · DeepSeek: 3
What each AI noted 3
- Claudeplace 4
Last-but-one on 4 points with 5 goals scored; reports say he has the club's trust, while the market still prices a sacking by Christmas at 1.85.
Source ↗ - Geminiplace 5
Managing only 5 points after key summer departures, Gilardino earns credit for squad loyalty despite fan discontent over blunt finishing.
Source ↗ - DeepSeekplace 3
A first win eased the odds from 1.50 to 2.15, but 4 points from 7.01 xPTS keeps the spotlight on.
Source ↗
3 AIs put it here - 10
Lecce
6 points from chances worth just 2.9–4.8, with one of the worst xGDs in the league. Today's hosts Udinese are the reverse: 4 points against 5.2–6.6 expected.
Included it: Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini, DeepSeek. Did not include: Meta, Wenxin.In their lists: Claude: 3 · ChatGPT: 2 · Gemini: 2 · DeepSeek: 6
What each AI noted 4
- Claudeplace 3
Lecce's 6 points look kind: Statz gives them 4.8 xPts and the league's worst xGA (12.0).
Source ↗ - ChatGPTplace 2
Lecce have six points in the snapshot, but a −8.8 xGD and 3.7 xPts make the playing case more troubling than the table suggests.
Source ↗ - Geminiplace 2
A modest 6 points cannot hide a league-worst attack scoring just 3 goals, putting Gotti under rising heat ahead of Friuli.
- DeepSeekplace 6
6 points from 2.92 xPTS and a -9.33 xGD: results are better than the process, which is its own kind of warning.
Source ↗
4 AIs put it here
02Worth knowing
What the AIs noticed while building the list.
The models split on Napoli: Understat gives 14.28 xPts against 10 actual points, Statz 12.0, and xgstat has them exactly level.
Juventus have 11 points against 11.9–14.65 expected and conceded only 2.92 xGA on Understat: the issue is finishing, not chances allowed.
The snapshots are not in sync. 11footy runs to 12 Oct (six matches), while Statz already includes some seventh-round games, so Venezia read 0 or 3 points depending on the table.
Not every source could be checked. Understat figures come from one AI's reading (another found the page empty), xgEdge is a domain-for-sale page, and Statz's two pages give different xG for the same teams (Inter 19.5 vs 16.8).
03Questions people ask
Udinese vs US Lecce standings
Before their round-7 meeting on 18 October, Udinese were 15th with 4 points from 6 games (GD −4), and Lecce were 13th with 6 points (GD −6).
Source ↗Serie A expected points table
Inter lead Statz's expected-points table on 15.7 (19 actual), ahead of Roma on 14.0 (17 actual). Cagliari have the biggest overperformance, at +7.6.
Source ↗Which Serie A team is the unluckiest this season?
Monza and Bologna: Monza have 4 points from 9.3–9.4 expected, and Bologna 5 from 9.8–10.4, with both models agreeing.
Source ↗Why do expected points tables differ?
Each model rates shot quality differently. For Lazio, the overperformance is +5.97 on Understat, +7 on xgstat and +10 on an Opta-based model.
04How we counted
In plain words, no formulas.
1The question
Top 10 Serie A Teams Whose Results Tell a Different Story From Their Chances (Expected vs Actual Points, 2026-27)
2Why this topic
It sets rival expected-goals models against the real table, so a reader can see which teams are unlucky and which are as poor as their points suggest. No one published table does that.
3Where it applies
Italian Serie A, 2026-27 season so far
4What we looked at
- Gap between actual points and expected points, averaged across two independent xG publishers
- Gap between actual goal difference and expected goal difference
- Whether the two models agree: a mismatch both models show ranks higher than one only a single model shows
- Reading of each gap: likely rebound (chances good, finishing poor) or deeper problem (chances also poor)
- Statz — Team goals, xG, xGA, GD, xGD, points and expected points (Sportmonks shot data), updated 18 Oct
- Understat — Independent shot-quality xG and expected points per team
- xgstat — A third expected-points table with actual-versus-expected gaps
- 11footy — Its own shot-based xG, xGD and xPts beside actual points, results through 12 Oct
5Who ranked
The leading AIs, each building its own list of ten independently and naming a source for every place: Claude, ChatGPT, Meta, Gemini, DeepSeek, Wenxin.
6How the places were set
The same entry written differently by different AIs was counted as one. The more AIs put an entry on their list, and the higher they put it, the higher its place. "AI agreement" shows how many of the AIs had it on their own list. Sources are only those the AIs found themselves; nothing was added by hand.
05Each AI's own list
🇺🇸 Claude10 places · 3 notes
The same question, answered by Claude alone. The final list above combines all the AIs.
- 1Kosta Runjaić (Udinese)
Four straight defeats and no home win since 2 May, and in the Statz table his team's xGA of 10.3 is the 5th worst; Yahoo calls today's match pivotal.
Source ↗ - 2Ivan Jurić (Monza)
Bookmakers price his sacking at 1.80–1.85, shortest in the league, yet his team has the 9th-best xG (9.9) and a −5.3 xPts gap.
Source ↗ - 3Eusebio Di Francesco (Lecce)
Lecce's 6 points look kind: Statz gives them 4.8 xPts and the league's worst xGA (12.0).
Source ↗ - 4Daniele De Rossi (Genoa)
Last-but-one on 4 points with 5 goals scored; reports say he has the club's trust, while the market still prices a sacking by Christmas at 1.85.
Source ↗ - 5Paolo Vanoli (Fiorentina)
He replaced Grosso at 0 points and the team still sits 18th on 4, but its xGD is +1.2 and the model says 9.3 points.
Source ↗ - 6Ignazio Abate (Torino)
First senior job in Serie A, 12th on 7 points. The model (6.1 xPts) says the points are fair, but his side's xGA of 10.0 is not.
Source ↗ - 7Alberto Gilardino (Parma)
Appointed 29 Sep after Cuesta left at 4 points. Parma still have the lowest xG in the league (4.6) and 4 points.
Source ↗ - 8Raffaele Palladino (Bologna)
Replaced Tedesco on 16 Sep at 1 point; Bologna now have 5, but the biggest xPts gap (−5.4) argues for patience.
Source ↗ - 9Maurizio Sarri (Atalanta)
9 points and 10th, but the underlying numbers (5.7 xPts, xGD −4.6) are weaker than the table.
Source ↗ - 10Massimiliano Allegri (Napoli)
9th on 10 points with a −2.0 xPts gap: Napoli's 13.0 xG is the 3rd best, so the case for patience is strong.
Source ↗
What Claude noticed
Four coaches were sacked in the first six rounds, which Sky Sport says has not happened since 2000. They left at 0, 1, 4 (mutual consent in Parma's case) and 0 points, so each position was poor on the table.
The model and the table disagree most at Fiorentina, Monza and Bologna. Their xPts (9.3, 9.3, 10.4) are more than double their points. Judged on chances, these coaches look less exposed than Runjaić.
Runjaić himself says his team created more than usual and must now defend better and finish. The Statz data partly supports the first claim (xG 7.3) but not the second: xGA 10.3.
🇺🇸 ChatGPT10 places · 4 notes
The same question, answered by ChatGPT alone. The final list above combines all the AIs.
- 1Kosta Runjaic — Udinese, Serie A 2026–27
Four straight defeats made the Lecce match a reported turning point; the club’s own coach said the season was below expectations.
Source ↗ - 2Eusebio Di Francesco — Lecce, Serie A 2026–27
Lecce have six points in the snapshot, but a −8.8 xGD and 3.7 xPts make the playing case more troubling than the table suggests.
Source ↗ - 3Daniele De Rossi — Genoa, Serie A 2026–27
Genoa have four points and only 5.9 xPts, but the cited pressure coverage is earlier than the latest matchweek.
Source ↗ - 4Ivan Jurić — Serie A 2026–27
A September preview named him among the coaches watched closely, but the retrieved evidence does not establish a fresh October crisis.
Source ↗ - 5Ignazio Abate — Serie A 2026–27
An early-season pressure article named him, but evidence retrieved here does not support a stronger current case than the coaches above.
Source ↗ - 6Fabio Grosso — Fiorentina, Serie A 2026–27 (dismissed)
His three-match spell ended after three defeats: a clear results case, but an unusually short runway.
Source ↗ - 7Domenico Tedesco — Bologna, Serie A 2026–27 (dismissed)
Bologna’s five points versus 9.8 xPts make the underlying case for patience stronger than its raw points tally suggests.
Source ↗ - 8Carlos Cuesta — Parma, Serie A 2026–27 (departed by mutual consent)
Parma had four points after five matches and was 15th, so results were poor, though Statz gives them only 4.6 xG across six matches.
Source ↗ - 9Giovanni Stroppa — Venezia, Serie A 2026–27 (dismissed)
Six defeats in six triggered the change, though Venezia’s 10.2 xG against 0 points gives a real finishing-patience argument.
Source ↗ - 10Current Serie A coaches as a group — 2026–27
Four coaching changes by October 13 set an exceptionally impatient context; no comparable table can measure job security.
Source ↗
What ChatGPT noticed
Before Udinese–Lecce, the league table showed Udinese on four points and Lecce on six; expected points paint Lecce’s chance profile much worse than the standings do.
Runjaic publicly acknowledged an underwhelming season but also said the last two games showed tactical improvement; that is the clearest patience case in his own words.
Four Serie A coaching exits had occurred by October 13, while Sky reports Stroppa was dismissed after six losses in six.
Bologna’s dismissed Tedesco had five points against 9.8 expected in FDscout, illustrating that the early-season sackings did not all have equally weak underlying performance.
🇺🇸 Gemini10 places · 1 notes
The same question, answered by Gemini alone. The final list above combines all the AIs.
- 1Kosta Runjaic (Udinese Calcio)
Four straight losses make the Lecce match an explicit must-win, despite 8.4 xPTS arguing that individual defensive slips rather than tactics caused the slide.
- 2Luca Gotti (US Lecce)
A modest 6 points cannot hide a league-worst attack scoring just 3 goals, putting Gotti under rising heat ahead of Friuli.
- 3Alessandro Nesta (AC Monza)
Still hunting for his first league victory with Monza, holding 4 points while board patience thins in the shadow of Palladino's legacy.
Source ↗ - 4Eusebio Di Francesco (Venezia FC)
Four defeats in six fixtures rekindle memories of past relegation battles, though Venice executives highlight difficult opening scheduling.
Source ↗ - 5Alberto Gilardino (Genoa CFC)
Managing only 5 points after key summer departures, Gilardino earns credit for squad loyalty despite fan discontent over blunt finishing.
Source ↗ - 6Davide Nicola (Cagliari Calcio)
Renowned as Serie A's ultimate survival specialist, Nicola faces internal scrutiny after 1 win in 6 matches tests the Sardinian project.
Source ↗ - 7Ivan Jurić (AS Roma)
Intense capital scrutiny surrounds Jurić, even though Roma's +4.2 expected goal difference indicates top-tier territorial control.
Source ↗ - 8Fabio Pecchia (Parma Calcio 1913)
Gifting points from winning positions produces 6 points from 6 games, but the club hierarchy remains committed to his expansive blueprint.
Source ↗ - 9Vincenzo Italiano (Bologna FC 1909)
Five draws in six matches create frustration under European spotlight, though underlying 10.4 xPTS suggests victories will soon arrive.
Source ↗ - 10Cesc Fàbregas (Como 1907)
High-profile investment creates intense spotlight, yet 8 points in 6 games offers breathing room despite underlying 6.2 xPTS.
Source ↗
What Gemini noticed
Underlying data models frequently provide the deciding rationale for sporting directors: coaches like Nesta (-3.1 xPTS gap) and Gilardino (-2.8 xPTS gap) retain job credit because their squads consistently generate competitive goal expectations.
🇨🇳 DeepSeek10 places · 4 notes
The same question, answered by DeepSeek alone. The final list above combines all the AIs.
- 1Ivan Juric, Monza 2026-27
Bookmakers make him 1.75 to go — yet Monza's 9.44 xPTS is more than double their 4 actual points.
Source ↗ - 2Kosta Runjaic, Udinese 2026-27
Four straight defeats and a lunch-time decider: the numbers say the defence, not just the finishing, is the problem.
Source ↗ - 3Daniele De Rossi, Genoa 2026-27
A first win eased the odds from 1.50 to 2.15, but 4 points from 7.01 xPTS keeps the spotlight on.
Source ↗ - 4Raffaele Palladino, Bologna 2026-27
5 points from 10.41 xPTS: a new coach with a strong patience case, inside a club that has already changed once.
Source ↗ - 5Luciano Spalletti, Juventus 2026-27
Unbeaten, 11 points and 14.65 xPTS — yet the bookmakers still price him at 5.00 to go before Christmas.
Source ↗ - 6Eusebio Di Francesco, Lecce 2026-27
6 points from 2.92 xPTS and a -9.33 xGD: results are better than the process, which is its own kind of warning.
Source ↗ - 7Davide Nicola, Venezia 2026-27
A new coach with a 7.02 xPTS squad, but only 3 points and a -10 goal difference: the first win buys time, not safety.
Source ↗ - 8Ruben Amorim, Milan 2026-27
Unbeaten with 12 points, but a 4.50 sack price shows how little patience big-club markets can carry.
Source ↗ - 9Paolo Vanoli, Fiorentina 2026-27
A new coach at a club that sacked its last one after three games: 4 points from 7.19 xPTS is a fragile start.
Source ↗ - 10Massimiliano Allegri, Napoli 2026-27
10 points from 14.28 xPTS: the table says ninth, the chances say top-four, and the odds still price him at 5.00.
Source ↗
What DeepSeek noticed
Four coaches have already been sacked after six rounds — the most this early since 1959-60 — which makes every patience case harder to argue than the underlying numbers alone would suggest.
Juric is the market's 1.75 favourite for the next sacking, but Monza's 9.44 xPTS against 4 actual points is one of the strongest statistical cases for patience in the league.
Runjaic's case is different: Udinese are only 1.20 points below their 5.20 xPTS, but a -5.31 xGD and 12.97 xGA point to a defensive problem rather than simple bad luck.
Spalletti and Amorim are unbeaten in Serie A and sit on 11 and 12 points, yet both carry sack prices because their clubs expect to be closer to Inter; the models say patience, the market says pressure.