Sunderland leads the explicitly reported sample
Sunderland’s six failed-to-score matches are the highest count among the eight teams with published row-level figures. Its 6-of-17 rate is followed by Aston Villa at 5 of 17. Bournemouth and Brighton are next on four each, then Manchester United on three. Arsenal, Manchester City and Liverpool are the lowest of the eight on this measure, with one, two and two respectively.
The table is ordered by failed-to-score count rather than league position. Every named team has 17 covered fixtures, so the rate comparison uses the same denominator throughout this extract.
| Team | Rank | Reported points | Covered matches | Failed to score | Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sunderland | 7 | 54 | 17 | 6 | 35.3% |
| Aston Villa | 4 | 65 | 17 | 5 | 29.4% |
| Bournemouth | 6 | 57 | 17 | 4 | 23.5% |
| Brighton | 8 | 53 | 17 | 4 | 23.5% |
| Manchester United | 3 | 71 | 17 | 3 | 17.6% |
| Manchester City | 2 | 78 | 17 | 2 | 11.8% |
| Liverpool | 5 | 60 | 17 | 2 | 11.8% |
| Arsenal | 1 | 85 | 17 | 1 | 5.9% |
Rates are calculated as failed-to-score matches divided by covered team-matches and displayed to one decimal place.
The counts show different observed attacking profiles
The clearest contrast in the reported rows is between Sunderland and the two leading teams. Sunderland failed to score in 6 of 17 matches, compared with 1 of 17 for Arsenal and 2 of 17 for Manchester City. That is a difference of five matches versus Arsenal and four versus City, or 29.4 and 23.5 percentage points respectively in the displayed rates.
The goals-for totals add context without changing the underlying measure. Arsenal scored 31 goals in the covered record, while Manchester City scored 41 and Sunderland scored 19. Thus, the low failure-to-score counts for Arsenal and City sit alongside different goals-for totals, while Sunderland combines the highest observed failure count with the lowest goals-for total among those three. These are descriptive differences, not proof that one statistic caused another.
Aston Villa provides another distinct profile in the extract: 5 failed-to-score matches from 17 and 27 goals for. The table therefore separates teams on the specific question of how often they scored zero, but it does not provide a complete measure of attacking quality.
Failure-to-score counts do not reproduce rank order
The reported standings context does not follow the failed-to-score order. Arsenal has the lowest observed count, one, and is listed first with 85 reported points. Manchester City has two and is listed second with 78, while Manchester United has three and is listed third with 71. At the other end of the count table, Sunderland has six but is listed seventh with 54.
That comparison shows why failed-to-score matches should be read as one descriptive attacking indicator rather than as a substitute for rank or points. The figures show an association within this snapshot; they do not establish a causal relationship between failing to score and a team’s position or points total.
Method and coverage
- Measure: a failed-to-score match is counted in the supplied team record when that team scored zero in the fixture.
- Rate: failed-to-score count divided by covered team-matches. For each named team here, the denominator is 17.
- Aggregate extract: the eight explicit records cover 8 × 17 = 136 team-matches and contain 27 failed-to-score matches, producing 27/136 = 19.9%.
- Match status: completed matches only.
- Timing: this is a 2025-26 snapshot, not an assertion about the eventual full season.
- Standings context: rank and points are retained as reported and are not used to calculate the failure-to-score rates.
The wider competition scope is 20 teams. The eight-row calculation above must not be mistaken for a 20-team aggregate or leaderboard.
Limitations and interpretation
The available figures do not include the numerical values for the 12 additional rows referenced by the 20-team scope. As a result, it is not possible to state safely whether a team outside the eight named records had more than Sunderland’s six, or to publish a complete 20-team ordering.
Wolves and Burnley are not among the eight rows with explicit figures, so a numerical comparison of either team with Arsenal or Manchester City cannot be made without adding unsupported numbers. The same limitation applies to any claim about the full league distribution.
Finally, a failure-to-score count does not explain why a team scored zero, and the snapshot does not support causal claims about tactics, personnel or results. Differences in count, goals for, rank and points should therefore be treated as observed comparisons only.
Frequently asked questions
Which team failed to score most often?
Sunderland recorded the highest count among the eight teams with explicit figures: 6 failed-to-score matches in 17, or 35.3%. The unreported 12 rows mean this cannot be presented as a complete 20-team answer.
How is the failed-to-score rate calculated?
The rate is failed-to-score matches divided by covered team-matches. Since every named team has 17 covered fixtures, Sunderland’s rate is 6/17, or 35.3%, while Arsenal’s is 1/17, or 5.9%.
How did Arsenal compare with Manchester City?
Arsenal failed to score once in 17 matches, compared with twice for Manchester City. Their displayed rates were 5.9% and 11.8% respectively. Arsenal is listed first with 85 reported points and City second with 78.
Can these counts explain the league positions?
No. They provide a descriptive comparison only. Sunderland has the highest observed count but is listed seventh, while Arsenal has the lowest and is listed first among the explicit rows. That pattern does not prove causation.
Is this a full-season, 20-team ranking?
No. It covers completed matches in a 2025-26 snapshot. The defined scope is 20 teams, but only eight team records have explicit figures in the available extract, so the results are not a full-season or complete 20-team ranking.