There were only eight games across the Premier League this past weekend, as Liverpool and Newcastle United were in EFL Cup final action.

Arsenal took the chance to edge closer to Liverpool at the summit by beating Chelsea, albeit the Reds - who were beaten by Newcastle at Wembley Stadium - are still 12 points clear.

Behind the Gunners, Nottingham Forest consolidated their place in the top four with a rampant 4-2 win at struggling Ipswich Town, who, like Leicester City after their loss to Manchester United, are now nine points adrift of safety following Wolves' 2-1 win over Southampton, whose boss Ivan Juric has now accepted relegation as their fate.

Manchester City drew 2-2 with Brighton, as Erling Haaland became the fastest player to reach 100 Premier League goal contributions.

Everton hit back late on against West Ham, while Brentford and Fulham boosted their European hopes by beating Bournemouth and Tottenham respectively.

But, according to the underlying metrics, which teams can consider themselves fortunate, or unfortunate?

Unlucky losers: Bournemouth

Bournemouth looked well set to challenge for Champions League qualification a few weeks ago, but Andoni Iraola's team have now failed to win any of their last four league matches, losing three of those.

They went ahead against Brentford on Saturday, yet failed to build on their lead and the Bees ultimately continued their incredible record against Bournemouth, who they have not lost to in a league match since 2014.

Bournemouth, though, did create a huge chance at 1-1, with Antoine Semenyo heading against the crossbar from inside the six-yard box. Late on, David Brooks prodded straight at Mark Flekken, when it seemed like it would have been easier to direct his attempt either side of Brentford's goalkeeper.

The Cherries finished with 1.67 expected goals, which was the third-highest of any team over the weekend, while they also had 17 shots to Brentford's 10.

But Brentford converted 20% of their attempts, compared to Bournemouth's 5.88% conversion rate. Thomas Frank's team only registered 0.83 xG, but their expected goals on target was at 2.22, showing a high calibre of finishing.

Lucky winners: Fulham

Sunday's meeting between Fulham and Tottenham at Craven Cottage took a long, long time to spark into life. In fact, it was not until the 69th minute that there was a real, clear-cut chance - Dominic Solanke firing over from close range.

Yet Marco Silva was able to celebrate his 200th match as a Premier League boss thanks to two goals in the space of 10 minutes late on; Rodrigo Muniz finished coolly before former Spurs man Ryan Sessegnon held off Ben Davies and curled in a sensational strike.

Spurs failed to register a single shot on target in the first half of a Premier League match for the ninth time under Ange Postecoglou, more than their last two permanent managers combined (eight), but they had started to click into gear after the break.

And they limited Fulham to fairly little, as shown by the match xG. The hosts accumulated chances worth 0.97 xG, with Spurs finishing with 0.95 xG. There really was very little in it.

However, Fulham's xGoT jumped up to 1.76, a sign of how good those finishes from Muniz and Sessegnon were. Spurs, though, had a lower xGoT than their xG, at 0.44, with the visitors missing both of their big chances.

Unlucky losers: Leicester City

Leicester look destined for the drop, and Sunday's 3-0 reverse at the hands of United left them in 19th with nine games to play.

The Foxes have now shipped 1,001 Premier League goals, while they became the first team in English top-flight history to lose seven straight home league matches without scoring a single goal.

However, going off the underlying data, Ruud van Nistelrooy's team can consider themselves unlucky.

They accumulated a higher xG (1.05) than United (0.91), with Jamie Vardy and Facundo Buonanotte passing up some gilt-edged chances. 

Only Man City (four) and Brighton (six) had more big chances than Leicester (three) across the weekend, but the Foxes' failure to convert cost them dearly.