I can't find the appropriate meaning in dictionaries. But I guess it means "this is what happened."

What dictionaries did you look in?

Cambridge Dictionary

From Cambridge: "to be the time or place when something happens: This summer has seen the end of water restrictions in the area thanks to a new reservoir."

Yes that's what I mean. Is it correct that "see" has a sense like that?

Yes. That's a quote from the Cambridge Dictionary. Did you actually look there?

@FumbleFingers As for the meaning of the verb "see", I think I'm on the right track, it means "this is what happened."

Well, I guess that's close enough. The Cambridge dictionary definition "to be the time or place when something happens" is more precise. The full OED definition for this (sense 23c) is "Of a time, place, or other context: to be the setting in which (an event, development, etc.) takes place."

Thanks for the explanation. That's clear now.

@FumbleFingers And to extend that meaning in this context: to create said setting, to lead to it. It's pretty jargony. Feels like headline lingo to save characters and time.

Yes, it's more like "culminate in" in my opinion. Salah's deep cross culminates in Nunez beat Davies in the air..."

@Nyenok: culminates or leads to would be "drop-in" replacements for sees in your "deep cross" example. But once again, that's not exactly what the usage means in other contexts - you couldn't really make that substitution with, say, The eighteenth century saw a dramatic increase in literacy rates. Those dictionary definitions are more accurate for the general case.

@FumbleFingers Thank you. Could you explain how "would" works in your sentence? culminates or leads to would be "drop-in" replacements for sees in your "deep cross" example

You've asked two questions in the last two days about the use of would [be] in contexts where it's just an alternative to is, are with an element of uncertainty or simple politeness. In the specific case of my previous comment, part of the reason for the "circumlocution" is that it's a tentative assertion (those suggested "replacements" don't necessarily carry exactly the sense off the original, and they won't work in all cases).

...note that ...they won't work in all cases could be adjusted for essentially the same "distancing" through use of an auxiliary verb (...they wouldn't work in all cases as opposed to won't = will not).

@FumbleFingers I'm confused because people call "would" as a hypothetical, whereas you call it as uncertainty or simple politeness. Are "hypothetical" and "simple politeness"/'uncertainty" connected each other?

I'd say most if not all auxiliary verbs have a range of meanings. The 'd at the start of this comment is contracted from would, but it doesn't really carry any element of "hypothetical" or "simple politeness" / 'uncertainty". Well - maybe there's "uncertainty", but given I specifically added the caveat that I was talking about most if not all auxiliary verbs, I could hardly be uncertain about the truth of the assertion I made!

...also note usages such as I told him not to make a fuss, but he would insist on taking the matter up with their Complaints department, the word would is nothing to do with being hesitant or polite. Essentially, he would insist there means he was determined to insist.

@FumbleFingers So, the use of "would" in your sentence, does it indicate a hypothetical situation or just give an opinion for politeness? I think it's hypothetical. What do you think? "Culminates or leads to would be "drop-in" replacements for sees in your "deep cross" example."

I already said that initial I'd in my earlier comment doesn't really carry any element of "hypothetical" or "simple politeness" / 'uncertainty". What's so hard to understand about that? There are many ways of saying most things in English, and there's no reason to suppose every alternative is somehow subtly different to every other. That's true even from a single speaker's perspective, but even more so when you consider the huge variation between "stylistic choices" of different speakers.