Anyang vs Sangju Sangmu: match statistics

I back the away win: Sangju Sangmu shows a clear edge in away attacking metrics — averaging 1.33 goals per match and 3.5 shots on target with a 13% conversion rate, versus Anyang’s home output of 0.83 goals, 2.67 SOT and 9% conversion. The visitors also register higher away xG (1.27 vs 1.15) and greater possession (54% vs 45%), indicating they generate more high-quality chances; additionally Sangju has 33% clean sheets away while Anyang has 0% clean sheets at home. Conversely, Anyang holds a better season points tally (16 vs 13) and overall have scored 15 and conceded 13, whereas Sangju sit at 13–18, showing the hosts are hard to beat over the long run. Both teams display similar short-term form (7 goals scored in the last 5 matches and PPG 1.2), but Sangju have conceded 10 in that span versus the hosts’ 5, so the game may be open and high-scoring. Considering Sangju’s superior efficiency, better chance-creation metrics and favorable away-stat differentials, I assign a higher probability to the away win, with a material risk of a draw given both teams’ high draw rate (50%) at the respective venues.

Both teams have a high BTTS rate this season: Anyang 71% and Sangju Sangmu 67%, versus the league average of 49%, and both recorded 60% BTTS in their last 5 matches. xG data indicates both sides create genuine scoring chances: Anyang xG_for 1.62 vs opponent xG_against 1.54, and Sangju xG_for 1.27 vs Anyang xG_against 1.26. Anyang averages 13.14 shots and 4.14 on target with a low conversion of 5%, while Sangju has 10.17 shots and 3.5 on target with a 13% conversion — hosts generate more, visitors are more efficient. Defensively Anyang has recorded no clean sheets this season (0% CS), Sangju has 33% CS, but in the last 5 matches Sangju conceded 10 goals (2.0 per game) versus Anyang’s 5 goals (1.0 per game), which increases the likelihood of both teams scoring. Considering 71% vs 67% BTTS, xG>1 for both teams and recent goals conceded data, I assess the probability of 'BTTS - Yes' at 78% vs 22%, therefore my pick is 'yes'.

The strongest signal is for Over 1.5 — Anyang has 100% of matches this season over 1.5 goals, Sangju 83%, with an average of 91.5%, so I assign Over 1.5 approximately 92% probability. From an xG perspective I see about 2.85 expected goals in total: hosts roughly 1.58 (xG for 1.62 vs xG conceded by Sangju 1.54), visitors about 1.27 (xG for 1.27 vs xG conceded by Anyang 1.26). It is worth noting that Anyang actually scores only 0.71 goals per game this season despite xG 1.62, indicating low finishing efficiency (conversion 5% on 13.14 shots), while Sangju has a 13% conversion on 10.17 shots, which increases their realistic scoring chances. BTTS is high for both teams: 71% (Anyang) and 67% (Sangju), so I expect both sides have strong chances to score; combined with the total xG of 2.85 this pushes the probability of Over 2.5 to roughly 65% (Under 35%). I rate Over 3.5 low (around 22%) because season Over 3.5 is 0% for Anyang and 17% for Sangju, and the projected total of 2.85 goals is clearly below the 3.5 threshold.

The strongest signal is a lead at the break and a final victory for the away team (2/2). Sangju led at half-time in 50% of their matches, while Anyang led at home in only 14% of their appearances, and hosts average 0.14 goals by half-time versus 0.67 for the visitors. Anyang have not won at home this season (winPercentage_home = 0.0) and concede an average of 1.71 goals per match, whereas Sangju average 1.33 scored and 1.0 conceded — giving the away side the end-game advantage. In the second half the away team wins 50% of second halves, the hosts 0%, and at Anyang 100% of matches featured at least one goal after the break, which supports the case that Sangju will hold or extend their lead (in the model I assumed a high HT2->FT2 conversion). Although Anyang’s xG is 1.62 versus Sangju’s 1.27, the hosts’ poor shot conversion of 5% compared to 13% for the visitors translates into a lower goals average (0.71 vs 1.33), hence the 2/2 forecast (37%), with alternatives X/2 (19%) and X/X (15%).