Banga vs Sūduva: match statistics
Banga vs Sūduva: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
Banga played against Sūduva in A Lyga (Lithuania). The game was played on August 9, 2026. Venue: Gargždų miesto stadionas. Final score: 1:3.
Recent form
Banga has 4 wins, 0 draws and 1 loss over its last five games, averaging 2.40 points per game. Sūduva has 4 wins, 1 draw and 0 losses, with 2.60 points per game.
Scoring records
Banga scores 1.48 goals per game and allows 0.70. Sūduva scores 1.55 and allows 0.77. Games in this league average 2.67 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 35% of Banga's games and 55% of Sūduva's. The Over 2.5 rates are 39% and 50%, compared with league averages of 50% for BTTS and 54% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
Sūduva has the higher season xG average, 1.47 to 1.38 per game. Banga takes 12.0 shots per game, while Sūduva takes 12.2.
First-half and second-half trends
Banga leads at halftime in 30% of its games and scores 0.83 goals per game after halftime. Sūduva leads at halftime in 32% and scores 0.91 after halftime.
When the teams score
Banga's most productive scoring window is minutes 76-90+ (9 goals). For Sūduva, it is minutes 76-90+ (11 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
A Lyga games average 2.67 goals. Both teams score in 50% of games, and 54% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
Before this game, 6 previous meetings were available. The record was 1 home win, 1 draw and 4 away wins. Those games averaged 1.50 goals, with both teams scoring in 33% of them.
Archived pre-match analysis
This analysis was prepared before kick-off. The conclusions use only information available before the match and do not include the final result or post-match statistics.
General match analysis
Banga have significantly stronger home numbers: they average 1.9 goals scored and just 0.9 conceded per match, while Sūduva score 1.3 goals away from home and allow opponents 1.1. The hosts have won 4 of their last 5 matches, scoring 11 goals and conceding only 3 during that run, which confirms the excellent efficiency of their current form. Sūduva are also in good shape, having remained unbeaten for 5 matches, with 11 goals scored and 4 conceded, so a draw remains a highly realistic outcome. The visitors create slightly more quality chances away from home, with an average xG of 1.48 compared with Banga’s 1.29, and also record 5.1 shots on target per match against 3.8 for the hosts. Banga’s edge, however, comes from their very solid defensive performances at home, a 50% win rate on their own ground, and superior shot conversion of 16% compared with Sūduva’s 10%.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
The BTTS - No pick is primarily based on Bangi’s highly solid defense: the hosts concede only 0.50 goals per match on average and keep a clean sheet in 58% of their games. Sūduva scores 1.30 goals per game this season, but fails to score in as many as 20% of matches, which, against such a strong opposing defense, increases the risk of a blank. The hosts are also the more likely side to score, averaging 1.75 goals, while Sūduva concedes 1.10, making a one-sided result a realistic scenario. However, the visitors’ recent form supports the BTTS - Yes / Goal-Goal outcome, as BTTS landed in 80% of their last five matches, with an average of 2.20 goals scored. Despite this, Bangi’s season BTTS rate is only 42%, compared with 50% in the league, so the slightly stronger bet remains that at least one team will fail to score.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
Banga concede just 0.50 goals per match this season and keep a clean sheet in 58% of their games, significantly limiting Sūduva’s attacking potential despite their average of 1.30 goals scored. Both teams create chances of similar quality, with xG of 1.47 for the hosts and 1.48 for the visitors, while their defensive xG against stands at just 1.21 and 1.19, respectively. Historically, the 3.5-goal line has not been exceeded in 75% of Banga’s matches and as many as 90% of Sūduva’s games, compared with a league average of 2.63 goals. Even with excellent recent scoring form, with both sides averaging 2.2 goals scored over their last five matches, the teams conceded just 3 and 4 goals respectively during that period. The strongest signal is therefore Under 3.5, as the profile of these solid defenses favors a result within the 0–3 goal range.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
The strongest scenario is a draw at half-time followed by a Banga victory at full-time, as the hosts were level at the break in 8 of their 12 home matches, or 67% of cases. Banga protect the opening stages very effectively: they concede an average of just 0.17 goals before half-time and keep a clean sheet at the break in 83% of matches, while Sūduva average 0.50 goals scored during this period. After the interval, the hosts’ advantage should increase, as Banga average 1.00 goals scored and 0.33 conceded, while Sūduva average 0.80 scored and 0.70 conceded away from home. Across the season, Banga have not lost a single home match, averaging 2.17 points per game and conceding just 0.50 goals, compared with Sūduva’s 1.30 points and 1.10 goals conceded per match. The visitors’ recent form is solid, with four wins and a draw in their last five matches, so a draw at half-time remains more likely than Banga taking an early lead; however, the hosts’ defensive quality supports a full-time victory. Therefore, the recommended HT/FT selection is X/1.
View first-half and second-half statisticsStats by half
Game stats
Pre-game profile— what do the season numbers say?
This team profile combines season stats and recent form. In-game statistics appear after the final whistle.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.
Shooting quality
| Banga | Sūduva | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 34% | 38% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.11 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.37 | 0.33 |
xG per shot around 0.08 usually means long-range attempts; 0.15+ usually means box chances. The style label comes from possession, shot volume and conversion.
* xG (expected goals) says how many goals a team should score from its chances. If actual goals are above xG, finishing is above average; if below xG, chances are being missed.
Team form— who is in better shape?
Last five games and season record, overall, at home and away.
Sūduva is 8% better for: last-5 form.
2.4 pts / game - Banga · 2.6 pts / game - Sūduva
Goals— how do both teams score and concede?
How many goals both teams score and concede, plus how often they keep a clean sheet or fail to score.
Sūduva is 5% better for: goals scored per game.
1.48 goals / game - Banga · 1.55 goals / game - Sūduva
Banga is 10% better for: goals allowed per game.
0.7 goals / game - Banga · 0.77 goals / game - Sūduva
Banga scores in 65% of games (15 of 23 games), while Sūduva keeps a clean sheet in 41% (9 of 22 games).
Sūduva scores in 73% of games (16 of 22 games), while Banga keeps a clean sheet in 39% (9 of 23 games).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* Statistics include both teams' home and away games this season.
Both teams scored (BTTS)— how often do both teams score?
How often games involving these teams produce goals at both ends, compared with the league average.
Goal patterns
BTTS and goal count
Goal count (Over/Under)— how often do these games cross the goal lines?
See how often games involving these teams clear each goal line, for the full game and each half.
Full game - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under - Banga
Over / Under - Sūduva
1st half
2nd half
Game halves— when do the teams score more often?
How teams split performance between first and second half: goals, points, clean sheets and half-time state.
Sūduva is 8% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.39 pts / game - Banga · 1.5 pts / game - Sūduva
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Banga - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 30% of games and wins 48%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
Sūduva - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 32% of games and wins 45%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Allows 0.2 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.60 | 2.60 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.8 | 1.4 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.6 | 0.0 |
| Average goals per game | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 100% |
| No goal | 40% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +1 | +7 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.60 | 2.20 |
| Goals scored / game | 1.0 | 1.2 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Average goals per game | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 60% |
| No goal | 40% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +3 | +4 |
* Table colors show frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate and red is rare. They are not team ratings.
Goals by minute— when do goals arrive?
The parts of a game in which both teams score and allow the most goals.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (9 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (6). Late-goal balance (76-90): +5 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (11 goals). Concedes most in 61-75 (5). Late-goal balance (76-90): +7 - wins late phases.
* Buckets 31-45 and 76-90 include added-time goals.
Additional team indicators— what do xG, efficiency and form show?
A comparison of chance quality, results and trends from completed games this season.
Game profile
Banga
Sūduva
* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range use public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical game profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed games from the season.
League context— is this a high-scoring league?
How both teams compare with league-wide averages (A Lyga).
Teams vs league
| Banga | Liga | Sūduva | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | ▼ 2.17 | 2.67 | ▼ 2.32 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 35% | 50% | ▲ 55% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 39% | 54% | ▼ 50% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 39% | 31% | ▲ 41% |
| Goal before half-time | ▼ 57% | 70% | ▼ 59% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 78% | 76% | ▼ 68% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Lineups and player events
Verified starters, substitutes and recorded player events for this match.
Home team
Starting lineup
Substitutes
Away team
Starting lineup
Substitutes
Match timeline
Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.
Referee and managers
Open their season profiles to compare match records, goals and disciplinary trends.
Head-to-head
Record from Banga's perspective: 1 win, 1 draw and 4 losses against Sūduva. Games average 1.50 goals, and both teams scored in 33% of them.
FAQ
What was the result of Banga vs Sūduva?
The A Lyga match finished Banga 1:3 Sūduva. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Banga and Sūduva?
In the last 6 head-to-head matches Banga won 1, Sūduva won 4 and 1 ended level. These games averaged 1.50 goals, with both teams scoring in 33% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Banga vs Sūduva?
Banga score 1.48 goals per game on average and Sūduva 1.55. The A Lyga average is 2.67 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 54% of games. Both teams score in 35% of Banga's matches and 55% of Sūduva's.
What form are Banga and Sūduva in?
Over the last 5 games Banga have a 4-0-1 record (2.40 points per game) and Sūduva 4-1-0 (2.60 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Banga vs Sūduva?
The statistical background for Banga vs Sūduva — form, head-to-head, goals, BTTS and Over/Under — is on this page. The tip with full reasoning and a value assessment is in the NoFluffPicks app.