Bhayangkara vs PSIM Yogyakarta: match statistics
Bhayangkara vs PSIM Yogyakarta: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
Bhayangkara played against PSIM Yogyakarta in Liga 1 (Indonesia). The game was played on April 17, 2026. Final score: 2:1.
Recent form
Bhayangkara has 4 wins, 0 draws and 1 loss over its last five games, averaging 2.40 points per game. PSIM Yogyakarta has 1 win, 2 draws and 2 losses, with 1.00 points per game.
Scoring records
Bhayangkara scores 1.33 goals per game and allows 1.15. PSIM Yogyakarta scores 1.33 and allows 1.30. Games in this league average 2.73 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 52% of Bhayangkara's games and 52% of PSIM Yogyakarta's. The Over 2.5 rates are 44% and 52%, compared with league averages of 56% for BTTS and 53% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
PSIM Yogyakarta has the higher season xG average, 1.56 to 1.28 per game. Bhayangkara takes 10.4 shots per game, while PSIM Yogyakarta takes 13.1.
First-half and second-half trends
Bhayangkara leads at halftime in 48% of its games and scores 0.70 goals per game after halftime. PSIM Yogyakarta leads at halftime in 19% and scores 0.93 after halftime.
When the teams score
Bhayangkara's most productive scoring window is minutes 76-90+ (10 goals). For PSIM Yogyakarta, it is minutes 61-75 (11 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
Liga 1 games average 2.73 goals. Both teams score in 56% of games, and 53% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
Before this game, one previous meeting was available. The record was 0 home wins, 0 draws and 1 away win. Those games averaged 1.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 0% 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
Bhayangkara holds a clear advantage in form and efficiency: they have won 4 of their last 5 matches and are averaging 2.4 points per game in that span, whereas PSIM in their last 5 have only 1 win, 2 draws and 2 losses and 1.0 point per game. Both teams have 36 goals this season, but Bhayangkara at home score on average 1.62 goals and concede 0.77 per match, while PSIM score 1.36 away and concede 1.21, giving a distinct defensive edge to the hosts. The visitors enjoy more possession (55% vs 47%) and more shots per game (12.93 vs 11.46) and more shots on target (4.57 vs 3.62), but convert only 10% of their chances versus the hosts’ 14% and more often finish matches goalless (36% vs 8%). xG metrics show PSIM create 1.52 xG per game against Bhayangkara’s 1.41, however they also concede 1.55 xG versus the hosts’ 1.05, so the visitors generate quality chances but are vulnerable to conceding. Considering Bhayangkara’s 62% home win rate, superior 14% conversion and current form (2.4 pts/last 5), I predict a home win.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
I back BTTS - Yes because seasonal signals and form indicate goals at both ends: Bhayangkara has a season BTTS of 62%, PSIM 43%, but in the last 5 matches both teams produced BTTS in 60% of cases. xG and shot numbers confirm chance creation – xG for 1.61 (Bhayangkara) and 1.52 (PSIM), xG against 1.26 and 1.55, and shots on target 4.08 and 4.57, which suggests clear scoring opportunities for both sides. In the last 5 fixtures Bhayangkara scored 12 goals (2.4 avg) and conceded 5 (1.0), while PSIM scored 7 (1.4) and conceded 7 (1.4), so hosts are stronger offensively but visitors also concede. Counterarguments are PSIM’s 36% matches without a goal and seasonal average goals 1.36 and 1.31, which reduce certainty; however the league posts BTTS 56% and over2.5 around 50–54%, so the balance points to a higher probability of both teams scoring.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
xG calculations: expected goals 1.58 for Bhayangkara and 1.39 for PSIM, total 2.97. Seasonally Bhayangkara has attacking xG 1.61 and 77% of matches with over 1.5 goals, PSIM has attacking xG 1.52 and 71% of such matches; in the last 5 matches Bhayangkara averaged 2.4 goals versus 1.4 for PSIM, which confirms a goals trend. A Poisson model with mean 2.97 gives roughly an 80% chance of Over 1.5 (P(0)+P(1) ≈20%), about 57% for Over 2.5 and 35% for Over 3.5. Consequently I recommend betting on Over 1.5 as the strongest and most data-driven pick; Over 2.5 is a moderate option (~57%), while Over 3.5 is relatively risky (~35%).
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
I predict a draw at half-time because the home team drew at the break in 38% of matches and the away team in 71%; additionally, clean sheets at half-time occurred for the home side in 54% and for the visitors in 64% of fixtures, supporting goalless or low-scoring first halves. First-half goal averages are low (AVGHT: home 1.00 vs away 0.79) with mean goals scored by half of 0.38 (home) and 0.43 (away), so an HT draw is likely. After the break I expect a home advantage: in their last five matches they won 80% of games, in second halves they averaged 1.8 goals scored and 0.2 conceded, while the visitors average 0.8 scored and 1.0 conceded in second halves. Second halves are also more goal-rich (AVG_2hg: home 1.69 vs away 1.79) and in 85–86% of cases at least one goal is scored after the break, which supports a turnaround in favor of the home team. For these reasons the strongest signal is a draw at half-time and a home win at full-time (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
| Bhayangkara | PSIM Yogyakarta | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 34% | 33% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.38 | 0.31 |
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.
Bhayangkara is 140% better for: last-5 form.
2.4 pts / game - Bhayangkara · 1 pts / game - PSIM Yogyakarta
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.
Bhayangkara is 13% better for: goals allowed per game.
1.15 goals / game - Bhayangkara · 1.3 goals / game - PSIM Yogyakarta
Bhayangkara scores in 78% of games (21 of 27 meczów), while PSIM Yogyakarta keeps a clean sheet in 33% (9 of 27 meczów).
PSIM Yogyakarta scores in 74% of games (20 of 27 meczów), while Bhayangkara keeps a clean sheet in 30% (8 of 27 meczów).
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 - Bhayangkara
Over / Under - PSIM Yogyakarta
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.
Bhayangkara is 50% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.67 pts / game - Bhayangkara · 1.11 pts / game - PSIM Yogyakarta
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Bhayangkara - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 48% of games and wins 48%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
PSIM Yogyakarta - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 19% of games and wins 33%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Allows 0.3 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.40 | 3.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.6 | 1.8 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.8 | 0.2 |
| Average goals per game | 1.4 | 2.0 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 80% |
| No goal | 40% | 0% |
| Goal difference | -1 | +8 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.40 | 0.80 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| Average goals per game | 1.0 | 1.8 |
| 1 goal | 40% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 20% |
| No goal | 60% | 60% |
| Goal difference | +1 | -1 |
* 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 (10 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (10). Late-goal balance (76-90): +4 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 61-75 (11 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (12). Late-goal balance (76-90): -3 - late phases are a weakness.
* 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
Bhayangkara
PSIM Yogyakarta
* 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 (Liga 1).
Teams vs league
| Bhayangkara | Liga | PSIM Yogyakarta | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | ▼ 2.48 | 2.73 | ▼ 2.63 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 52% | 56% | ▼ 52% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 44% | 53% | • 52% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 30% | 26% | ▲ 33% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 85% | 70% | ▼ 52% |
| Goal after half-time | ▼ 78% | 83% | ▲ 85% |
^ 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
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.
Referee context
See how often this referee shows cards, awards penalties and how their matches tend to finish.
Head-to-head
Record from Bhayangkara's perspective: 0 wins, 0 draws and 1 loss against PSIM Yogyakarta. Games average 1.00 goals, and both teams scored in 0% of them.
FAQ
What was the result of Bhayangkara vs PSIM Yogyakarta?
The Liga 1 match finished Bhayangkara 2:1 PSIM Yogyakarta. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Bhayangkara vs PSIM Yogyakarta?
Bhayangkara score 1.33 goals per game on average and PSIM Yogyakarta 1.33. The Liga 1 average is 2.73 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 53% of games. Both teams score in 52% of Bhayangkara's matches and 52% of PSIM Yogyakarta's.
What form are Bhayangkara and PSIM Yogyakarta in?
Over the last 5 games Bhayangkara have a 4-0-1 record (2.40 points per game) and PSIM Yogyakarta 1-2-2 (1.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Bhayangkara vs PSIM Yogyakarta?
This page shows the full statistical context — form, head-to-head, goals, BTTS and Over/Under. The tip, value assessment and full reasoning are in the NoFluffPicks app.


