Charleston Battery vs Pittsburgh Riverhounds: match statistics
Charleston Battery presents significantly better offensive form in the last five matches, scoring 8 goals with just 3 conceded, which translates to a favorable goal difference. The hosts occupy a high 3rd position in the table and are achieving 1.6 points per match in recent meetings, winning twice in this period. Pittsburgh Riverhounds sits in a distant 19th place and demonstrates very weak efficiency – just 1 goal in the last 5 matches and a streak of four draws, indicating problems breaking down rival defenses. Although the guests have a solid defense (0 goals conceded in the last 5 meetings), their inability to score goals (1.4 PPG) and passive form (dddwd) suggest difficulties in the clash with Charleston. Given the hosts' advantage in offense, higher table position, and play in front of their home crowd, Charleston Battery has clear chances of securing three points, though Pittsburgh's defensive solidity might make this a tight victory.
Charleston Battery vs Pittsburgh Riverhounds: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Charleston Battery play Pittsburgh Riverhounds in USL Championship (United States). The match date is 8 March 2026 at 00:00. Final score: 2:1.
Current form
Charleston Battery: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match. Pittsburgh Riverhounds: 2-1-2, 1.40 points/match.
Goal statistics
Charleston Battery scores 1.94 and concedes 1.38 goals per match. Pittsburgh Riverhounds scores 1.27 and concedes 1.20. League average: 2.79 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Charleston Battery 50%, Pittsburgh Riverhounds 47%. Over 2.5: Charleston Battery 56%, Pittsburgh Riverhounds 47%. League level: BTTS 58%, Over 2.5 52%.
xG, shots and style
Charleston Battery has higher xG: 1.61 vs 1.24. Charleston Battery: 13.1 shots per match, Pittsburgh Riverhounds: 9.7.
Match halves
Charleston Battery: half-time lead 44%, second-half goals 1.00. Pittsburgh Riverhounds: half-time lead 27%, second-half goals 0.87.
Goals by minute
Charleston Battery: 76-90+ (8 goals). Pittsburgh Riverhounds: 46-60 (7 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
USL Championship: 2.79 goals per match, BTTS 58%, Over 2.5 52%.
Head-to-head
5 H2H matches: 3-1-1. Average goals 1.80, BTTS 40%.
Match description
Charleston Battery presents significantly better offensive form in the last five matches, scoring 8 goals with just 3 conceded, which translates to a favorable goal difference. The hosts occupy a high 3rd position in the table and are achieving 1.6 points per match in recent meetings, winning twice in this period. Pittsburgh Riverhounds sits in a distant 19th place and demonstrates very weak efficiency – just 1 goal in the last 5 matches and a streak of four draws, indicating problems breaking down rival defenses. Although the guests have a solid defense (0 goals conceded in the last 5 meetings), their inability to score goals (1.4 PPG) and passive form (dddwd) suggest difficulties in the clash with Charleston. Given the hosts' advantage in offense, higher table position, and play in front of their home crowd, Charleston Battery has clear chances of securing three points, though Pittsburgh's defensive solidity might make this a tight victory.
Half-by-half
Match statistics
Pre-match profile— what do the season numbers say?
This is a team profile based on season data and form. Match-flow statistics are shown only after the fixture is played.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Attack and defence comparison for both teams in the current season.
Shooting quality
| Charleston Battery | Pittsburgh Riverhounds | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 42% | 36% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.13 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.36 | 0.37 |
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 matches and season record, overall and split by home and away matches.
Charleston Battery is 43% better for: last-5 form.
2 pts / match - Charleston Battery · 1.4 pts / match - Pittsburgh Riverhounds
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.
Charleston Battery is 53% better for: goals scored per match.
1.94 goals / match - Charleston Battery · 1.27 goals / match - Pittsburgh Riverhounds
Pittsburgh Riverhounds is 15% better for: goals conceded per match.
1.38 goals / match - Charleston Battery · 1.2 goals / match - Pittsburgh Riverhounds
Charleston Battery scores in 69% of matches (11 of 16 matches), while Pittsburgh Riverhounds keeps a clean sheet in 27% (4 of 15 matches).
Pittsburgh Riverhounds scores in 67% of matches (10 of 15 matches), while Charleston Battery keeps a clean sheet in 19% (3 of 16 matches).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* Statistics include both teams' home and away matches in the current season.
Both teams scored (BTTS)— how often do both teams score?
How often both teams' matches have goals on both sides, compared with the league average.
Goal patterns
BTTS and goal count
Goal count (Over/Under)— how often do these matches cross the goal lines?
How often matches involving these teams clear goal thresholds, in the full match and in each half.
Full match - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under — Charleston Battery
Over / Under — Pittsburgh Riverhounds
1st half
2nd half
Match 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.
Charleston Battery is 33% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.69 pts / match - Charleston Battery · 1.27 pts / match - Pittsburgh Riverhounds
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Charleston Battery - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 44% of matches and wins 50%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.5 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
Pittsburgh Riverhounds - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 27% of matches and wins 47%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.5 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 2.20 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.6 | 1.4 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| Average goals in match | 2.0 | 2.4 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 100% |
| 3 goals | 40% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 20% |
| No goal | 40% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +6 | +2 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.40 | 1.40 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.0 | 1.0 |
| Average goals in match | 0.2 | 1.8 |
| 1 goal | 20% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 0% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 100% | 40% |
| No goal | 80% | 60% |
| Goal difference | +1 | -1 |
* Colours in tables show event frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate, red is rare. It is frequency, not a team rating.
Goals by minute— when do goals arrive?
Match phases in which both teams most often score and concede.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (8 goli). Concedes most in 76-90 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 46-60 (7 goli). Concedes most in 76-90 (5). Late-goal balance (76-90): -2 - 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 based on completed matches from the current season.
Match profile
Charleston Battery
Pittsburgh Riverhounds
* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range are calculated from public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical match profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed matches from the season.
League context— is this a high-scoring league?
How both teams compare with league-wide averages (USL Championship).
Teams vs league
| Charleston Battery | Liga | Pittsburgh Riverhounds | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 3.31 | 2.79 | ▼ 2.47 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 50% | 58% | ▼ 47% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 56% | 52% | ▼ 47% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 19% | 26% | • 27% |
| Goal before half-time | ▼ 63% | 67% | ▼ 60% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 94% | 80% | ▲ 87% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Head-to-head
Recent meetings (5): Charleston Battery 3 - 1 - 1 Pittsburgh Riverhounds. Average goals 1.80, both teams scored in 40% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Charleston Battery vs Pittsburgh Riverhounds?
The USL Championship match finished Charleston Battery 2:1 Pittsburgh Riverhounds. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Charleston Battery and Pittsburgh Riverhounds?
In the last 5 head-to-head matches Charleston Battery won 3, Pittsburgh Riverhounds won 1 and 1 ended level. These games averaged 1.80 goals, with both teams scoring in 40% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Charleston Battery vs Pittsburgh Riverhounds?
Charleston Battery score 1.94 goals per game on average and Pittsburgh Riverhounds 1.27. The USL Championship average is 2.79 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 52% of games. Both teams score in 50% of Charleston Battery's matches and 47% of Pittsburgh Riverhounds's.
What form are Charleston Battery and Pittsburgh Riverhounds in?
Over the last 5 games Charleston Battery have a 3-1-1 record (2.00 points per game) and Pittsburgh Riverhounds 2-1-2 (1.40 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Charleston Battery vs Pittsburgh Riverhounds?
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.