EIF vs KTP: match statistics

The favorite is KTP — the team sits 3rd vs EIF’s 9th and in the last 5 matches averages 2.0 points per game, winning 3 of 5, while EIF averages 0.6 points per game with only 1 win in that span. KTP’s main advantage is defense: away they concede 0.0 goals per game on average and have 100% clean sheets, whereas EIF at home concede 1.5 goals per game on average and have shipped 12 goals in their last 5 matches. EIF does have attacking strengths at home — on average 5 shots on target and 10.5 shots per match with a conversion rate of 14%, equating to 1.5 goals per home game; KTP away manage only 2 shots on target, 15 total shots and a low 3% conversion, thus about 0.5 goals per match. In terms of quality of chances KTP hold a slight xG edge: 1.45 xG For vs 1.25 for EIF and xG Against 1.23 vs 1.44, suggesting the visitors create more valuable opportunities and are better at neutralizing opposition chances. Considering KTP’s defensive superiority and better form, I predict an away win; probabilities estimated at EIF 20%, draw 25% and KTP 55%.

I back BTTS - Yes because both teams demonstrate realistic scoring potential: EIF has an average xG of 1.90 per match and scored 6 goals in the last 5 fixtures, while KTP has xG 1.45 and scored 5 goals in their last 5. EIF conceded 12 goals in their last 5 matches (2.4 per game) versus KTP conceding 4 (0.8 per game), indicating home vulnerability to conceded goals. Additionally, BTTS occurred in 80% of EIF’s last 5 matches and 40% of KTP’s, and EIF registers more shots on target (6.0 per match vs 2.0 for KTP), increasing the likelihood of goals from both sides. There are contradictions in seasonal data — season-long BTTS shows 0% for both teams, season clean sheet percentages are 100%, and league-wide BTTS is only 32% with 84% clean sheets — therefore recent xG metrics and last-5 form are more relevant. Considering xG 1.90 vs 1.45, EIF’s 12 goals conceded in the last 5, and EIF’s 80% BTTS in that sample, I assign 68% probability to Yes (BTTS) and 32% to No.

Expected goals are approximately 1.57 for EIF and 1.01 for KTP, totaling 2.58, calculated from attacking xG (EIF 1.90, KTP 1.45) and xG against (EIF 0.57, KTP 1.23). EIF generates significantly more high-quality chances — 6.0 shots on target per game versus KTP’s 2.0 — and a higher conversion rate 7% vs 3%, which increases their likelihood of scoring. In the last 5 matches EIF scored 6 and conceded 12 (18 goals total, averaging 3.6 goals per game), while KTP had 5 scored and 4 conceded (9 goals total, 1.8 per game), suggesting fixtures involving EIF tend to be higher scoring. With a cumulative xG of 2.58 the estimated probability of Over 1.5 is about 73% (vs 27% Under), Over 2.5 about 48% (vs 52% Under), and Over 3.5 about 26% (vs 74% Under); therefore the strongest signal from the data is to play Over 1.5.

I expect a draw at Half-Time because both teams have a drawingAtHTPercentage of 100.0% and an average goals at Half-Time of 0.0 (scoredAVGHT_home 0.0, scoredAVGHT_away 0.0), which strongly indicates 0:0 after 45 minutes. In the second half EIF shows a clear offensive edge: second-half average goals are 1.0 for the home side versus 0.5 for KTP (AVG_2hg_home 1.0 vs AVG_2hg_away 0.5), and the percentage of matches in which EIF scores after the break is 100.0% (over05_2hg_percentage_home 100.0). Quality-of-chance metrics support this: EIF xG is 1.9 versus 1.45 for KTP (xg_for_avg_home 1.9 vs xg_for_avg_away 1.45), while xG against EIF is only 0.57 compared to 1.23 for the visitors (xg_against_avg_home 0.57 vs xg_against_avg_away 1.23), suggesting more high-quality chances for the home side and better defensive solidity. Additionally EIF records a 100.0% home win rate and an average 3.0 points per home game (winPercentage_home 100.0, seasonPPG_home 3.0), so the strongest signal is a Half-Time draw and a home win Full-Time (X/1), while an alternative Full-Time draw (X/X) remains possible given the high percentage of clean sheets (seasonCSPercentage_home 100.0 and seasonCSPercentage_away 100.0).