FC Cincinnati vs SJ Earthquakes: match statistics
FC Cincinnati vs SJ Earthquakes: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
FC Cincinnati played SJ Earthquakes in MLS (United States). The match was played on 1 August 2026. Venue: TQL Stadium. Final score: 4:2.
Current form
FC Cincinnati: 2-1-2, 1.40 points/match. SJ Earthquakes: 1-1-3, 0.80 points/match.
Goal statistics
FC Cincinnati scores 2.41 and concedes 2.47 goals per match. SJ Earthquakes scores 2.06 and concedes 1.18. League average: 3.23 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: FC Cincinnati 76%, SJ Earthquakes 59%. Over 2.5: FC Cincinnati 71%, SJ Earthquakes 59%. League level: BTTS 62%, Over 2.5 62%.
xG, shots and style
SJ Earthquakes has higher xG: 1.61 vs 1.52. FC Cincinnati: 13.3 shots per match, SJ Earthquakes: 14.2.
Match halves
FC Cincinnati: half-time lead 24%, second-half goals 1.29. SJ Earthquakes: half-time lead 41%, second-half goals 1.12.
Goals by minute
FC Cincinnati: 76-90+ (13 goals). SJ Earthquakes: 76-90+ (8 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
MLS: 3.23 goals per match, BTTS 62%, Over 2.5 62%.
Head-to-head
No aligned head-to-head sample is available in the database.
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
FC Cincinnati has clear offensive momentum: they scored 17 goals in the last 5 matches (avg. 3.4 per match) and collected 10 points in those five fixtures (avg. 2.0 per match), while SJ Earthquakes scored 6 goals (1.2 per match) and took 4 points (0.8 per match). At home the hosts average 3.0 goals with 14.88 shots and 5.88 shots on target per match, and their average xG is 1.61, whereas the visitors on the road register 9.13 shots, 3.75 on target and xG 1.11. Defensively disadvantageous for Cincinnati is that they concede 2.13 goals at home on average (xG against 1.77), while Earthquakes concede only 1.13 goals away, giving them a defensive edge. Additionally the visitors have a higher conversion rate (25% vs 20%) and 0% clean-sheet rate, but their form in the last five matches is weaker (only 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses) compared to the hosts' 3 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss. Considering Cincinnati’s offensive pressure (17 goals, more shots and higher xG) and the visitors’ poorer current form, the higher probability favors a home victory.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Seasonal BTTS rates are 44% for FC Cincinnati and 75% for SJ Earthquakes, versus a league average of 60%. In the last 5 matches Cincinnati recorded BTTS in 100% of games, and SJ in 60%; both teams conceded an average of 2.2 goals per game in that period. xG and shot analysis shows the hosts create significantly more chances: Cincinnati has 2.05 xG, 18.67 shots and 7.33 on target, while SJ concedes 1.68 xG to opponents; conversely SJ generates 1.11 xG with 9.13 shots and 3.75 on target, but has a higher conversion rate of 25% versus Cincinnati’s 10%. Seasonal goal totals are 41 scored and 42 conceded for Cincinnati, and 35 and 20 for SJ, while in the last 5 matches Cincinnati averaged 3.4 goals scored and SJ 1.2, which combined with the 2.2 goals conceded average suggests an elevated risk of both teams scoring. Considering the hosts’ 100% BTTS in the last 5, 75% BTTS for SJ away, and the combination of high xG for the hosts and efficient conversion from SJ, I forecast BTTS - Yes with a probability of 70% (No 30%).
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
The model estimates total expected goals at 2.99: 1.87 for FC Cincinnati and 1.12 for SJ Earthquakes, which increases the likelihood of Over 2.5 goals. Seasonal indicators support this direction — FC Cincinnati have 56% of matches Over 2.5, SJ Earthquakes 63%, and the league average Over 2.5 is 62%; additionally, FC have had 100% of their last 5 matches Over 2.5. Hosts average 18.67 shots and 7.33 shots on target per match versus visitors' 9.13 shots and 3.75 on target; with conversion rates of 10% (Cincinnati) and 25% (SJ) this implies significant goal potential despite SJ’s lower chance volume. In their last 5 matches FC scored 17 goals (3.4 per match), and last5 xG are 1.62 for the home side and 1.68 for the visitors, indicating offensive dynamics close to 3.3 xG/match. Based on this I recommend Over 2.5 as the strongest signal (estimated probability Over 2.5 = 72%), while Over 1.5 is very likely (94%) and Over 3.5 remains less certain (35%).
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
FC Cincinnati generates significantly more chances already in the first half: the home team's average xG is 2.05 versus 1.11 for SJ, average shots 18.67 vs 9.13 and shots on target 7.33 vs 3.75, which suggests creative superiority before the break. In the last 5 matches Cincinnati led at the break in 50% of games, while the Earthquakes did so in only 20%, so a home lead at half-time is realistic. At the same time SJ has much stronger seasonal end-game metrics: 75% wins and 2.38 points per game versus 44% and 1.56 for Cincinnati, and a shot conversion rate of 25% vs 10% indicates the visitors can extremely efficiently capitalize on their chances. Additionally the Earthquakes frequently score shortly after rest (5 goals in minutes 46–60 versus 2 for the hosts), which supports a turnaround and takeover of the lead in the second half. For these reasons the safest signal is a FC Cincinnati lead at half-time and an SJ Earthquakes win after full-time (HT/FT 1/2).
View first-half and second-half statisticsHalf-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
| FC Cincinnati | SJ Earthquakes | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 43% | 40% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.43 | 0.36 |
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.
FC Cincinnati is 75% better for: last-5 form.
1.4 pts / match - FC Cincinnati · 0.8 pts / match - SJ Earthquakes
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.
FC Cincinnati is 17% better for: goals scored per match.
2.41 goals / match - FC Cincinnati · 2.06 goals / match - SJ Earthquakes
SJ Earthquakes is 109% better for: goals conceded per match.
2.47 goals / match - FC Cincinnati · 1.18 goals / match - SJ Earthquakes
FC Cincinnati scores in 88% of matches (15 of 17 matches), while SJ Earthquakes keeps a clean sheet in 29% (5 of 17 matches).
SJ Earthquakes scores in 88% of matches (15 of 17 matches), while FC Cincinnati keeps a clean sheet in 12% (2 of 17 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 — FC Cincinnati
Over / Under — SJ Earthquakes
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.
SJ Earthquakes is 35% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.18 pts / match - FC Cincinnati · 1.59 pts / match - SJ Earthquakes
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
FC Cincinnati - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 24% of matches and wins 35%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.2 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
SJ Earthquakes - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 41% of matches and wins 59%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.60 | 1.20 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| Average goals in match | 3.0 | 3.4 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 100% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 60% | 60% |
| Clean sheet | 0% | 20% |
| No goal | 0% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +1 | +1 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.00 | 0.80 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.2 | 1.2 |
| Average goals in match | 2.2 | 1.8 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 80% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 0% | 40% |
| No goal | 40% | 40% |
| Goal difference | -1 | -3 |
* 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 (13 goli). Concedes most in 76-90 (10). Late-goal balance (76-90): +3 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (8 goli). Concedes most in 0-15 (5). Late-goal balance (76-90): +5 - 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 based on completed matches from the current season.
Match profile
FC Cincinnati
SJ Earthquakes
* 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 (MLS).
Teams vs league
| FC Cincinnati | Liga | SJ Earthquakes | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 4.88 | 3.23 | • 3.24 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 76% | 62% | ▼ 59% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 71% | 62% | ▼ 59% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 12% | 22% | ▲ 29% |
| Goal before half-time | • 76% | 77% | ▲ 88% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 88% | 80% | ▼ 71% |
^ 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
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.
FAQ
What was the result of FC Cincinnati vs SJ Earthquakes?
The MLS match finished FC Cincinnati 4:2 SJ Earthquakes. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before FC Cincinnati vs SJ Earthquakes?
FC Cincinnati score 2.41 goals per game on average and SJ Earthquakes 2.06. The MLS average is 3.23 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 62% of games. Both teams score in 76% of FC Cincinnati's matches and 59% of SJ Earthquakes's.
What form are FC Cincinnati and SJ Earthquakes in?
Over the last 5 games FC Cincinnati have a 2-1-2 record (1.40 points per game) and SJ Earthquakes 1-1-3 (0.80 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for FC Cincinnati vs SJ Earthquakes?
The statistical background for FC Cincinnati vs SJ Earthquakes — 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.