FH vs ÍBV: match statistics
FH vs ÍBV: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
FH played against ÍBV in Úrvalsdeild (Iceland). The game was played on June 28, 2026. Venue: Kaplakrikavöllur. Final score: 1:1.
Recent form
FH has 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses over its last five games, averaging 0.80 points per game. ÍBV has 3 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss, with 2.00 points per game.
Scoring records
FH scores 1.36 goals per game and allows 2.55. ÍBV scores 1.82 and allows 2.27. Games in this league average 4.06 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 73% of FH's games and 82% of ÍBV's. The Over 2.5 rates are 73% and 73%, compared with league averages of 72% for BTTS and 72% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
FH has the higher season xG average, 1.55 to 1.33 per game. FH takes 12.7 shots per game, while ÍBV takes 11.4.
First-half and second-half trends
FH leads at halftime in 36% of its games and scores 0.45 goals per game after halftime. ÍBV leads at halftime in 36% and scores 0.91 after halftime.
When the teams score
FH's most productive scoring window is minutes 31-45+ (5 goals). For ÍBV, it is minutes 16-30 (4 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
Úrvalsdeild games average 4.06 goals. Both teams score in 72% of games, and 72% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
Before this game, 3 previous meetings were available. The record was 0 home wins, 2 draws and 1 away win. Those games averaged 2.33 goals, with both teams scoring in 100% 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
ÍBV is the favorite in this matchup based on form and efficiency — the visitors have scored 14 goals in their last 5 matches versus 4 for the hosts and average 2 points per game in that period, while FH averages 0.8 points per game. Offensive efficiency favors ÍBV: the visitors’ shot conversion rate is 13% versus FH’s 8%, and ÍBV scores 1.6 goals on the road with xG 1.4, whereas FH averages 1.25 goals at home with xG 1.82, indicating the hosts are failing to convert chances. FH attempts more shots (15 on average and 4.25 on target at home), but lower efficiency and a lack of clean sheets (0%) weaken their home advantage. Both teams are defensively vulnerable (FH concedes 2.0 goals at home, ÍBV 2.4 away), so I expect multiple goals and an away win.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Both teams have very high season BTTS rates: FH 83% and ÍBV 80%, versus the league average of 72%, which historically strongly favors both sides scoring. Season goal averages show FH scores 2.0 and concedes 2.17 per game, while ÍBV scores 1.6 and concedes 2.4, so both teams regularly participate in Goal/Goal matches. In the last 5 matches ÍBV scored 14 goals (2.8 per game) with 80% BTTS, and FH in that period scored 4 goals (0.8 per game) and conceded 10 (2.0 per game), indicating ÍBV is likely to register on the scoresheet and FH frequently concedes. Additionally both teams have a season clean sheet expected rate of 0%, total xG is 1.28 + 1.40 = 2.68, and total shots are approximately 10.5 + 12.4 = 22.9 (on target 4.5 + 3.6 = 8.1), suggesting numerous chances and supporting BTTS - Yes as more probable (85% vs 15%).
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
Season statistics indicate very high goal potential: both teams have 100% of matches with over 1.5 goals (FH 100%, ÍBV 100%), and the league average goals per match is 4.06. An xG-based model (FH xG_for 1.28, ÍBV xG_for 1.40; FH xG_against 1.53, ÍBV xG_against 1.57) yields expected goals of 1.43 for the home side and 1.47 for the visitors, totalling 2.90 goals. Additionally, the percentage of matches where both teams scored is 83% for FH and 80% for ÍBV, and season Over2.5 rates are 67% (FH) and 80% (ÍBV) — the average is 73.5%, hence an estimated Over2.5 probability of about 74%. Over3.5 is less certain: season Over3.5 is 33% for FH and 60% for ÍBV (average 46.5%), so I assign Over3.5 47% vs 53% for Under3.5; furthermore, the home team averages 4.5 shots on target and 10.5 total shots with a 19% conversion, while the visitors average 3.6 shots on target and 12.4 total shots with a 13% conversion, which supports the offensive profile of the match. Therefore the strongest and most certain signal is Over 1.5 (both teams have 100% of such matches), so I recommend backing the over at the 1.5 line, while the 2.5 line also shows a clear market edge (estimated 74% vs 26%).
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
The most likely HT/FT scenario is 1/1 — the home team leads at the break and maintains the win. The primary signal is that the hosts led at half-time in 50% of their matches and score on average 1.0 goals before the break versus 0.8 for ÍBV, with half-time goal averages of 2.0 compared to 1.6. Additionally, the home side has a higher average points per game (1.17 vs 0.8) and a noticeably better finishing rate (19% vs 13%), which partly offsets a slightly lower xG (1.28 vs 1.4 for the visitors) and increases the chance of holding the lead. Although ÍBV has better form in the last five matches (60% wins vs 20% for the hosts) and both teams frequently exchange goals (both sides manage to score in 83% of the hosts’ matches and 80% of the visitors’ matches), the half-time lead statistics and the hosts’ superior clinical edge prevail. One must still account for the risk of a turnaround — the home team conceded as many as four goals in minutes 46–60 — therefore 1/1 has the highest but moderate probability, and 1/2 remains a realistic alternative.
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
| FH | ÍBV | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 34% | 36% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.31 | 0.44 |
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.
ÍBV is 150% better for: last-5 form.
0.8 pts / game - FH · 2 pts / game - ÍBV
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.
ÍBV is 34% better for: goals scored per game.
1.36 goals / game - FH · 1.82 goals / game - ÍBV
ÍBV is 12% better for: goals allowed per game.
2.55 goals / game - FH · 2.27 goals / game - ÍBV
FH scores in 73% of games (8 of 11 meczów), while ÍBV keeps a clean sheet in 0% (0 of 11 meczów).
ÍBV scores in 82% of games (9 of 11 meczów), while FH keeps a clean sheet in 0% (0 of 11 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 - FH
Over / Under - ÍBV
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.
ÍBV is 14% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.27 pts / game - FH · 1.45 pts / game - ÍBV
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
FH - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 36% of games and wins 9%. Sometimes gives up a halftime lead.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
ÍBV - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 36% of games and wins 27%. Sometimes gives up a halftime lead.
Allows 0.5 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 2.00 | 0.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.8 | 0.0 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.4 | 1.6 |
| Average goals per game | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 0% |
| No goal | 40% | 100% |
| Goal difference | +2 | -8 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 2.20 | 1.20 |
| Goals scored / game | 1.4 | 1.4 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.2 | 1.2 |
| Average goals per game | 1.6 | 2.6 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 40% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 20% |
| No goal | 40% | 40% |
| Goal difference | +6 | +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 31-45 (5 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -6 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 16-30 (4 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - 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
FH
ÍBV
* 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 (Úrvalsdeild).
Teams vs league
| FH | Liga | ÍBV | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | ▼ 3.91 | 4.06 | • 4.09 |
| Both teams scored | • 73% | 72% | ▲ 82% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | • 73% | 72% | • 73% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 0% | 14% | ▼ 0% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 91% | 84% | ▼ 82% |
| Goal after half-time | ▼ 82% | 88% | ▲ 91% |
^ 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 FH's perspective: 0 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss against ÍBV. Games average 2.33 goals, and both teams scored in 100% of them.
FAQ
What was the result of FH vs ÍBV?
The Úrvalsdeild match finished FH 1:1 ÍBV. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between FH and ÍBV?
In the last 3 head-to-head matches FH won 0, ÍBV won 1 and 2 ended level. These games averaged 2.33 goals, with both teams scoring in 100% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before FH vs ÍBV?
FH score 1.36 goals per game on average and ÍBV 1.82. The Úrvalsdeild average is 4.06 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 72% of games. Both teams score in 73% of FH's matches and 82% of ÍBV's.
What form are FH and ÍBV in?
Over the last 5 games FH have a 1-1-3 record (0.80 points per game) and ÍBV 3-1-1 (2.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for FH vs ÍBV?
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.