Finland - YkkösliigaMikkelin UrheilupuistoData current as of September 03, 2026

MP vs EIF: match statistics

MP crest
MP
1 : 0half-time 1:0
EIF crest
EIF

MP vs EIF: form, goals and key statistics

Game details

MP played against EIF in Ykkösliiga (Finland). The game was played on May 31, 2026. Venue: Mikkelin Urheilupuisto. Final score: 1:0.

Recent form

MP has 3 wins, 0 draws and 2 losses over its last five games, averaging 1.80 points per game. EIF has 3 wins, 0 draws and 2 losses, with 1.80 points per game.

Scoring records

MP scores 0.75 goals per game and allows 1.13. EIF scores 2.13 and allows 2.00. Games in this league average 2.18 goals.

BTTS and goal totals

Both teams score in 25% of MP's games and 63% of EIF's. The Over 2.5 rates are 25% and 88%, compared with league averages of 39% for BTTS and 36% for Over 2.5.

xG and shots

The teams have nearly identical season xG averages at 1.38 per game. MP takes 11.4 shots per game, while EIF takes 10.5.

First-half and second-half trends

MP leads at halftime in 38% of its games and scores 0.38 goals per game after halftime. EIF leads at halftime in 38% and scores 1.25 after halftime.

When the teams score

MP's most productive scoring window is minutes 76-90+ (2 goals). For EIF, it is minutes 76-90+ (5 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.

League scoring profile

Ykkösliiga games average 2.18 goals. Both teams score in 39% of games, and 36% finish with at least three goals.

Head-to-head record

There is not enough head-to-head history for a meaningful comparison.

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

The favorites appear to be the visitors (EIF): they have scored 17 goals away this season (avg. 1.67 per game) versus just 6 goals for MP at home (0.67 per game). EIF have superior shooting efficiency: on average 4.67 shots on target per game and a conversion rate of 17%, while MP record 3.67 shots on target and only 5% conversion, despite similar xG (both 1.4 xG per game). However, the visitors’ defense on the road is vulnerable – EIF concede 3.67 goals away on average and their matches average 5.33 total goals, whereas MP at home concede 1.33 and the average total is 2.00. Overall form slightly favors EIF (3 wins in the last 5 and 1.8 pts/game) over MP (2 wins and 1.2 pts/game), although the visitors have lost their last three away fixtures ('lll'), which reduces certainty. Considering the offensive advantage (17 goals vs 6) and significantly higher shot conversion (17% vs 5%), I forecast an EIF victory.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

I recommend BTTS - Yes with a 72% probability: both teams display strong season BTTS profiles — MP 60% and EIF 67% — providing a clear signal for both teams to score. MP averages 2.4 goals for and concedes 1.0, while EIF scores 1.67 and concedes 3.67; EIF’s high concession rate (3.67) combined with MP’s solid finishing (22% conversion) support both teams finding the net. In the last 5 matches EIF has scored 12 goals (2.4 avg) and conceded 9 (1.8), and MP has scored 6 and conceded 9, indicating both sides have been regularly scoring and conceding recently. Additionally xG is comparable (MP xG 1.37 vs EIF xG 1.40) and the percentage of matches over 2.5 goals is high (MP 80%, EIF 100%), which raises the likelihood of multiple goals. However, the league shows low BTTS (37%) and a high clean sheet expected rate (72%), so I do not assign an extreme probability — hence the final 72% for Yes vs 28% for No.

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

xG estimates are roughly 1.45 for the home side and 1.45 for the away side (2.90 total), calculated as the average of home attack xG 1.37 and away defense xG 1.52 ((1.37+1.52)/2=1.45) and similarly for the visitors (1.40 and 1.49). Season metrics show MP has 80% of matches over 1.5 and 80% over 2.5, while EIF has 100% for both lines, which strongly supports Over 1.5 and also provides a strong signal for Over 2.5. MP averages 2.4 goals scored per match with a conversion rate of 22%, EIF 1.67 goals with a 17% conversion, and EIF concedes on average 3.67 goals — these figures increase the expected number of scoring opportunities. Additionally, BTTS occurs in 60% of MP matches and 67% of EIF matches, and EIF has no clean sheets (0%), raising the likelihood of goals from both sides; therefore the strongest signal from the data is a bet on Over 1.5.

View Over/Under statistics
HT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario

I back MP to lead at the break and to win at full-time (1/1) as the most likely scenario. MP led at half-time in 3 of their last 5 matches (60%), averaging 1.0 goals by the break while conceding just 0.2, whereas EIF did not lead at half-time in any of their last 5 matches (0%) and concedes an average of 2.0 goals by the break. MP averages 2.4 goals per game while EIF concedes 3.67 goals per game; xG is similar (1.37 versus 1.40), but MP has superior shot conversion (22% versus EIF’s 17%) and more shots on target (5.2 vs 4.67), which supports greater efficiency for the home side. Additionally, MP wins 80% of matches this season and keeps a clean sheet at half-time in 80% of games, so I assigned the highest probability to 1/1, lower weight to scenarios with a half-time draw, and virtually zero chance to EIF leading at the break.

View first-half and second-half statistics

Stats by half

1 : 0
First half
0 : 0
Second half

Game stats

43Possession (%)57
MPEIF
4Shots10
MPEIF
1Shots on target2
MPEIF
0.64xG1.34
MPEIF
3Corners3
MPEIF
42Dangerous attacks78
MPEIF
14Fouls9
MPEIF
2Cards1
MPEIF

Pre-game profilewhat do the season numbers say?

This team profile combines season stats and recent form. In-game statistics appear after the final whistle.

0.75Goals scored / game2.13
MPEIF
1.13Goals allowed / game2
MPEIF

Team statswho is more efficient?

Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.

11.38Shots per game10.5
MPEIF
4.38Shots on target5
MPEIF
6.6%Shot conversion20.2%
MPEIF
51%Possession50%
MPEIF
1.38xG for1.38
MPEIF
1.3xG against1.5
MPEIF

Shooting quality

MP: BalancedEIF: Efficient finishing
MPEIF
Accuracy (shots on target)38%48%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.120.13
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.170.43

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 formwho is in better shape?

Last five games and season record, overall, at home and away.

MP
WWLLW
Season result split
38% W0% R63% P
Season (W-D-L)
3-0-5
1.13 pts / game · goal difference -3
Last 5 (W-D-L)
3-0-2
1.80 pts / game
Record at home (W-D-L)
1-0-2
Last 5 at home
1-0-2
LWL
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 1.2Goals conceded: 1.2xG: 1.44Opponent xG: 1.30BTTS: 40%Over 2.5: 40%
EIF
LWLWW
Season result split
50% W0% R50% P
Season (W-D-L)
4-0-4
1.50 pts / game · goal difference +1
Last 5 (W-D-L)
3-0-2
1.80 pts / game
Record away (W-D-L)
0-0-3
Last 5 away
0-0-3
LLL
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 2.4Goals conceded: 1.8xG: 1.32Opponent xG: 1.52BTTS: 40%Over 2.5: 80%

Goalshow 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.

EIF is 184% better for: goals scored per game.

0.75 goals / game - MP · 2.13 goals / game - EIF

MP is 77% better for: goals allowed per game.

1.13 goals / game - MP · 2 goals / game - EIF

MP scoring profile: strong

MP scores in 63% of games (5 of 8 meczów), while EIF keeps a clean sheet in 25% (2 of 8 meczów).

EIF scoring profile: very strong

EIF scores in 88% of games (7 of 8 meczów), while MP keeps a clean sheet in 38% (3 of 8 meczów).

6Goals scored (season)17
MPEIF
9Goals conceded (season)16
MPEIF
1.88Average goals per game4.13
MPEIF
6Goals scored (last 5)12
MPEIF
6Goals conceded (last 5)9
MPEIF

How often they score at least...

63%1 goal88%
MPEIF
13%2 goals63%
MPEIF
0%3 goals38%
MPEIF
0%4 goals13%
MPEIF

How often they concede at least...

63%1 goal75%
MPEIF
25%2 goals63%
MPEIF
25%3 goals38%
MPEIF
0%4 goals25%
MPEIF

* 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

0%BTTS at half-time38%
MPEIF
0%BTTS in both halves38%
MPEIF
0%Scored in both halves50%
MPEIF

BTTS and goal count

25%Min. 3 goals and BTTS63%
MPEIF
0%Min. 3 goals without BTTS25%
MPEIF
40%BTTS - last 540%
MPEIF

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.

1st half

63%Min. 1 goal before half-time75%
MPEIF
0%Min. 2 goals before half-time63%
MPEIF
0%Min. 3 goals before half-time38%
MPEIF

2nd half

50%Min. 1 goal after half-time100%
MPEIF
38%Min. 2 goals after half-time63%
MPEIF
25%Min. 3 goals after half-time50%
MPEIF

Game halveswhen do the teams score more often?

How teams split performance between first and second half: goals, points, clean sheets and half-time state.

MP is 9% better for: first-half form (half-time points).

1.5 pts / game - MP · 1.38 pts / game - EIF

MP - half-time state
38% leading38% draw25% trailing
EIF - half-time state
38% leading25% draw38% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

1.5Points per game (1st half)1.38
MPEIF
0.38Goals scored (1st half)0.88
MPEIF
0.25Goals conceded (1st half)0.88
MPEIF
0.63Average goals (1st half)1.75
MPEIF
75%Clean sheet before half-time50%
MPEIF
63%No goal before half-time38%
MPEIF

After half-time (2nd half)

0.88Points per game (2nd half)1.63
MPEIF
0.38Goals scored (2nd half)1.25
MPEIF
0.88Goals conceded (2nd half)1.13
MPEIF
1.25Average goals (2nd half)2.38
MPEIF
63%Clean sheet after half-time25%
MPEIF
75%No goal after half-time25%
MPEIF

MP - second-half results

13% W50% R38% P
12
Half-time points
3
Half-time goals
+1
Goal difference (1st half)
7
Second-half points
-4
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.50
PPG before half-time
Lead holding100%

Leads at halftime in 38% of games and wins 38%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.

Defense after halftime+0.6

Allows 0.6 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.

EIF - second-half results

50% W13% R38% P
11
Half-time points
7
Half-time goals
0
Goal difference (1st half)
13
Second-half points
+1
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.38
PPG before half-time
Lead holding132%

Leads at halftime in 38% of games and wins 50%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.

Defense after halftime+0.2

Allows 0.2 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.

MP - last 5 games by half
1st half2nd half
Points per game2.201.00
Goals scored / game0.60.6
Goals allowed / game0.01.2
Average goals per game0.61.8
1 goal60%60%
2 goals0%60%
3 goals0%40%
Clean sheet100%60%
No goal40%60%
Goal difference+3-3
Half-time: 60% leading - 40% draw - 0% trailing
2nd half: 20% won - 40% draw - 40% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 3
EIF - last 5 games by half
1st half2nd half
Points per game1.402.00
Goals scored / game1.01.4
Goals allowed / game1.00.8
Average goals per game2.02.2
1 goal80%100%
2 goals80%40%
3 goals40%40%
Clean sheet40%40%
No goal40%20%
Goal difference0+3
Half-time: 40% leading - 20% draw - 40% trailing
2nd half: 60% won - 20% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 40% - Half-time goals total: 5

* Table colors show frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate and red is rare. They are not team ratings.

Goals by minutewhen do goals arrive?

The parts of a game in which both teams score and allow the most goals.

MP
ScoredConceded
1
1
0-15
1
1
16-30
1
0
31-45
0
4
46-60
1
1
61-75
2
2
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (2 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (4). Late-goal balance (76-90): 0.

EIF
ScoredConceded
2
2
0-15
2
2
16-30
3
3
31-45
4
3
46-60
1
2
61-75
5
4
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (5 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (4). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - wins late phases.

* Buckets 31-45 and 76-90 include added-time goals.

Additional team indicatorswhat do xG, efficiency and form show?

A comparison of chance quality, results and trends from completed games this season.

Game profile

3.00
Estimated goals
attack vs. opponent defense
1.4 : 1.6
Estimated goal split
home : away
138%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
44%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
-100%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
55%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
5%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 20 matches
0-1
Most common goal range
attack vs. defense for both teams

MP

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+0.08
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.46
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+1.6 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.63
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
+0.17
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
61%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
119%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
+0.67
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
0.0
Late goals
33% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 17% come in the first quarter-hour.
33%

EIF

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
-0.12
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.25
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-0.7 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
+0.75
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
-0.50
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
224%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
163%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
+0.30
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.4
Late goals
29% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 12% come in the first quarter-hour.
29%

* 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 contextis this a high-scoring league?

How both teams compare with league-wide averages (Ykkösliiga).

Teams vs league

MPLigaEIF
Average goals per game 1.882.18 4.13
Both teams scored 25%39% 63%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) 25%36% 88%
Clean sheets 38%35% 25%
Goal before half-time 63%55% 75%
Goal after half-time 50%66% 100%

^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.

2.18
Average goals per game
39%
Both teams scored
36%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
35%
Clean sheets
1.23
Home goals / game
0.95
Away goals / game
+29%
Home attack advantage
+23%
Home defensive advantage
+9%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
55%
1 goal
18%
2 goals
7%
3 goals
0%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
66%
1 goal
43%
2 goals
20%
3 goals
9%
4 goals

Lineups and player events

Verified starters, substitutes and recorded player events for this match.

Match timeline

Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.

  1. MPAssistRohun Kawale
  2. MPYellow cardVeikko Janhunen
  3. MPSubstitutionOn: Eero YlönenOff: Rohun Kawale
  4. EIFSubstitutionOn: Lucas PimentelOff: Fahad Mohamed
  5. MPYellow cardTyson Afshari

Referee and managers

Open their season profiles to compare match records, goals and disciplinary trends.

FAQ

What was the result of MP vs EIF?

The Ykkösliiga match finished MP 1:0 EIF. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What do the goal statistics show before MP vs EIF?

MP score 0.75 goals per game on average and EIF 2.13. The Ykkösliiga average is 2.18 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 36% of games. Both teams score in 25% of MP's matches and 63% of EIF's.

What form are MP and EIF in?

Over the last 5 games MP have a 3-0-2 record (1.80 points per game) and EIF 3-0-2 (1.80 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for MP vs EIF?

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.