Finland - YkkösliigaMikkelin UrheilupuistoData current as of October 17, 2026

MP vs EIF: match statistics

MP crest
MP
0 : 2half-time 0:2
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 August 16, 2026. Venue: Mikkelin Urheilupuisto. Final score: 0:2.

Recent form

MP has 1 win, 2 draws and 2 losses over its last five games, averaging 1.00 points per game. EIF has 2 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses, with 1.40 points per game.

Scoring records

MP scores 1.06 goals per game and allows 1.33. EIF scores 1.33 and allows 1.67. Games in this league average 2.46 goals.

BTTS and goal totals

Both teams score in 50% of MP's games and 44% of EIF's. The Over 2.5 rates are 44% and 56%, compared with league averages of 45% for BTTS and 45% for Over 2.5.

xG and shots

EIF has the higher season xG average, 1.41 to 1.29 per game. MP takes 10.8 shots per game, while EIF takes 11.2.

First-half and second-half trends

MP leads at halftime in 39% of its games and scores 0.50 goals per game after halftime. EIF leads at halftime in 22% and scores 0.78 after halftime.

When the teams score

MP's most productive scoring window is minutes 76-90+ (7 goals). For EIF, it is minutes 76-90+ (8 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.

League scoring profile

Ykkösliiga games average 2.46 goals. Both teams score in 45% of games, and 45% finish with at least three goals.

Head-to-head record

Before this game, 2 previous meetings were available. The record was 1 home win, 0 draws and 1 away win. Those games averaged 1.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 0% 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

MP have a clear home advantage: they have won 50% of their home matches, while EIF have won just 11% of their away games and lost as many as 67%. The hosts average 1.50 goals at home, whereas the visitors concede 2.33 goals per away match, with a negative goal difference of -12. MP are also more clinical, converting 13% of their shots compared with EIF’s 9%, although both teams produce a similar number of shots on target—around 3.6 per match. EIF’s form over the last five games is slightly better, with 7 points and only 4 goals conceded, but their away trend and poor defensive record throughout the season favor the hosts. A closely contested match is expected, but MP’s greater consistency at home should give them the edge.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

The BTTS - No outcome is more likely, primarily due to EIF’s limited attacking efficiency: the visitors score an average of 1.00 goals per season and only 0.80 in their last five matches. MP keep a clean sheet in 44% of matches, while EIF fail to score in 33% of their appearances, strengthening the scenario in which the home side do not concede. The hosts should, however, have good conditions to find the net, as they average 1.67 goals at home, while EIF concede as many as 2.33 goals per match. EIF’s xG over their last five matches, at 1.66, supports BTTS, but their BTTS rate during this period is only 20%, compared with 80% for MP. MP’s seasonal BTTS percentage is just 33%, below the league average of 43%, which is why the “No” pick has slightly stronger support in the data.

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

MP average 1.67 goals at home, while EIF concede as many as 2.33 goals per away match, which clearly strengthens the hosts’ chances of scoring. Both teams have recorded at least 2 goals in 67% of their league matches, while a minimum of 3 goals was scored in 56% of their games. The xG model also does not point to a tight match: MP’s average xG is 1.44 and EIF’s is 1.39, with a combined projection of 2.70 goals. The strongest signal is Over 1.5, as MP have scored at least once in 78% of their matches, while EIF have conceded in 78% of their appearances, making the scenario of at least two goals clearly more likely.

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

MP have a clear advantage in their season results: they win 67% of their matches and score an average of 1.67 goals, while EIF win just 11% of their games and concede as many as 2.33 goals per match. The signal for the home side to lead at the break is strong, as MP were ahead at half-time in 4 of 9 matches, while EIF went into the interval trailing in 6 of 9. MP’s defense concedes an average of just 0.11 goals before the break, whereas the visitors allow as many as 1.11 goals in this phase, clearly supporting the 1/1 scenario. Caution is warranted based on the last five matches, in which EIF averaged 1.4 points and conceded only 0.8 goals; however, the long-term quality gap and MP’s first-half advantage still point towards them maintaining their lead until full-time.

View first-half and second-half statistics

Stats by half

0 : 2
First half
0 : 0
Second half

Game stats

57Possession (%)43
MPEIF
17Shots19
MPEIF
5Shots on target7
MPEIF
1.91xG2.03
MPEIF
2Corners9
MPEIF
68Dangerous attacks49
MPEIF
11Fouls8
MPEIF
3Cards1
MPEIF

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.

1.06Goals scored / game1.33
MPEIF
1.33Goals allowed / game1.67
MPEIF
50%Average possession50%
MPEIF
3.83Shots on target / game4.11
MPEIF

Team stats— who is more efficient?

Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.

10.78Shots per game11.17
MPEIF
3.83Shots on target4.11
MPEIF
9.8%Shot conversion11.9%
MPEIF
50%Possession50%
MPEIF
1.29xG for1.41
MPEIF
1.48xG against1.47
MPEIF

Shooting quality

MP: BalancedEIF: Balanced
MPEIF
Accuracy (shots on target)36%37%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.120.13
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.280.32

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.

EIF is 40% better for: last-5 form.

1 pts / game - MP · 1.4 pts / game - EIF

MP
DLDWL
Season result split
33% W17% D50% L
Season (W-D-L)
6-3-9
1.17 pts / game · goal difference -5
Last 5 (W-D-L)
1-2-2
1.00 pts / game
Record at home (W-D-L)
4-2-2
Last 5 at home
3-2-0
WDWDW
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 1.4Goals conceded: 1.8xG: 1.51Opponent xG: 1.50BTTS: 80%Over 2.5: 60%
EIF
LLDWW
Season result split
39% W11% D50% L
Season (W-D-L)
7-2-9
1.28 pts / game · goal difference -6
Last 5 (W-D-L)
2-1-2
1.40 pts / game
Record away (W-D-L)
1-2-6
Last 5 away
1-2-2
LDLDW
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 0.8Goals conceded: 0.8xG: 1.64Opponent xG: 1.43BTTS: 20%Over 2.5: 20%

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.

EIF is 25% better for: goals scored per game.

1.06 goals / game - MP · 1.33 goals / game - EIF

MP is 26% better for: goals allowed per game.

1.33 goals / game - MP · 1.67 goals / game - EIF

MP scoring profile: strong

MP scores in 72% of games (13 of 18 games), while EIF keeps a clean sheet in 33% (6 of 18 games).

EIF scoring profile: very strong

EIF scores in 72% of games (13 of 18 games), while MP keeps a clean sheet in 22% (4 of 18 games).

19Goals scored (season)24
MPEIF
24Goals conceded (season)30
MPEIF
2.39Average goals per game3
MPEIF
7Goals scored (last 5)4
MPEIF
9Goals conceded (last 5)4
MPEIF

How often they score at least...

72%1 goal72%
MPEIF
28%2 goals33%
MPEIF
6%3 goals17%
MPEIF
0%4 goals6%
MPEIF

How often they concede at least...

78%1 goal67%
MPEIF
33%2 goals44%
MPEIF
22%3 goals33%
MPEIF
0%4 goals17%
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

17%BTTS at half-time22%
MPEIF
6%BTTS in both halves17%
MPEIF
11%Scored in both halves22%
MPEIF

BTTS and goal count

44%Min. 3 goals and BTTS39%
MPEIF
0%Min. 3 goals without BTTS17%
MPEIF
80%BTTS - last 520%
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

67%Min. 1 goal before half-time56%
MPEIF
17%Min. 2 goals before half-time39%
MPEIF
11%Min. 3 goals before half-time22%
MPEIF

2nd half

61%Min. 1 goal after half-time83%
MPEIF
44%Min. 2 goals after half-time44%
MPEIF
28%Min. 3 goals after half-time39%
MPEIF

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.

MP is 41% better for: first-half form (half-time points).

1.56 pts / game - MP · 1.11 pts / game - EIF

MP - half-time state
39% leading39% draw22% trailing
EIF - half-time state
22% leading44% draw33% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

1.56Points per game (1st half)1.11
MPEIF
0.56Goals scored (1st half)0.56
MPEIF
0.39Goals conceded (1st half)0.61
MPEIF
0.94Average goals (1st half)1.17
MPEIF
61%Clean sheet before half-time61%
MPEIF
56%No goal before half-time61%
MPEIF

After half-time (2nd half)

0.83Points per game (2nd half)1.39
MPEIF
0.5Goals scored (2nd half)0.78
MPEIF
0.94Goals conceded (2nd half)1.06
MPEIF
1.44Average goals (2nd half)1.83
MPEIF
44%Clean sheet after half-time44%
MPEIF
61%No goal after half-time44%
MPEIF

MP - second-half results

11% W50% D39% L
28
Half-time points
10
Half-time goals
+3
Goal difference (1st half)
15
Second-half points
-8
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.56
PPG before half-time
Lead holding85%

Leads at halftime in 39% of games and wins 33%. Usually protects a halftime lead through the final whistle.

Defense after halftime+0.5

Allows 0.5 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.

EIF - second-half results

39% W22% D39% L
20
Half-time points
10
Half-time goals
-1
Goal difference (1st half)
25
Second-half points
-5
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.11
PPG before half-time
Lead holding177%

Leads at halftime in 22% of games and wins 39%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.

Defense after halftime+0.5

Allows 0.5 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 game1.600.60
Goals scored / game0.80.6
Goals allowed / game0.61.2
Average goals per game1.41.8
1 goal60%60%
2 goals40%60%
3 goals40%40%
Clean sheet40%40%
No goal60%40%
Goal difference+1-3
Half-time: 40% leading - 40% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 0% won - 60% draw - 40% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 40% - Half-time goals total: 4
EIF - last 5 games by half
1st half2nd half
Points per game1.401.00
Goals scored / game0.40.4
Goals allowed / game0.00.8
Average goals per game0.41.2
1 goal20%60%
2 goals20%20%
3 goals0%20%
Clean sheet100%60%
No goal80%60%
Goal difference+2-2
Half-time: 20% leading - 80% draw - 0% trailing
2nd half: 20% won - 40% draw - 40% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 2

* 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.

MP
ScoredConceded
2
5
0-15
3
1
16-30
5
1
31-45
0
6
46-60
2
3
61-75
7
8
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (7 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (8). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - late phases are a weakness.

EIF
ScoredConceded
2
3
0-15
3
2
16-30
5
6
31-45
4
7
46-60
2
5
61-75
8
7
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (8 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - 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 from completed games this season.

Game profile

2.70
Estimated goals
attack vs. opponent defense
1.4 : 1.3
Estimated goal split
home : away
110%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
47%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
-63%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
52%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
8%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 13 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.
-0.19
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.08
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+0.2 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.23
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
+0.15
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
80%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
118%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
-0.17
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
-0.1
Late goals
37% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 11% come in the first quarter-hour.
37%

EIF

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
-0.06
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.28
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+1.9 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.08
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
-0.20
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
118%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
126%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
+0.12
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.2
Late goals
33% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 8% come in the first quarter-hour.
33%

* 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 (Ykkösliiga).

Teams vs league

MPLigaEIF
Average goals per game• 2.392.46▲ 3.00
Both teams scored▲ 50%45%• 44%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)• 44%45%▲ 56%
Clean sheets▼ 22%31%▲ 33%
Goal before half-time▲ 67%63%▼ 56%
Goal after half-time▼ 61%72%▲ 83%

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

2.46
Average goals per game
45%
Both teams scored
45%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
31%
Clean sheets
1.33
Home goals / game
1.13
Away goals / game
+18%
Home attack advantage
+15%
Home defensive advantage
+10%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
63%
1 goal
29%
2 goals
12%
3 goals
1%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
72%
1 goal
39%
2 goals
20%
3 goals
10%
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. MPYellow cardMilot Kastrati
  2. EIFSubstitutionOn: Fahad MohamedOff: Mamadou Saidou Bah
  3. EIFSubstitutionOn: Arttu SivonenOff: Oskari Sallinen
  4. MPYellow cardVille Laiho
  5. MPSubstitutionOn: Onni KimariOff: Rohun Kawale
  6. EIFYellow cardAsla Peltola
  7. MPSubstitutionOn: Serge AtakayiOff: Veikko Janhunen
  8. EIFSubstitutionOn: Milo Hamdi HamdiOff: Nasiru Mohammed
  9. MPYellow cardArop Ring

Referee and managers

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

Head-to-head

Record from MP's perspective: 1 win, 0 draws and 1 loss against EIF. Games average 1.00 goals, and both teams scored in 0% of them.

FAQ

What was the result of MP vs EIF?

The Ykkösliiga match finished MP 0:2 EIF. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What is the head-to-head record between MP and EIF?

In the last 2 head-to-head matches MP won 1, EIF won 1 and 0 ended level. These games averaged 1.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 0% of them.

What do the goal statistics show before MP vs EIF?

MP score 1.06 goals per game on average and EIF 1.33. The Ykkösliiga average is 2.46 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 45% of games. Both teams score in 50% of MP's matches and 44% of EIF's.

What form are MP and EIF in?

Over the last 5 games MP have a 1-2-2 record (1.00 points per game) and EIF 2-1-2 (1.40 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.