Proxy vs Abu Qair Semad: match statistics
Proxy vs Abu Qair Semad: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Proxy play Abu Qair Semad in Second Division (Egypt). The match date is 9 April 2026 at 15:00. Final score: 1:1.
Current form
Proxy: 4-1-0, 2.60 points/match. Abu Qair Semad: 2-3-0, 1.80 points/match.
Goal statistics
Proxy scores 1.21 and concedes 0.91 goals per match. Abu Qair Semad scores 1.18 and concedes 0.74. League average: 1.95 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Proxy 59%, Abu Qair Semad 41%. Over 2.5: Proxy 38%, Abu Qair Semad 32%. League level: BTTS 41%, Over 2.5 32%.
xG, shots and style
Abu Qair Semad has higher xG: 1.59 vs 1.32. Proxy: 8.0 shots per match, Abu Qair Semad: 9.6.
Match halves
Proxy: half-time lead 21%, second-half goals 0.74. Abu Qair Semad: half-time lead 29%, second-half goals 0.59.
Goals by minute
Proxy: 76-90+ (13 goals). Abu Qair Semad: 0-15 (8 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
Second Division: 1.95 goals per match, BTTS 41%, Over 2.5 32%.
Head-to-head
1 H2H matches: 0-0-1. Average goals 3.00, BTTS 100%.
Match description
I predict an away win (2) — Abu Qair Semad are marginal favorites. This season the visitors have 13 wins versus Proxy’s 9 and sit 3rd compared to 7th, indicating a longer-term edge. Abu Qair’s attack is more efficient: on the road they average 11.09 shots and 4.73 on target per match with a 12% conversion rate, while Proxy at home averages 10.75 shots, 4.00 on target and a 9% conversion. Hosts defend solidly at home — 0.79 goals conceded per match, 43% clean sheets and as many as 50% of home matches end in draws; additionally Proxy has 1.8 points per match in the last 5 versus the visitors’ 1.6. xG shows parity (Proxy home xG 1.45 vs Abu Qair away xG 1.43), but Proxy scores only 0.86 goals per home match with xG 1.45, suggesting finishing inefficiency and favoring a narrow away victory.
Half-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
| Proxy | Abu Qair Semad | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 38% | 44% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.17 | 0.17 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.40 | 0.28 |
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.
Proxy is 44% better for: last-5 form.
2.6 pts / match - Proxy · 1.8 pts / match - Abu Qair Semad
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.
Abu Qair Semad is 23% better for: goals conceded per match.
0.91 goals / match - Proxy · 0.74 goals / match - Abu Qair Semad
Proxy scores in 79% of matches (27 of 34 matches), while Abu Qair Semad keeps a clean sheet in 47% (16 of 34 matches).
Abu Qair Semad scores in 74% of matches (25 of 34 matches), while Proxy keeps a clean sheet in 38% (13 of 34 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 — Proxy
Over / Under — Abu Qair Semad
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.
Abu Qair Semad is 17% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.26 pts / match - Proxy · 1.47 pts / match - Abu Qair Semad
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Proxy - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 21% of matches and wins 38%. 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.
Abu Qair Semad - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 29% of matches and wins 44%. 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.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.40 | 2.60 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.8 | 1.4 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.4 | 0.6 |
| Average goals in match | 1.2 | 2.0 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 40% |
| No goal | 40% | 0% |
| Goal difference | +2 | +4 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.80 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Average goals in match | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 60% |
| 2 goals | 20% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 80% |
| No goal | 40% | 60% |
| Goal difference | +2 | +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 61-75 (8). Late-goal balance (76-90): +8 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (8 goli). Concedes most in 46-60 (6). Late-goal balance (76-90): +2 - 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
Proxy
Abu Qair Semad
* 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 (Second Division).
Teams vs league
| Proxy | Liga | Abu Qair Semad | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 2.12 | 1.95 | • 1.91 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 59% | 41% | • 41% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 38% | 32% | • 32% |
| Clean sheets | • 38% | 38% | ▲ 47% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 56% | 53% | ▲ 59% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 71% | 67% | ▼ 65% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Head-to-head
Previous meeting: Proxy 0 - 0 - 1 Abu Qair Semad. Average goals 3.00, both teams scored in 100% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Proxy vs Abu Qair Semad?
The Second Division match finished Proxy 1:1 Abu Qair Semad. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Proxy vs Abu Qair Semad?
Proxy score 1.21 goals per game on average and Abu Qair Semad 1.18. The Second Division average is 1.95 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 32% of games. Both teams score in 59% of Proxy's matches and 41% of Abu Qair Semad's.
What form are Proxy and Abu Qair Semad in?
Over the last 5 games Proxy have a 4-1-0 record (2.60 points per game) and Abu Qair Semad 2-3-0 (1.80 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Proxy vs Abu Qair Semad?
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.