Resistencia vs Fernando de la Mora: match statistics

Resistencia holds a slight offensive edge — 9 goals this season versus Fernando de la Mora’s 6, and at home they average 1.2 goals per match compared to 1.0 scored by their opponents away. The visitors, however, produce higher expected goals (xG 1.44 vs 1.37), attempt more shots (10.25 vs 9.6) and record superior possession (50% vs 44%). Resistencia is more efficient in finishing (shot conversion 13% vs 10%) and registers marginally more shots on target (3.6 vs 3.5), but concedes more goals at home (1.6 vs Fernando’s 1.25 conceded away), while both teams have conceded 10 goals this season. In the last 5 matches Fernando have averaged 1.4 points per game versus Resistencia’s 1.2 and have won 2 of 5, whereas the hosts have recorded 3 draws in their last 5 and keep clean sheets in 40% of home games (vs 25% for the visitors). Given the hosts’ superior shooting efficiency and home advantage, I give Resistencia a narrow edge (50%), draw 30%, and an away win 20%.

According to the data, both Resistencia (attacking xG 1.82) and Fernando de la Mora (attacking xG 1.44) generate more xG than their opponents typically concede (xG against both around 1.42), indicating both sides have realistic chances to score. In the last 5 matches both teams produced BTTS in 60% of cases and scored 6 and 5 goals respectively in those five games, confirming a short-term offensive tendency. Seasonal stats are mixed: Resistencia averages only 0.4 goals per game with a season BTTS of 20% and shot conversion of 3%, while Fernando averages 1.0 goals per game with a season BTTS of 50% and conversion of 10%. Both teams register a similar number of shots on target (3.6 vs 3.5) and both defenses have conceded 10 goals this season, which increases the likelihood that both sides can find the net. Considering the strong signals from xG (1.82 and 1.44) and the 60% BTTS in the last 5 matches for both teams, but also Resistencia's low seasonal efficiency, I favor BTTS - Yes at approximately 60% probability.

Expected goals are 1.62 for Resistencia and 1.43 for Fernando de la Mora (total 3.05), calculated as the average of attack xG and opposing defense xG: (1.82+1.42)/2 and (1.44+1.42)/2. The total 3.05 is clearly above the league average of 2.31 and translates to roughly an 81% probability for Over 1.5 goals, 59% for Over 2.5 goals and 36% for Over 3.5 goals using an xG-based model. However, note that Resistencia averages 15.0 shots and has xG 1.82 but only scores 0.4 goals seasonally with a low conversion rate of 3.0%, while Fernando averages 10.25 shots, xG 1.44 and a conversion rate of 10.0%, which increases their real conversion. Additionally, in the last 5 matches Resistencia scored 6 and conceded 6, and Fernando scored 5 and conceded 5; both teams have 40% of matches Over 2.5 in their last 5, supporting a moderate signal for Over 2.5. Considering the higher combined xG (3.05), the hosts’ edge in chance creation (15.0 vs 10.25 shots) and the difference in conversion (3.0% vs 10.0%), I recommend Over 1.5 as the strongest play (≈81%).

The most likely scenario is a draw at half-time with Fernando de la Mora winning at full-time (X/2) — I assign this a 36% probability. A half-time draw is justified by Resistencia drawing at the break in 40% of matches and Fernando in 75%, with average goals by half-time of 0.0 for the home side and 0.25 for the visitors. After the break the visitors’ advantage becomes evident: second-half average goals are 1.5 for the visitors versus 0.8 for the hosts, and the proportion of matches with at least one second-half goal is 100% for the visitors vs 80% for the hosts. Additionally, despite the hosts’ xG being 1.82 versus 1.44 for the visitors, Resistencia has a very low conversion rate of 3% compared to Fernando’s 10%; moreover average points per match are 0.8 vs 1.5 and win rates are 20% vs 50%, which suggests the visitors are more efficient and more likely to mount a turnaround after half-time. Consequently scenarios with the home side leading at the break are unlikely (1/1 only 2%), while I give the highest probabilities to X/2 (36%) and 2/2 (22%).