Latvia - 1. LigaData current as of September 07, 2026

Riga FC II vs Mārupe: match statistics

Riga FC II crest
Riga FC II
0 : 4half-time 0:0
Mārupe crest
Mārupe

Riga FC II vs Mārupe: form, goals and key statistics

Game details

Riga FC II played against Mārupe in 1. Liga (Latvia). The game was played on May 17, 2026. Final score: 0:4.

Recent form

Riga FC II has 2 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses over its last five games, averaging 1.40 points per game. Mārupe has 2 wins, 1 draw and 2 losses, with 1.40 points per game.

Scoring records

Riga FC II scores 1.57 goals per game and allows 2.14. Mārupe scores 2.00 and allows 0.86. Games in this league average 3.42 goals.

BTTS and goal totals

Both teams score in 71% of Riga FC II's games and 43% of Mārupe's. The Over 2.5 rates are 71% and 71%, compared with league averages of 60% for BTTS and 68% for Over 2.5.

xG and shots

Mārupe has the higher season xG average, 1.63 to 1.35 per game. Riga FC II takes 9.4 shots per game, while Mārupe takes 12.1.

First-half and second-half trends

Riga FC II leads at halftime in 43% of its games and scores 0.43 goals per game after halftime. Mārupe leads at halftime in 43% and scores 1.43 after halftime.

When the teams score

Riga FC II's most productive scoring window is minutes 0-15 (3 goals). For Mārupe, it is minutes 76-90+ (4 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.

League scoring profile

1. Liga games average 3.42 goals. Both teams score in 60% of games, and 68% 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 1.50 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

Riga FC II has a clear offensive edge at home — scoring an average of 2.33 goals per match at their stadium, registering 12 shots with 8.33 on target and converting 19% of chances, while Mārupe scores just 1.0 goals away, averaging only 4.5 shots on target and 11% conversion. Defensively the hosts are vulnerable however — conceding 2.0 goals per home match with average xG against of 1.86, whereas the visitors concede only 0.75 goals on average away and record 50% clean sheets. The last five matches show similar points output (1.4 points per game each), but Riga have scored 10 goals in their last 5 compared to Mārupe’s 6, with the hosts also conceding 10 in those five. The xG differential also favors the hosts: 1.7 xG at home versus 1.34 xG for the visitors on the road, suggesting higher quality of created chances for Riga, although Mārupe compensates with solid defending. As a result I forecast a home win, but with clear risk posed by the visitors’ compact defense, so I assess probabilities at approximately 55% for the hosts, 25% for a draw and 20% for the visitors.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

In the last 5 matches Riga FC II has BTTS at 80% and Mārupe 60%, with averages in those 5 games of 2.0 goals scored and 2.0 conceded for the home side and 1.2 scored and 1.2 conceded for the away side, which strongly favors both teams to score. xG also supports BTTS: Riga II has xG 2.01, Mārupe has xG 1.34, with xG against of 0.94 (Riga) and 1.17 (Mārupe), meaning both teams generate over ~1.0 expected goals. The hosts average 15.67 shots and 6.0 on target with a conversion of 21%, while the visitors average 9.5 shots and 4.5 on target with a conversion of 11%, increasing the likelihood both teams will find the net. There are opposing season signals (seasonal clean sheet rate for hosts 67% and seasonal BTTS for hosts 33% versus 50% BTTS for visitors), but these are weakened by the last-5 form and xG profile. Considering the weight of the last 5 matches, xG>1 for both teams and the league BTTS rate of 56%, I assess BTTS at 68% (yes) vs 32% (no) and tip "yes".

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

Riga FC II average 3.33 goals per match this season vs Mārupe 1.00; xG is 2.01 for the home side and 1.34 for the visitors, giving a total xG of 3.35 and a strong signal for Over. Home matches this season have 100% over 1.5 and 2.5 goals, while away matches have 50% over 2.5; the league averages 3.35 goals per game and 65% Over 2.5, so the high-scoring tendency is confirmed. Hosts register 15.67 shots per game with 6.0 on target and a 21% conversion, whereas Mārupe has 9.5 shots, 4.5 on target and an 11% conversion — indicating a clear offensive advantage for the home team. In the last 5 matches combined average goals are 3.2 (home 2.0 + away 1.2), and 80% of the home side’s last 5 matches were Over 2.5, therefore the strongest signal is Over 2.5. Expected goals are ~2.01 for the hosts and 1.34 for the visitors, total 3.35, which supports an Over 2.5 bet edge.

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

Riga FC II has a clear attacking advantage: on average 3.33 goals scored per season versus Mārupe’s 1.00, xG 2.01 versus 1.34, and on average 15.67 shots per match versus 9.5 (6.0 vs 4.5 on target), which indicates more shooting opportunities. The home side leads at the break in 67% of their matches (2 of 3 in the seasonal data) and in the last 5 fixtures they average 1.4 first-half goals compared to the visitors’ 0.4, so the first half favors them. Riga FC II often increases their lead in the second half: 3 goals between 61–75 minutes and 4 goals between 76–90 minutes this season, while the visitors have a lower shooting conversion of 11% and xG 1.34, reducing their chances of a turnaround. Considering the 67% rate of leads at the break and the fact that the hosts convert leads into wins (home win percentage 67%), the most likely HT/FT scenario is 1/1 with an estimated probability of around 50%. Smaller but possible alternatives are a draw at half-time with a home win or a full-time equalizer by the visitors, so the remainder of the distribution is allocated as 1/X 8%, X/1 12%, 1/2 5%, X/X 8%, X/2 5%, and low chances of a visitor turnaround: 2/1 2%, 2/X 3%, 2/2 7%.

View first-half and second-half statistics

Stats by half

0 : 0
First half
0 : 4
Second half

Game stats

37Possession (%)63
Riga FC IIMārupe
4Shots19
Riga FC IIMārupe
0Shots on target10
Riga FC IIMārupe
0.54xG2.66
Riga FC IIMārupe
3Corners8
Riga FC IIMārupe
38Dangerous attacks107
Riga FC IIMārupe
14Fouls10
Riga FC IIMārupe
0Cards0
Riga FC IIMārupe

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.

1.57Goals scored / game2
Riga FC IIMārupe
2.14Goals allowed / game0.86
Riga FC IIMārupe
50%Average possession54%
Riga FC IIMārupe
5.57Shots on target / game5.14
Riga FC IIMārupe

Team statswho is more efficient?

Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.

9.43Shots per game12.14
Riga FC IIMārupe
5.57Shots on target5.14
Riga FC IIMārupe
16.7%Shot conversion16.5%
Riga FC IIMārupe
50%Possession54%
Riga FC IIMārupe
1.35xG for1.63
Riga FC IIMārupe
1.85xG against1.07
Riga FC IIMārupe

Shooting quality

Riga FC II: Efficient finishingMārupe: Efficient finishing
Riga FC IIMārupe
Accuracy (shots on target)59%42%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.140.13
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.280.39

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.

Riga FC II
WDWLL
Season result split
29% W14% R57% P
Season (W-D-L)
2-1-4
1.00 pts / game · goal difference -4
Last 5 (W-D-L)
2-1-2
1.40 pts / game
Record at home (W-D-L)
2-0-1
Last 5 at home
2-0-1
LWW
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 2.0Goals conceded: 2.0xG: 1.25Opponent xG: 1.54BTTS: 80%Over 2.5: 80%
Mārupe
DLLWW
Season result split
57% W14% R29% P
Season (W-D-L)
4-1-2
1.86 pts / game · goal difference +8
Last 5 (W-D-L)
2-1-2
1.40 pts / game
Record away (W-D-L)
2-1-1
Last 5 away
2-1-1
DLWW
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 1.2Goals conceded: 1.2xG: 1.33Opponent xG: 1.23BTTS: 60%Over 2.5: 60%

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.

Mārupe is 27% better for: goals scored per game.

1.57 goals / game - Riga FC II · 2 goals / game - Mārupe

Mārupe is 149% better for: goals allowed per game.

2.14 goals / game - Riga FC II · 0.86 goals / game - Mārupe

Riga FC II scoring profile: mixed

Riga FC II scores in 71% of games (5 of 7 meczów), while Mārupe keeps a clean sheet in 57% (4 of 7 meczów).

Mārupe scoring profile: very strong

Mārupe scores in 86% of games (6 of 7 meczów), while Riga FC II keeps a clean sheet in 0% (0 of 7 meczów).

11Goals scored (season)14
Riga FC IIMārupe
15Goals conceded (season)6
Riga FC IIMārupe
3.71Average goals per game2.86
Riga FC IIMārupe
10Goals scored (last 5)6
Riga FC IIMārupe
10Goals conceded (last 5)6
Riga FC IIMārupe

How often they score at least...

71%1 goal86%
Riga FC IIMārupe
57%2 goals57%
Riga FC IIMārupe
14%3 goals29%
Riga FC IIMārupe
14%4 goals29%
Riga FC IIMārupe

How often they concede at least...

100%1 goal43%
Riga FC IIMārupe
86%2 goals29%
Riga FC IIMārupe
29%3 goals14%
Riga FC IIMārupe
0%4 goals0%
Riga FC IIMārupe

* 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

43%BTTS at half-time0%
Riga FC IIMārupe
0%BTTS in both halves0%
Riga FC IIMārupe
43%Scored in both halves29%
Riga FC IIMārupe

BTTS and goal count

71%Min. 3 goals and BTTS43%
Riga FC IIMārupe
0%Min. 3 goals without BTTS29%
Riga FC IIMārupe
80%BTTS - last 560%
Riga FC IIMārupe

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

86%Min. 1 goal before half-time57%
Riga FC IIMārupe
57%Min. 2 goals before half-time14%
Riga FC IIMārupe
43%Min. 3 goals before half-time0%
Riga FC IIMārupe

2nd half

86%Min. 1 goal after half-time86%
Riga FC IIMārupe
57%Min. 2 goals after half-time57%
Riga FC IIMārupe
29%Min. 3 goals after half-time57%
Riga FC IIMārupe

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.

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

1.57 pts / game - Riga FC II · 1.71 pts / game - Mārupe

Riga FC II - half-time state
43% leading29% draw29% trailing
Mārupe - half-time state
43% leading43% draw14% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

1.57Points per game (1st half)1.71
Riga FC IIMārupe
1.14Goals scored (1st half)0.57
Riga FC IIMārupe
0.71Goals conceded (1st half)0.14
Riga FC IIMārupe
1.86Average goals (1st half)0.71
Riga FC IIMārupe
43%Clean sheet before half-time86%
Riga FC IIMārupe
29%No goal before half-time57%
Riga FC IIMārupe

After half-time (2nd half)

0.57Points per game (2nd half)1.57
Riga FC IIMārupe
0.43Goals scored (2nd half)1.43
Riga FC IIMārupe
1.43Goals conceded (2nd half)0.71
Riga FC IIMārupe
1.86Average goals (2nd half)2.14
Riga FC IIMārupe
29%Clean sheet after half-time57%
Riga FC IIMārupe
57%No goal after half-time29%
Riga FC IIMārupe

Riga FC II - second-half results

14% W14% R71% P
11
Half-time points
8
Half-time goals
+3
Goal difference (1st half)
4
Second-half points
-7
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.57
PPG before half-time
Lead holding67%

Leads at halftime in 43% of games and wins 29%. Sometimes gives up a halftime lead.

Defense after halftime+0.7

Allows 0.7 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.

Mārupe - second-half results

43% W29% R29% P
12
Half-time points
4
Half-time goals
+3
Goal difference (1st half)
11
Second-half points
+5
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.71
PPG before half-time
Lead holding133%

Leads at halftime in 43% of games and wins 57%. 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.

Riga FC II - last 5 games by half
1st half2nd half
Points per game2.000.80
Goals scored / game1.40.6
Goals allowed / game0.61.4
Average goals per game2.02.0
1 goal80%80%
2 goals60%60%
3 goals60%40%
Clean sheet60%40%
No goal20%40%
Goal difference+4-4
Half-time: 60% leading - 20% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 20% won - 20% draw - 60% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 40% - Half-time goals total: 7
Mārupe - last 5 games by half
1st half2nd half
Points per game1.201.00
Goals scored / game0.40.8
Goals allowed / game0.21.0
Average goals per game0.61.8
1 goal40%80%
2 goals20%40%
3 goals0%40%
Clean sheet80%40%
No goal80%40%
Goal difference+1-1
Half-time: 20% leading - 60% draw - 20% 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 minutewhen do goals arrive?

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

Riga FC II
ScoredConceded
3
1
0-15
3
3
16-30
2
1
31-45
2
3
46-60
0
0
61-75
1
7
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (3 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -6 - late phases are a weakness.

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

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (4 goals). Concedes most in 61-75 (3). Late-goal balance (76-90): +2 - 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

3.29
Estimated goals
attack vs. opponent defense
1.2 : 2.1
Estimated goal split
home : away
96%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
57%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
-54%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
61%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
4%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 25 matches
2-3
Most common goal range
attack vs. defense for both teams

Riga FC II

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
-0.50
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.07
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-0.3 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
+0.22
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
-0.29
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
82%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
144%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
+0.40
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
-0.7
Late goals
9% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 27% come in the first quarter-hour.
9%

Mārupe

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+0.56
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.58
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-4.7 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
+0.37
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
+0.21
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
134%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
45%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
-0.46
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.9
Late goals
29% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 14% 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 (1. Liga).

Teams vs league

Riga FC IILigaMārupe
Average goals per game 3.713.42 2.86
Both teams scored 71%60% 43%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) 71%68% 71%
Clean sheets 0%23% 57%
Goal before half-time 86%70% 57%
Goal after half-time 86%85% 86%

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

3.42
Average goals per game
60%
Both teams scored
68%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
23%
Clean sheets
1.92
Home goals / game
1.49
Away goals / game
+29%
Home attack advantage
+22%
Home defensive advantage
+7%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
70%
1 goal
32%
2 goals
19%
3 goals
6%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
85%
1 goal
60%
2 goals
38%
3 goals
13%
4 goals

Lineups and player events

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

Home team

Away team

Other recorded players

Kristaps Jansons⚽ 1

Match timeline

Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.

  1. MārupeGoalKristaps Jansons

Referee and managers

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

Head-to-head

Record from Riga FC II's perspective: 1 win, 0 draws and 1 loss against Mārupe. Games average 1.50 goals, and both teams scored in 0% of them.

Riga FC II
1 : 0
FK Mārupe
FK Mārupe
2 : 0
Riga FC II

FAQ

What was the result of Riga FC II vs Mārupe?

The 1. Liga match finished Riga FC II 0:4 Mārupe. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What is the head-to-head record between Riga FC II and Mārupe?

In the last 2 head-to-head matches Riga FC II won 1, Mārupe won 1 and 0 ended level. These games averaged 1.50 goals, with both teams scoring in 0% of them.

What do the goal statistics show before Riga FC II vs Mārupe?

Riga FC II score 1.57 goals per game on average and Mārupe 2.00. The 1. Liga average is 3.42 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 68% of games. Both teams score in 71% of Riga FC II's matches and 43% of Mārupe's.

What form are Riga FC II and Mārupe in?

Over the last 5 games Riga FC II have a 2-1-2 record (1.40 points per game) and Mārupe 2-1-2 (1.40 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Riga FC II vs Mārupe?

The statistical background for Riga FC II vs Mārupe — form, head-to-head, goals, BTTS and Over/Under — is on this page. The tip with full reasoning and a value assessment is in the NoFluffPicks app.