Latvia - 1. LigaSporta komplekss ĶeizarmežsData current as of September 20, 2026

Riga FC II vs Metta - LU: match statistics

Riga FC II crest
Riga FC II
2 : 2half-time 1:0
Metta - LU crest
Metta - LU

Riga FC II vs Metta - LU: form, goals and key statistics

Game details

Riga FC II played against Metta - LU in 1. Liga (Latvia). The game was played on August 1, 2026. Venue: Sporta komplekss Ķeizarmežs. Final score: 2:2.

Recent form

Riga FC II has 4 wins, 0 draws and 1 loss over its last five games, averaging 2.40 points per game. Metta - LU has 5 wins, 0 draws and 0 losses, with 3.00 points per game.

Scoring records

Riga FC II scores 1.50 goals per game and allows 1.86. Metta - LU scores 3.93 and allows 0.79. Games in this league average 3.50 goals.

BTTS and goal totals

Both teams score in 57% of Riga FC II's games and 50% of Metta - LU's. The Over 2.5 rates are 71% and 86%, compared with league averages of 61% for BTTS and 69% for Over 2.5.

xG and shots

Metta - LU has the higher season xG average, 2.95 to 1.35 per game. Riga FC II takes 8.4 shots per game, while Metta - LU takes 21.1.

First-half and second-half trends

Riga FC II leads at halftime in 36% of its games and scores 0.64 goals per game after halftime. Metta - LU leads at halftime in 86% and scores 1.64 after halftime.

When the teams score

Riga FC II's most productive scoring window is minutes 16-30 (5 goals). For Metta - LU, it is minutes 31-45+ (13 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.

League scoring profile

1. Liga games average 3.50 goals. Both teams score in 61% of games, and 69% finish with at least three goals.

Head-to-head record

Before this game, one previous meeting was available. The record was 0 home wins, 0 draws and 1 away win. Those games averaged 2.00 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

I back the away win because Metta - LU holds a clear advantage in season metrics: 12 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss and a 55-11 goal record versus Riga FC II’s 6 wins, 1 draw, 7 losses and 21-26. Offensively Metta away averages 2.67 goals per game with xG 2.47 and 19.2 shots (8.4 on target), while Riga at home records 1.86 goals, xG 1.54 and 11.29 shots (6.86 on target), giving the visitors more high-quality chances. Defensively the gap also favors the visitors: Metta concedes 0.67 goals away and keeps 50% clean sheets, while Riga concedes 1.57 at home with 29% clean sheets. Additionally Metta scored 22 goals in the last 5 matches (5 wins) versus Riga’s 9 goals and 4 wins in their last 5, and the “did not score” rate is 0% for Metta vs 14% for Riga, indicating greater offensive consistency from the visitors. Based on this I assign Metta a 65% chance to win, draw 20% and home win 15%.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

The league average BTTS is 61%, while both teams have seasonal BTTS of 50% and recent 5-game BTTS of 40% (Riga FC II) and 60% (Metta), yielding a short-term average around 50%. Offensively both sides are strong: Riga has xG 3.24 and averages 14.75 shots on target with a seasonal goals scored average of 4.88, and Metta has xG 2.47, 8.4 shots on target and scores an average of 4.4 goals in the last 5 matches. Counterbalancing this is the fact both teams keep a clean sheet in 50% of matches and Riga concedes only 0.59 xG against on average, which lowers the BTTS probability, but Metta drives the attack and the hosts have conceded an average of 1.0 goal in the last 5 matches, increasing the likelihood of both teams scoring. Combining the strong league-level BTTS signal (61%), high xG and chance creation from both teams, and mixed clean-sheet indicators, I favor the "BTTS - Yes" outcome and estimate 60% for Yes vs 40% for No.

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

I estimated expected goals as 2.08 for the home side and 1.53 for the away side (total 3.61), based on home attack xG 3.24 vs away defense xG 0.92 and the reverse matchup (2.47 and 0.59). Riga FC II averages 4.88 goals per game with a conversion rate of 19%, while Metta - LU has a seasonal scoring average of 2.67 and a 15% conversion, which further supports a higher total. Seasonal shares of matches over 1.5 goals are 100% for the home team and 83% for the away team, and over 2.5 are 88% and 83% respectively; the league average is 3.49 goals per match. Considering the expected 3.61 goals and recent form over the last 5 matches (home 9 goals, away 22 goals — 1.8 and 4.4 per game), the strongest signal is to play Over 1.5. Over 2.5 has solid backing (approximately a 70% probability), while the 3.5 line is essentially even (around 49%), so I recommend Over 1.5 as the optimal line.

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

The home side dominate the first half: they score an average of 2.88 goals by half-time and concede none (0.0), leading at the break in 7 of 8 matches (88%). Over the full match the hosts average 4.88 goals scored and 0.88 conceded and win 88% of games; their xG of 3.24 versus 2.47 and an average of 14.75 shots on target versus 8.4 for the opponents confirm a qualitative advantage. The visitors are in form (5 wins in their last 5 matches), which increases the risk of a goal after the break, but their average goals by half-time is only 1.4, so breaking down the hosts’ defense before half-time is unlikely. On this basis the strongest signal is the home side leading at the break and winning the match (1/1) — I assign this scenario a 56% probability, taking into account the 88% home half-time leads and the high average goals scored. Lower probabilities are assigned to scenarios where the visitors stage a turnaround after half-time or the match is level at half-time (e.g. X/1 12%, 1/X 8%, 1/2 6%), since the differences in xG and shots on target (3.24 vs 2.47 and 14.75 vs 8.4) favor the home team both before and after the break.

View first-half and second-half statistics

Stats by half

1 : 0
First half
1 : 2
Second half

Game stats

37Possession (%)63
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
4Shots20
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
2Shots on target6
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
0.74xG2.39
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
2Corners9
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
46Dangerous attacks101
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
18Fouls9
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
0Cards0
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

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.

Riga FC IIMetta - LU
1.5Goals scored / game3.93
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
1.86Goals allowed / game0.79
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
46%Average possession56%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
4.57Shots on target / game11.36
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

Team statswho is more efficient?

Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.

8.43Shots per game21.14
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
4.57Shots on target11.36
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
17.8%Shot conversion18.6%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
46%Possession56%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
1.35xG for2.95
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
1.7xG against0.72
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

Shooting quality

Riga FC II: Counter-attackingMetta - LU: Dominant
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
Accuracy (shots on target)54%54%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.160.14
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.330.35

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.

Metta - LU is 25% better for: last-5 form.

2.4 pts / game - Riga FC II · 3 pts / game - Metta - LU

Riga FC II
WWWWL
Season result split
43% W7% D50% L
Season (W-D-L)
6-1-7
1.36 pts / game · goal difference -5
Last 5 (W-D-L)
4-0-1
2.40 pts / game
Record at home (W-D-L)
5-0-2
Last 5 at home
4-0-1
WLWWW
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 1.8Goals conceded: 1.0xG: 1.61Opponent xG: 1.02BTTS: 40%Over 2.5: 60%
Metta - LU
WWWWW
5 wins in a row
Season result split
86% W7% D7% L
Season (W-D-L)
12-1-1
2.64 pts / game · goal difference +44
Last 5 (W-D-L)
5-0-0
3.00 pts / game
Record away (W-D-L)
5-1-0
Last 5 away
4-1-0
WWDWW
Last 5 games - averages
Goals scored: 5.2Goals conceded: 1.0xG: 2.90Opponent xG: 0.79BTTS: 60%Over 2.5: 100%

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.

Metta - LU is 162% better for: goals scored per game.

1.5 goals / game - Riga FC II · 3.93 goals / game - Metta - LU

Metta - LU is 135% better for: goals allowed per game.

1.86 goals / game - Riga FC II · 0.79 goals / game - Metta - LU

Riga FC II scoring profile: mixed

Riga FC II scores in 71% of games (10 of 14 games), while Metta - LU keeps a clean sheet in 50% (7 of 14 games).

Metta - LU scoring profile: very strong

Metta - LU scores in 100% of games (14 of 14 games), while Riga FC II keeps a clean sheet in 14% (2 of 14 games).

21Goals scored (season)55
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
26Goals conceded (season)11
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
3.36Average goals per game4.71
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
9Goals scored (last 5)26
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
5Goals conceded (last 5)5
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

How often they score at least...

71%1 goal100%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
57%2 goals86%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
14%3 goals71%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
7%4 goals43%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

How often they concede at least...

86%1 goal50%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
64%2 goals21%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
29%3 goals7%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
7%4 goals0%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

* 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

36%BTTS at half-time7%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
0%BTTS in both halves0%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
36%Scored in both halves79%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

BTTS and goal count

57%Min. 3 goals and BTTS50%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
14%Min. 3 goals without BTTS36%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
40%BTTS - last 560%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

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

79%Min. 1 goal before half-time86%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
43%Min. 2 goals before half-time50%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
29%Min. 3 goals before half-time36%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

2nd half

86%Min. 1 goal after half-time86%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
64%Min. 2 goals after half-time71%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
21%Min. 3 goals after half-time50%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

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.

Metta - LU is 90% better for: first-half form (half-time points).

1.43 pts / game - Riga FC II · 2.71 pts / game - Metta - LU

Riga FC II - half-time state
36% leading36% draw29% trailing
Metta - LU - half-time state
86% leading14% draw0% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

1.43Points per game (1st half)2.71
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
0.86Goals scored (1st half)2.14
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
0.64Goals conceded (1st half)0.07
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
1.5Average goals (1st half)2.21
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
43%Clean sheet before half-time93%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
43%No goal before half-time14%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

After half-time (2nd half)

1.07Points per game (2nd half)2
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
0.64Goals scored (2nd half)1.64
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
1.21Goals conceded (2nd half)0.57
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
1.86Average goals (2nd half)2.21
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
43%Clean sheet after half-time64%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU
50%No goal after half-time14%
Riga FC IIMetta - LU

Riga FC II - second-half results

29% W21% D50% L
20
Half-time points
12
Half-time goals
+3
Goal difference (1st half)
15
Second-half points
-8
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.43
PPG before half-time
Lead holding119%

Leads at halftime in 36% of games and wins 43%. 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.

Metta - LU - second-half results

57% W29% D14% L
38
Half-time points
30
Half-time goals
+29
Goal difference (1st half)
28
Second-half points
+15
Goal difference (2nd half)
2.71
PPG before half-time
Lead holding100%

Leads at halftime in 86% of games and wins 86%. 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.

Riga FC II - last 5 games by half
1st half2nd half
Points per game1.602.00
Goals scored / game0.81.0
Goals allowed / game0.60.4
Average goals per game1.41.4
1 goal80%80%
2 goals40%60%
3 goals20%0%
Clean sheet40%80%
No goal40%40%
Goal difference+1+3
Half-time: 40% leading - 40% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 60% won - 20% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 40% - Half-time goals total: 4
Metta - LU - last 5 games by half
1st half2nd half
Points per game3.002.00
Goals scored / game3.02.2
Goals allowed / game0.01.0
Average goals per game3.03.2
1 goal100%100%
2 goals60%100%
3 goals40%80%
Clean sheet100%40%
No goal0%0%
Goal difference+15+6
Half-time: 100% leading - 0% draw - 0% trailing
2nd half: 60% won - 20% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 15

* 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
4
1
0-15
5
5
16-30
3
3
31-45
3
5
46-60
3
1
61-75
3
11
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 16-30 (5 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (11). Late-goal balance (76-90): -8 - late phases are a weakness.

Metta - LU
ScoredConceded
10
2
0-15
9
1
16-30
13
0
31-45
6
5
46-60
7
1
61-75
10
2
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 31-45 (13 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (5). Late-goal balance (76-90): +8 - 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

4.04
Estimated goals
attack vs. opponent defense
1.1 : 2.9
Estimated goal split
home : away
115%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
54%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
-50%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
71%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
0%
0:0 risk
practically zero
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.
-0.35
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.01
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+2.4 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
+0.15
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
-0.16
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
79%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
116%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
+1.04
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
-0.2
Late goals
14% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 19% come in the first quarter-hour.
14%

Metta - LU

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+2.23
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.91
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-3.4 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
+0.98
Defensive efficiency
Does the defense or goalkeeper outperform the chances allowed? A positive value means the team allows fewer goals than its xGA suggests.
-0.07
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
246%
Defense vs. league
Goals allowed compared with the league average. An 80% score means 20% fewer goals allowed.
42%
Form trend
Compares points from the last five games with the full-season average.
+0.36
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
-0.5
Late goals
18% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 18% come in the first quarter-hour.
18%

* 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 IILigaMetta - LU
Average goals per game 3.363.50 4.71
Both teams scored 57%61% 50%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) 71%69% 86%
Clean sheets 14%22% 50%
Goal before half-time 79%73% 86%
Goal after half-time 86%84% 86%

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

3.50
Average goals per game
61%
Both teams scored
69%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
22%
Clean sheets
1.90
Home goals / game
1.60
Away goals / game
+19%
Home attack advantage
+16%
Home defensive advantage
+8%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
73%
1 goal
37%
2 goals
18%
3 goals
5%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
84%
1 goal
63%
2 goals
36%
3 goals
14%
4 goals

Lineups and player events

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

Home team

Other recorded players

Brian Peña Perez-VicoA 1
Ēriks Maurs-Boks⚽ 1

Away team

Other recorded players

Match timeline

Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.

  1. Riga FC IIAssistBrian Peña Perez-Vico
  2. Metta - LUAssistDaņiils Čiņajevs
  3. Riga FC IIGoalĒriks Maurs-Boks

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: 0 wins, 0 draws and 1 loss against Metta - LU. Games average 2.00 goals, and both teams scored in 0% of them.

FAQ

What was the result of Riga FC II vs Metta - LU?

The 1. Liga match finished Riga FC II 2:2 Metta - LU. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What do the goal statistics show before Riga FC II vs Metta - LU?

Riga FC II score 1.50 goals per game on average and Metta - LU 3.93. The 1. Liga average is 3.50 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 69% of games. Both teams score in 57% of Riga FC II's matches and 50% of Metta - LU's.

What form are Riga FC II and Metta - LU in?

Over the last 5 games Riga FC II have a 4-0-1 record (2.40 points per game) and Metta - LU 5-0-0 (3.00 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Riga FC II vs Metta - LU?

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.