Riga FC II vs Super Nova II: match statistics
Riga FC II vs Super Nova II: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
Riga FC II played against Super Nova II in 1. Liga (Latvia). The game was played on July 19, 2026. Venue: Sporta komplekss Ķeizarmežs. Final score: 2:1.
Recent form
Riga FC II has 3 wins, 0 draws and 2 losses over its last five games, averaging 1.80 points per game. Super Nova II has 2 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss, with 1.60 points per game.
Scoring records
Riga FC II scores 1.58 goals per game and allows 1.83. Super Nova II scores 1.58 and allows 1.42. Games in this league average 3.48 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 58% of Riga FC II's games and 67% of Super Nova II's. The Over 2.5 rates are 67% and 42%, compared with league averages of 61% for BTTS and 69% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
Riga FC II has the higher season xG average, 1.35 to 1.26 per game. Riga FC II takes 8.0 shots per game, while Super Nova II takes 8.5.
First-half and second-half trends
Riga FC II leads at halftime in 33% of its games and scores 0.75 goals per game after halftime. Super Nova II leads at halftime in 42% and scores 0.92 after halftime.
When the teams score
Riga FC II's most productive scoring window is minutes 0-15 (4 goals). For Super Nova II, it is minutes 16-30 (4 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
1. Liga games average 3.48 goals. Both teams score in 61% of games, and 69% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
There is not enough head-to-head history for a meaningful comparison.
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 home win: Riga FC II wins 67% of their home matches, while Super Nova II win only 20% of away games. Riga have the edge in chance creation — averaging 7.17 shots on target and 11.33 total shots per home game versus Super Nova’s 5.2 on target and 10 total shots away — and maintain 57% possession compared to the opponent’s 45%. The hosts have a higher home xG (1.55 vs 1.36) and score 1.83 goals per home match, while the visitors score 1.6 on the road; both defenses are however vulnerable (conceding 1.67 and 2.00) and Super Nova have 0% of away matches without conceding, so I expect goals at both ends. In the last 5 matches Riga have scored 8 goals with a record of 3 wins and 2 losses (an average of 1.8 points per match), and Super Nova 9 goals with a 2-2-1 record (1.6 points per match), giving a slight form advantage to the hosts. Considering the higher home win rate and superior chance production, I assess the probabilities as 60% for Riga, 25% for a draw and 15% for the visitors.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
The BTTS scenario is more likely, as the seasonal BTTS rates are 57% (Riga FC II) and 80% (Super Nova II), averaging 68.5% and exceeding the league BTTS mean of 62%. Short-term signal is weaker — in the last 5 matches Riga has BTTS 40% and Super Nova 60%, averaging 50%, which lowers confidence but does not negate Super Nova's strong seasonal metric. Goal analysis shows mutual vulnerability: seasonally Riga scores 1.57 and concedes 1.0, while Super Nova scores 1.6 and concedes 2.0; in the last 5 matches they scored 1.6 and 1.8 respectively and conceded 1.4 and 1.8. Additionally xG_for is 1.18 for Riga vs 1.36 for Super Nova, xG_against is 1.52 and 2.06, and shots on target 3.5 vs 5.2, while the league average of 3.48 goals per match suggests many scoring opportunities. Considering seasonal 57% and 80% BTTS, league 62% and low clean sheet rates of 29% and 20%, I assign a 70% probability to BTTS - Yes and 30% to No Goal.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
A model combining attacking xG and opponent xG yields an expected 1.62 goals for Riga FC II and 1.44 goals for Super Nova II (total 3.06), indicating scoring potential above the 1.5 line. Both teams average goals scored of 1.57 (Riga) and 1.60 (Super Nova) with average goals conceded of 1.0 (Riga) and 2.0 (Super Nova), so Super Nova statistically concedes more (2.0). Shot metrics confirm offensive pressure: Super Nova averages 10.0 shots per game with 5.2 on target and a 16% conversion rate, while Riga averages 8.83 shots, 3.5 on target and a 15% conversion. A Poisson model with λ=3.06 gives probability of Over 1.5 goals at ~81% and Over 2.5 goals at ~59%; the league average is 3.48 goals per match with 68% of fixtures Over 2.5, which further supports the Over case. The strongest signal is Over 1.5 (recommendation), additionally supported by both teams scoring in 57% of Riga matches and 80% of Super Nova matches.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Riga FC II led at the break in 57% of matches and averages 1.0 goal before half-time, while Super Nova II has only 0.2 goals by the break. However, the second half clearly favors the visitors: Super Nova II averages 1.4 goals after the break and wins the second half in 40% of matches, whereas Riga wins it in only 14% and scores an average of 0.57 goals. A model-weighted approach gives the highest probability to the Half-Time/Full-Time scenario draw at half-time and visitors to win (X/2) — about 25%, with 1/1 close behind (≈24%) and 1/2 around 17% due to the home side’s advantage in the first 45 minutes. Additionally, the home team has a season points coefficient of 1.86 versus 1.2 for the visitors and a higher win rate (57% vs. 20%), so I recommend X/2 as the best pick, while acknowledging the real risk that the home side may maintain their lead.
View first-half and second-half statisticsStats by half
Game stats
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.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.
Shooting quality
| Riga FC II | Super Nova II | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 57% | 45% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.17 | 0.15 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.34 | 0.41 |
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.
Riga FC II is 13% better for: last-5 form.
1.8 pts / game - Riga FC II · 1.6 pts / game - Super Nova II
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.
Super Nova II is 29% better for: goals allowed per game.
1.83 goals / game - Riga FC II · 1.42 goals / game - Super Nova II
Riga FC II scores in 75% of games (9 of 12 meczów), while Super Nova II keeps a clean sheet in 25% (3 of 12 meczów).
Super Nova II scores in 83% of games (10 of 12 meczów), while Riga FC II keeps a clean sheet in 17% (2 of 12 meczów).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* 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
BTTS and goal count
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.
Full game - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under - Riga FC II
Over / Under - Super Nova II
1st half
2nd half
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.
Super Nova II is 23% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.42 pts / game - Riga FC II · 1.75 pts / game - Super Nova II
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Riga FC II - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 33% of games and wins 42%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Allows 0.7 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
Super Nova II - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 42% of games and wins 42%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Allows 0.3 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.20 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.4 | 1.2 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| Average goals per game | 0.8 | 2.2 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 20% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 60% |
| No goal | 60% | 20% |
| Goal difference | 0 | +1 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.20 | 1.80 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.4 | 1.4 |
| Goals allowed / game | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Average goals per game | 1.4 | 2.2 |
| 1 goal | 40% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 40% |
| No goal | 80% | 20% |
| Goal difference | -3 | +3 |
* 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.
Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (4 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (10). Late-goal balance (76-90): -7 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 16-30 (4 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -3 - late phases are a weakness.
* 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
Riga FC II
Super Nova II
* 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 (1. Liga).
Teams vs league
| Riga FC II | Liga | Super Nova II | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | • 3.42 | 3.48 | ▼ 3.00 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 58% | 61% | ▲ 67% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 67% | 69% | ▼ 42% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 17% | 22% | ▲ 25% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 75% | 72% | ▼ 58% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 92% | 85% | ▼ 83% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Lineups and player events
Verified starters, substitutes and recorded player events for this match.
Home team
Other recorded players
Away team
Match timeline
Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.
- Riga FC IIGoalĒriks Maurs-Boks
Referee and managers
Open their season profiles to compare match records, goals and disciplinary trends.
FAQ
What was the result of Riga FC II vs Super Nova II?
The 1. Liga match finished Riga FC II 2:1 Super Nova II. 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 Super Nova II?
Riga FC II score 1.58 goals per game on average and Super Nova II 1.58. The 1. Liga average is 3.48 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 69% of games. Both teams score in 58% of Riga FC II's matches and 67% of Super Nova II's.
What form are Riga FC II and Super Nova II in?
Over the last 5 games Riga FC II have a 3-0-2 record (1.80 points per game) and Super Nova II 2-2-1 (1.60 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Riga FC II vs Super Nova II?
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.