Riga vs Tukums: match statistics
Riga vs Tukums: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
Riga played against Tukums in Virsliga (Latvia). The game was played on April 9, 2026. Final score: 3:3.
Recent form
Riga has 3 wins, 0 draws and 1 loss over its last five games, averaging 2.25 points per game. Tukums has 0 wins, 2 draws and 2 losses, with 0.50 points per game.
Scoring records
Riga scores 3.75 goals per game and allows 1.25. Tukums scores 1.00 and allows 1.50. Games in this league average 2.58 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 75% of Riga's games and 100% of Tukums's. The Over 2.5 rates are 100% and 50%, compared with league averages of 54% for BTTS and 46% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
Riga has the higher season xG average, 1.88 to 1.43 per game. Riga takes 15.5 shots per game, while Tukums takes 12.0.
First-half and second-half trends
Riga leads at halftime in 50% of its games and scores 2.50 goals per game after halftime. Tukums leads at halftime in 25% and scores 0.25 after halftime.
When the teams score
Riga's most productive scoring window is minutes 76-90+ (6 goals). For Tukums, it is minutes 31-45+ (2 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
Virsliga games average 2.58 goals. Both teams score in 54% of games, and 46% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
Before this game, 4 previous meetings were available. The record was 3 home wins, 1 draw and 0 away wins. Those games averaged 1.75 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 enters the match as the clear favorite: they have 100% home wins and a season record of 3-0-1. At home they average 4.0 goals per game from 15 shots and 7 on target (conversion rate 27%) with an average xG of 1.95, while Tukums away averages only 1.0 goals per game, 2.5 shots on target and a 7% conversion (xG 1.49). In the last 5 matches Riga scored 18 goals (3.6 per game) and average 1.8 points per game, whereas Tukums scored 5 goals in their last 5 and average 0.6 PPG, which indicates a clear form advantage for the hosts. Defensively Tukums concede 1.5 goals away on average and Riga 2.0 at home, but Riga’s higher offensive xG (1.95 vs 1.49) and significantly more shots on target (7 vs 2.5) give them superior quality of chances. Considering shot dominance, conversion and a 18:5 goals disparity over the last 5 fixtures and PPG 1.8 vs 0.6, I tip a Riga win.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Both teams have seasonal BTTS at 100% (Riga 100%, Tukums 100%), and in the last 5 matches the BTTS rate is 80% for Riga and 100% for Tukums. Seasonal clean sheet percentages are 0% for both sides, and average goals conceded this season are 1.5 each (Riga 1.5, Tukums 1.5), which reduces the likelihood of a goalless match. In the last 5 matches Riga concedes 1.8 goals on average and has an attacking xG of 1.83 with opponents' xG 1.31, while Tukums concedes 1.4 with attacking xG 1.33 and opponents' xG 1.45, indicating both teams create and allow scoring opportunities. Additionally, Riga averages 5.0 shots on target vs 2.5 for Tukums and has scored 18 goals in the last 5 matches (3.6 avg), while Tukums has 5 goals (1.0 avg); so despite the difference in offensive potency, both sides can find the net. Given these figures and the league-level BTTS of 56%, I rate BTTS - Yes 88% and No 12%.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
I recommend Over 1.5 as the primary option: both teams have a seasonal Over1.5 rate of 100%, meaning in 100% of matches at least 2 goals were scored. Total xG is approximately 2.90: xG Riga 1.39 and xG Tukums 1.49, which averages to about 1.43 expected goals for the home side and 1.47 for the away side. Riga scored an average of 3.6 goals and conceded 1.8 in their last 5 matches (total 5.4 goals per match), while Tukums averaged 2.4 goals per match over their last 5; such goal distributions increase the probability of at least two goals. Additionally, Riga records on average 10 shots per match with a 10% conversion rate (translating to ~1.0 goal), and Tukums has 14 shots with a 7% conversion (~0.98 goal) — this corroborates the consistency between xG and actual scoring capability. I assess Over 2.5 as moderately likely (≈66%) given seasonal Over2.5 at 50% for both teams and a league average of 2.71, while Over 3.5 is unlikely (≈28%) since season Over3.5 is 0% for both sides.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
At half-time, seasonal data show an advantage for the away side: hosts led at the break in 0.0% of matches, away teams led in 50.0%, and half-time draws occurred in 50.0% of games, favoring HT = draw or HT = 2. However, in second halves over the last 5 matches hosts averaged 2.6 goals (last5_scored_2hg_avg_overall_home 2.6) and won 60.0% of second halves, while away teams averaged 0.4 goals and only 20.0% second-half wins, signaling a potential turnaround after the break. Hosts also have better on-target accuracy (5.0 shots on target vs 2.5) and a higher conversion rate (10.0% vs 7.0%), and despite similar xG (1.39 vs 1.49) their form over the last 5 matches is stronger (60.0% wins vs 0.0% for the away team). Considering the high proportion of half-time draws and the hosts’ strong second halves, the most likely HT/FT scenario is a draw at half-time and a home victory after full-time (X/1), with a meaningful probability of a host comeback from an away lead (2/1) and maintaining the draw as an alternative.
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 | Tukums | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 42% | 31% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.58 | 0.27 |
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 is 350% better for: last-5 form.
2.25 pts / game - Riga · 0.5 pts / game - Tukums
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.
Riga is 275% better for: goals scored per game.
3.75 goals / game - Riga · 1 goals / game - Tukums
Riga is 20% better for: goals allowed per game.
1.25 goals / game - Riga · 1.5 goals / game - Tukums
Riga scores in 100% of games (4 of 4 meczów), while Tukums keeps a clean sheet in 0% (0 of 4 meczów).
Tukums scores in 100% of games (4 of 4 meczów), while Riga keeps a clean sheet in 25% (1 of 4 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
Over / Under - Tukums
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.
Riga is 40% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.75 pts / game - Riga · 1.25 pts / game - Tukums
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Riga - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 50% of games and wins 75%. 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.
Tukums - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 25% of games and wins 0%. Sometimes gives up a halftime lead.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.75 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 1.3 | 2.5 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.5 | 0.8 |
| Average goals per game | 1.8 | 3.3 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 75% | 75% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 50% |
| Clean sheet | 50% | 50% |
| No goal | 25% | 0% |
| Goal difference | +3 | +7 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.25 | 1.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.8 | 0.3 |
| Goals allowed / game | 1.0 | 0.5 |
| Average goals per game | 1.8 | 0.8 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 75% |
| 2 goals | 75% | 0% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 25% | 50% |
| No goal | 25% | 75% |
| Goal difference | -1 | -1 |
* 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 76-90 (6 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (2). Late-goal balance (76-90): +5 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 31-45 (2 goals). Concedes most in 16-30 (3). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - 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 from completed games this season.
Game profile
Riga
Tukums
* 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 (Virsliga).
Teams vs league
| Riga | Liga | Tukums | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | ▲ 5.00 | 2.58 | • 2.50 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 75% | 54% | ▲ 100% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 100% | 46% | ▲ 50% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 25% | 23% | ▼ 0% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 100% | 83% | ▲ 100% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 100% | 79% | ▼ 75% |
^ 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
Starting lineup
Away team
Starting lineup
Match timeline
Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.
Referee and managers
Open their season profiles to compare match records, goals and disciplinary trends.
Head-to-head
Record from Riga's perspective: 3 wins, 1 draw and 0 losses against Tukums. Games average 1.75 goals, and both teams scored in 0% of them.
FAQ
What was the result of Riga vs Tukums?
The Virsliga match finished Riga 3:3 Tukums. 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 and Tukums?
In the last 4 head-to-head matches Riga won 3, Tukums won 0 and 1 ended level. These games averaged 1.75 goals, with both teams scoring in 0% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Riga vs Tukums?
Riga score 3.75 goals per game on average and Tukums 1.00. The Virsliga average is 2.58 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 46% of games. Both teams score in 75% of Riga's matches and 100% of Tukums's.
What form are Riga and Tukums in?
Over the last 5 games Riga have a 3-0-1 record (2.25 points per game) and Tukums 0-2-2 (0.50 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Riga vs Tukums?
Here you can check the pre-match numbers for Riga vs Tukums: form, H2H, goals and Over/Under. The pick itself, value and reasoning are published in the NoFluffPicks app.