Tukums vs Liepāja: match statistics
Tukums vs Liepāja: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
Tukums played against Liepāja in Virsliga (Latvia). The game was played on April 17, 2026. Final score: 2:2.
Recent form
Tukums has 0 wins, 3 draws and 2 losses over its last five games, averaging 0.60 points per game. Liepāja has 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses, with 0.80 points per game.
Scoring records
Tukums scores 1.33 goals per game and allows 1.83. Liepāja scores 0.83 and allows 1.17. Games in this league average 2.77 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 100% of Tukums's games and 50% of Liepāja's. The Over 2.5 rates are 67% and 33%, compared with league averages of 61% for BTTS and 48% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
Liepāja has the higher season xG average, 1.37 to 1.19 per game. Tukums takes 9.5 shots per game, while Liepāja takes 11.0.
First-half and second-half trends
Tukums leads at halftime in 17% of its games and scores 0.67 goals per game after halftime. Liepāja leads at halftime in 17% and scores 0.67 after halftime.
When the teams score
Tukums's most productive scoring window is minutes 31-45+ (3 goals). For Liepāja, it is minutes 76-90+ (3 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
Virsliga games average 2.77 goals. Both teams score in 61% of games, and 48% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
Before this game, 4 previous meetings were available. The record was 0 home wins, 2 draws and 2 away wins. Those games averaged 3.25 goals, with both teams scoring in 75% 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
Liepāja has a clear advantage in chance creation: away xG averages 1.74 vs 1.13 for Tukums, and the visitors average 14.5 shots per match with 65% possession, while the hosts register 8 shots and 46% possession. Despite this, Liepāja convert this into only 0.5 goals per away match and have a low finishing rate of 3%, with 50% of away games yielding no goals. Tukums have not won at home (0 wins, 3 draws, 3 losses), but score consistently — averaging 1.0 goal per home match and 0% home clean-sheet rate — while conceding 1.67 goals on average and carrying an xG against of 1.65, highlighting defensive frailties. In the last 5 fixtures Liepāja average 0.8 points per game (record 1-1-3), and Tukums 0.6 points per game (0-3-2), giving the visitors a slight edge in form. Considering the visitors’ superiority in xG (1.74 vs 1.13), shots (14.5 vs 8) and possession (65% vs 46%), coupled with poorer finishing, I project a Liepāja win with an approximate probability distribution: 55% away win, 30% draw, 15% home win.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Seasonal indicators show a clear contrast: Tukums has BTTS at 75% and BTTS in the last 5 matches is 100%, while Liepāja has seasonal BTTS 0% and 40% in the last 5. Tukums has recorded no clean sheets (0%) and concedes an average of 1.25 goals in the season (1.8 in the last 5), so they are prone to conceding. Liepāja scores only 0.5 goals per game in the season (0.6 in the last 5), but their xG_for is 1.74 and they average 14.5 shots with 5.0 on target and a low conversion rate of 3%, which suggests they create chances despite poor finishing. Additionally, the league has BTTS at 63% and an average goals of 2.83, and Tukums has xG_against 1.31 and 11 goals conceded in the season, which supports the scenario that both teams can score. Given the 75% vs 0% seasonal BTTS and 100% vs 40% in the last 5, I assess BTTS 'Yes' at 70% vs 30% 'No' — pick: 'Yes'.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
I estimate total expected goals at around 2.75 (Tukums ~1.15, Liepāja ~1.60), based on xG 1.19 for Tukums and 1.74 for Liepāja and xG against 1.26 (away) and 1.31 (home), with an adjustment for shot conversion. Liepāja creates more chances (avg. 14.5 shots, 5.0 on target) than Tukums (9.25 shots, 3.5 on target) but has a conversion rate of only 3% versus 11% for the hosts, so I downscale their real expected goals relative to xG. This season Tukums at home has over 1.5 in 75% of matches, Liepāja away 50%, while both teams have 0% of matches over 3.5 goals; additionally the last 5 matches show 60% over 2.5 for Tukums and 20% for Liepāja, yielding a moderate signal for Over 2.5. Based on this the safest pick is Over 1.5 (85%), Over 2.5 I rate at 62% and Over 3.5 at 22%, so I recommend playing Over 1.5 as the strongest signal.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Liepāja looks stronger on key metrics: season-long 1.5 points per match versus Tukums’s 1.0 and a 50% win rate versus the hosts’ 25%. Additionally, xG_for 1.74 compared to 1.19 and an average of 14.5 shots versus 9.25 indicate a clear offensive advantage for the visitors. The first half, however, is likely to be low-scoring — the hosts average 0.25 goals by half-time, the visitors 0.00, and in the last five matches the half-time goals average 1.8 for Tukums and 0.8 for Liepāja, which increases the probability of a draw at the break. After the break the statistics favor Liepāja: the visitors generate 1.74 xG and 5.0 shots on target while the hosts concede 1.25 goals per game on the season, which supports the likelihood of the away side scoring in the second half. Moreover, Liepāja has 50% of matches with a clean sheet this season and a 50% win rate, so the most reliable signal appears to be a draw at half-time and an away win at full-time (X/2).
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
| Tukums | Liepāja | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 37% | 36% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.13 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.38 | 0.21 |
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.
Liepāja is 33% better for: last-5 form.
0.6 pts / game - Tukums · 0.8 pts / game - Liepāja
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.
Tukums is 60% better for: goals scored per game.
1.33 goals / game - Tukums · 0.83 goals / game - Liepāja
Liepāja is 56% better for: goals allowed per game.
1.83 goals / game - Tukums · 1.17 goals / game - Liepāja
Tukums scores in 100% of games (6 of 6 meczów), while Liepāja keeps a clean sheet in 17% (1 of 6 meczów).
Liepāja scores in 67% of games (4 of 6 meczów), while Tukums keeps a clean sheet in 0% (0 of 6 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 - Tukums
Over / Under - Liepāja
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.
Tukums is 24% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
0.83 pts / game - Tukums · 0.67 pts / game - Liepāja
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Tukums - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 17% of games and wins 0%. Sometimes gives up a halftime lead.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
Liepāja - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 17% of games and wins 33%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 0.80 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Goals allowed / game | 1.2 | 0.6 |
| Average goals per game | 1.8 | 1.4 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 40% |
| No goal | 40% | 40% |
| Goal difference | -3 | +1 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 0.20 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.0 | 0.6 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.8 | 0.4 |
| Average goals per game | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 0% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 60% |
| No goal | 100% | 40% |
| Goal difference | -4 | +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 31-45 (3 goals). Concedes most in 16-30 (4). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (3 goals). Concedes most in 0-15 (4). 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
Tukums
Liepāja
* 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
| Tukums | Liga | Liepāja | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | ▲ 3.17 | 2.77 | ▼ 2.00 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 100% | 61% | ▼ 50% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 67% | 48% | ▼ 33% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 0% | 19% | ▼ 17% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 100% | 84% | • 83% |
| Goal after half-time | • 83% | 84% | • 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
Starting lineup
Substitutes
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 Tukums's perspective: 0 wins, 2 draws and 2 losses against Liepāja. Games average 3.25 goals, and both teams scored in 75% of them.
FAQ
What was the result of Tukums vs Liepāja?
The Virsliga match finished Tukums 2:2 Liepāja. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Tukums and Liepāja?
In the last 4 head-to-head matches Tukums won 0, Liepāja won 2 and 2 ended level. These games averaged 3.25 goals, with both teams scoring in 75% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Tukums vs Liepāja?
Tukums score 1.33 goals per game on average and Liepāja 0.83. The Virsliga average is 2.77 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 48% of games. Both teams score in 100% of Tukums's matches and 50% of Liepāja's.
What form are Tukums and Liepāja in?
Over the last 5 games Tukums have a 0-3-2 record (0.60 points per game) and Liepāja 1-1-3 (0.80 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Tukums vs Liepāja?
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.