Uzbekistan - Uzbekistan Super LeagueStadion Soglom AvlodData current as of 03 November 2026

Andijan vs Nasaf: match statistics

Andijan crest
Andijan
1 : 4half-time 1:1
Nasaf crest
Nasaf

Andijan vs Nasaf: form, goals and key statistics

Key match information

Andijan played Nasaf in Uzbekistan Super League (Uzbekistan). The match was played on 20 September 2026. Venue: Stadion Soglom Avlod. Final score: 1:4.

Current form

Andijan: 3-0-2, 1.80 points/match. Nasaf: 2-0-3, 1.20 points/match.

Goal statistics

Andijan scores 1.24 and concedes 1.14 goals per match. Nasaf scores 1.38 and concedes 0.95. League average: 2.67 goals.

BTTS / Over / Under

BTTS: Andijan 33%, Nasaf 52%. Over 2.5: Andijan 57%, Nasaf 38%. League level: BTTS 54%, Over 2.5 53%.

xG, shots and style

Nasaf has higher xG: 1.57 vs 1.47. Andijan: 11.9 shots per match, Nasaf: 13.3.

Match halves

Andijan: half-time lead 19%, second-half goals 0.95. Nasaf: half-time lead 19%, second-half goals 0.76.

Goals by minute

Andijan: 76-90+ (12 goals). Nasaf: 76-90+ (8 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.

League context

Uzbekistan Super League: 2.67 goals per match, BTTS 54%, Over 2.5 53%.

Head-to-head

Before this fixture, 3 previous H2H matches were available: 0-2-1. Average goals 1.67, BTTS 67%.

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

Andijan have a clearly stronger home record: they win 55% of their matches, with just 9% ending in draws, while Nasaf win only 30% of their away fixtures and draw as many as 40% of them. The hosts also create higher-quality chances, averaging 1.60 xG compared with Nasaf’s 1.41, while their opponents are allowed an xG of 1.48. Andijan’s home defence concedes an average of 0.91 goals per match and keeps a clean sheet in 45% of appearances, whereas Nasaf have kept a clean sheet in only 10% of their away games. Recent form also slightly favours the hosts, who have collected 10 points from their last five matches through 3 wins and a draw, compared with Nasaf’s 6 points. Nasaf can be effective in attack, failing to score in only 20% of away fixtures, but Andijan’s advantage in game control, with 56% possession, and more reliable defence point to a home win.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

The BTTS - No pick is primarily strengthened by Andijan’s very solid defence: the hosts concede just 0.82 goals per match on average and keep a clean sheet in 55% of their games. Nasaf score 1.30 goals per match this season, but BTTS has landed in only 20% of their last five matches, indicating frequent scenarios in which one side fails to score. Andijan also have a low seasonal BTTS rate of 36%, while in their last five matches they have scored and conceded 1.2 goals per game. The hosts should have a good chance of scoring, as Nasaf keep a clean sheet in only 10% of matches; however, the visitors’ xG of 1.41 compared with Andijan’s xG against of 1.23 does not provide a sufficiently strong argument for a Nasaf goal. Nasaf’s 70% seasonal BTTS rate points in the opposite direction, but current form and the hosts’ defensive strength more clearly support the outcome in which at least one team fails to score.

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

Andijan concede an average of just 0.82 goals at home and keep a clean sheet in 55% of their matches, limiting Nasaf’s potential despite their average of 1.30 goals scored. Both teams have a very strong low-scoring profile at the 3.5 line: 82% of Andijan’s matches and 80% of Nasaf’s matches finished below it. The hosts score an average of 1.45 goals, while the visitors average 1.30, with only 18% and 20% of their matches respectively exceeding four goals. Recent form suggests some ability to create chances, as the five-match xG stands at 1.72 for Andijan and 1.54 for Nasaf, but the combined projection of 2.50 goals still clearly supports Under 3.5.

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

A half-time draw is the most likely outcome, as Andijan were level at the break in 73% of their matches, while Nasaf led at half-time in only 20%. The hosts concede just 0.18 goals per match before the interval and have kept a clean sheet in this period in 82% of their appearances, clearly limiting Nasaf’s chances of taking an early lead. After the break, Andijan score an average of 0.82 goals and have won the second half in 60% of their last five matches, compared with just 20% for Nasaf. The hosts’ advantage is also evident in their overall performance: their average xG is 1.73 versus 1.41 for the visitors, while they average 5.91 shots on target compared with Nasaf’s 4.20. Andijan have also won 45% of their matches this season, compared with 30% for Nasaf, making the HT/FT draw/home win scenario the strongest selection.

View first-half and second-half statistics

Half-by-half

1 : 1
1st half
0 : 3
2nd half

Match statistics

47Possession (%)53
AndijanNasaf
9Shots13
AndijanNasaf
4Shots on target10
AndijanNasaf
1.3xG1.94
AndijanNasaf
3Corners2
AndijanNasaf
63Dangerous attacks59
AndijanNasaf
9Fouls10
AndijanNasaf
3Cards0
AndijanNasaf

Pre-match profile— what do the season numbers say?

This is a team profile based on season data and form. Match-flow statistics are shown only after the fixture is played.

1.24Goals scored / match1.38
AndijanNasaf
1.14Goals conceded / match0.95
AndijanNasaf
52%Average possession52%
AndijanNasaf
3.95Shots on target / match5.1
AndijanNasaf

Team stats— who is more efficient?

Attack and defence comparison for both teams in the current season.

11.9Shots per match13.33
AndijanNasaf
3.95Shots on target5.1
AndijanNasaf
10.4%Shot conversion10.4%
AndijanNasaf
52%Possession52%
AndijanNasaf
1.47xG for1.57
AndijanNasaf
1.22xG against1.35
AndijanNasaf

Shooting quality

Andijan: BalancedNasaf: Balanced
AndijanNasaf
Accuracy (shots on target)33%38%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.120.12
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.310.27

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 matches and season record, overall and split by home and away matches.

Andijan is 50% better for: last-5 form.

1.8 pts / match - Andijan · 1.2 pts / match - Nasaf

Andijan
LWWLW
Season result split
43% W14% D43% L
Season (W-D-L)
9-3-9
1.43 pts / match · goal difference +2
Last 5 (W-D-L)
3-0-2
1.80 pts / match
Record at home (W-D-L)
6-1-4
Last 5 at home
3-1-1
WDLWW
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 0.8Goals conceded: 1.4xG: 1.68Opponent xG: 1.17BTTS: 20%Over 2.5: 60%
Nasaf
LLLWW
Season result split
38% W33% D29% L
Season (W-D-L)
8-7-6
1.48 pts / match · goal difference +9
Last 5 (W-D-L)
2-0-3
1.20 pts / match
Record away (W-D-L)
3-4-3
Last 5 away
2-1-2
WDWLL
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 2.0Goals conceded: 1.2xG: 1.78Opponent xG: 1.34BTTS: 40%Over 2.5: 60%

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.

Nasaf is 11% better for: goals scored per match.

1.24 goals / match - Andijan · 1.38 goals / match - Nasaf

Nasaf is 20% better for: goals conceded per match.

1.14 goals / match - Andijan · 0.95 goals / match - Nasaf

Andijan scoring profile: strong

Andijan scores in 62% of matches (13 of 21 matches), while Nasaf keeps a clean sheet in 33% (7 of 21 matches).

Nasaf scoring profile: strong

Nasaf scores in 76% of matches (16 of 21 matches), while Andijan keeps a clean sheet in 38% (8 of 21 matches).

26Goals scored (season)29
AndijanNasaf
24Goals conceded (season)20
AndijanNasaf
2.38Average goals in match2.33
AndijanNasaf
4Goals scored (last 5)10
AndijanNasaf
7Goals conceded (last 5)6
AndijanNasaf

How often they score at least...

62%1 goal76%
AndijanNasaf
38%2 goals33%
AndijanNasaf
19%3 goals14%
AndijanNasaf
5%4 goals5%
AndijanNasaf

How often they concede at least...

62%1 goal67%
AndijanNasaf
33%2 goals24%
AndijanNasaf
19%3 goals5%
AndijanNasaf
0%4 goals0%
AndijanNasaf

* Statistics include both teams' home and away matches in the current season.

Both teams scored (BTTS)— how often do both teams score?

How often both teams' matches have goals on both sides, compared with the league average.

Goal patterns

0%BTTS at half-time19%
AndijanNasaf
0%BTTS in both halves5%
AndijanNasaf
19%Scored in both halves24%
AndijanNasaf

BTTS and goal count

33%Min. 3 goals and BTTS33%
AndijanNasaf
24%Min. 3 goals without BTTS5%
AndijanNasaf
20%BTTS - last 540%
AndijanNasaf

Goal count (Over/Under)— how often do these matches cross the goal lines?

How often matches involving these teams clear goal thresholds, in the full match and in each half.

1st half

48%Min. 1 goal before half-time62%
AndijanNasaf
19%Min. 2 goals before half-time33%
AndijanNasaf
0%Min. 3 goals before half-time5%
AndijanNasaf

2nd half

90%Min. 1 goal after half-time71%
AndijanNasaf
48%Min. 2 goals after half-time38%
AndijanNasaf
24%Min. 3 goals after half-time14%
AndijanNasaf

Match 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.

Andijan - half-time state
19% leading52% draw29% trailing
Nasaf - half-time state
19% leading57% draw24% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

1.1Points per match (1st half)1.14
AndijanNasaf
0.29Goals scored (1st half)0.62
AndijanNasaf
0.38Goals conceded (1st half)0.43
AndijanNasaf
0.67Average goals (1st half)1.05
AndijanNasaf
71%Clean sheet before half-time57%
AndijanNasaf
81%No goal before half-time62%
AndijanNasaf

After half-time (2nd half)

1.71Points per match (2nd half)1.52
AndijanNasaf
0.95Goals scored (2nd half)0.76
AndijanNasaf
0.76Goals conceded (2nd half)0.52
AndijanNasaf
1.71Average goals (2nd half)1.29
AndijanNasaf
48%Clean sheet after half-time57%
AndijanNasaf
38%No goal after half-time38%
AndijanNasaf

Andijan - second-half results

52% W14% D33% L
23
Half-time points
6
Half-time goals
-2
Goal difference (1st half)
36
Second-half points
+4
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.10
PPG before half-time
Lead holding226%

Leads at half-time in 19% of matches and wins 43%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.

Defence after half-time+0.4

Concedes 0.4 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.

Nasaf - second-half results

33% W52% D14% L
24
Half-time points
13
Half-time goals
+4
Goal difference (1st half)
32
Second-half points
+5
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.14
PPG before half-time
Lead holding200%

Leads at half-time in 19% of matches and wins 38%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.

Defence after half-time+0.1

Defence stays stable across the full match.

Andijan - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match0.601.80
Goals scored / match0.00.8
Goals conceded / match0.60.8
Average goals in match0.61.6
1 goal40%100%
2 goals20%40%
3 goals0%20%
Clean sheet60%60%
No goal100%40%
Goal difference-30
Half-time: 0% leading - 60% draw - 40% trailing
2nd half: 60% won - 0% draw - 40% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 0
Nasaf - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match1.201.40
Goals scored / match1.20.8
Goals conceded / match0.60.6
Average goals in match1.81.4
1 goal100%60%
2 goals40%40%
3 goals20%20%
Clean sheet40%60%
No goal60%40%
Goal difference+3+1
Half-time: 40% leading - 0% draw - 60% trailing
2nd half: 20% won - 80% draw - 0% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 6

* Colours in tables show event frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate, red is rare. It is frequency, not a team rating.

Goals by minute— when do goals arrive?

Match phases in which both teams most often score and concede.

Andijan
ScoredConceded
3
0
0-15
2
4
16-30
1
4
31-45
3
5
46-60
5
2
61-75
12
9
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (12 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (9). Late-goal balance (76-90): +3 - wins late phases.

Nasaf
ScoredConceded
6
2
0-15
3
2
16-30
4
5
31-45
5
1
46-60
3
5
61-75
8
5
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (8 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (5). Late-goal balance (76-90): +3 - 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 based on completed matches from the current season.

Match profile

2.35
Estimated goals
attack vs opponent defence
1.1 : 1.3
Estimated goal split
home : away
88%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
43%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
-29%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
47%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
9%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 11 matches
0-1
Most common goal range
attack vs defence on both sides

Andijan

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+0.25
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.15
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-4.0 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.23
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
+0.08
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
84%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
95%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
+0.37
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.7
Late goals
46% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 12% come in the first quarter-hour.
46%

Nasaf

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+0.22
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.21
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-11.7 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.19
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
+0.40
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
115%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
65%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
-0.28
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.1
Late goals
28% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 21% come in the first quarter-hour.
28%

* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range are calculated from public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical match profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed matches from the season.

League context— is this a high-scoring league?

How both teams compare with league-wide averages (Uzbekistan Super League).

Teams vs league

AndijanLigaNasaf
Average goals in match▼ 2.382.67▼ 2.33
Both teams scored▼ 33%54%▼ 52%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)▲ 57%53%▼ 38%
Clean sheets▲ 38%26%▲ 33%
Goal before half-time▼ 48%68%▼ 62%
Goal after half-time▲ 90%76%▼ 71%

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

2.67
Average goals per match
54%
Both teams scored
53%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
26%
Clean sheets
1.47
Home goals / match
1.20
Away goals / match
+23%
Home attack advantage
+18%
Home defence advantage
+13%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
68%
1 goal
37%
2 goals
12%
3 goals
6%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
76%
1 goal
42%
2 goals
18%
3 goals
5%
4 goals

Lineups and player events

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

Match timeline

Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.

  1. AndijanYellow cardBekzod Sulaymonov
  2. NasafGoalAbbos Gulomov
  3. NasafSubstitutionOn: Yusuf OtubanjoOff: Bobur Abdukhalikov

Referee and managers

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

Head-to-head

Recent meetings (3): Andijan 0 - 2 - 1 Nasaf. Average goals 1.67, both teams scored in 67% matches.

Nasaf
1 : 0
Andijan
FC Nasaf Qarshi
1 : 1
FK Andijan
FK Andijan
1 : 1
FC Nasaf Qarshi

FAQ

What was the result of Andijan vs Nasaf?

The Uzbekistan Super League match finished Andijan 1:4 Nasaf. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What is the head-to-head record between Andijan and Nasaf?

In the last 3 head-to-head matches Andijan won 0, Nasaf won 1 and 2 ended level. These games averaged 1.67 goals, with both teams scoring in 67% of them.

What do the goal statistics show before Andijan vs Nasaf?

Andijan score 1.24 goals per game on average and Nasaf 1.38. The Uzbekistan Super League average is 2.67 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 53% of games. Both teams score in 33% of Andijan's matches and 52% of Nasaf's.

What form are Andijan and Nasaf in?

Over the last 5 games Andijan have a 3-0-2 record (1.80 points per game) and Nasaf 2-0-3 (1.20 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Andijan vs Nasaf?

The statistical background for Andijan vs Nasaf — 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.