Berekum Chelsea vs Medeama: match statistics
Berekum Chelsea vs Medeama: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Berekum Chelsea played Medeama in Ghana Premier League (Ghana). The match was played on 24 April 2026. Final score: 2:1.
Current form
Berekum Chelsea: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match. Medeama: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match.
Goal statistics
Berekum Chelsea scores 0.90 and concedes 1.00 goals per match. Medeama scores 1.43 and concedes 0.67. League average: 1.91 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Berekum Chelsea 37%, Medeama 50%. Over 2.5: Berekum Chelsea 30%, Medeama 43%. League level: BTTS 33%, Over 2.5 32%.
xG, shots and style
Medeama has higher xG: 1.45 vs 1.00. Berekum Chelsea: 2.0 shots per match, Medeama: 10.6.
Match halves
Berekum Chelsea: half-time lead 27%, second-half goals 0.43. Medeama: half-time lead 40%, second-half goals 0.67.
Goals by minute
Berekum Chelsea: 31-45+ (6 goals). Medeama: 16-30 (13 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
Ghana Premier League: 1.91 goals per match, BTTS 33%, Over 2.5 32%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 1 previous H2H matches were available: 0-0-1. Average goals 3.00, BTTS 100%.
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
Berekum Chelsea sit 15th in the table, but their home metrics are strong: they have won 64% of home matches, average 1.21 goals scored and concede only 0.5 goals per home game, with 57% of home matches ending in a clean sheet. Medeama are the leaders (1st) with 41 goals this season versus Berekum’s 24, and have scored 10 goals in their last 5 matches (hosts only 4), indicating superior offensive output from the visitors. However, the quality of created chances is balanced: home xG is 1.28 vs Medeama’s 1.14 xG on the road, shots per game 9.33 vs 8.77 and shots on target 4.0 vs 3.23 give Berekum a slight edge in chance creation. Additionally, the hosts have a higher conversion rate from chances (around 14% vs 11% for Medeama) and a lower share of matches without scoring (29% vs 36%), while Medeama concede fewer goals over the season (20 vs 30), showing overall defensive stability. Considering Berekum’s solid home defence and efficiency and the even xG and chance volume, I forecast a home win, although a draw remains realistic given Medeama’s higher season goal tally.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Statistical analysis points to a 'No' scenario (BTTS - No). The league has a low BTTS rate of 33% and a high clean sheet rate of 84%, which reduces the likelihood of both teams scoring. Home side posts 1.85 xG per match, concedes 0.6 on average and has xG against of 0.82; season clean sheet rate for home is 47%, and in the last 5 matches they had only 20% BTTS, scoring 4 goals total (0.8 avg.) and conceding 2 (0.4 avg.), indicating a solid defence. Visitors have been more offensive recently (10 goals in last 5, 2.0 avg.), with a season BTTS of 50% and xG of 1.14, but average 3.23 shots on target and xG against of 1.35, so their attack may not be sufficient to break down the home defence. Considering the league trend (33% BTTS, 84% clean sheets) and the home defensive advantage, I recommend 'No' with a probability of 65% versus 35% for 'Yes' (BTTS - Yes).
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
I calculate expected goals as the average of the attack xG and the opponent’s defensive xG: (1.85 + 1.35)/2 = 1.60 for Berekum and (1.14 + 0.82)/2 = 0.98 for Medeama, yielding a combined expected xG of 2.58. Match data corroborate this: Berekum scores 1.87 goals on average and records 16.67 shots (6.75 on target) per game, while Medeama averages 0.93 goals with 8.77 shots (3.23 on target), indicating greater attacking activity from the hosts. Applying a Poisson distribution with λ=2.58 produces probabilities of approximately 73% for Over 1.5, 48% for Over 2.5 and 26% for Over 3.5; these align with seasonal rates (Berekum >1.5 in 80% of matches, Medeama 57%; for >2.5 respectively 53% and 36%). Additionally, Medeama scored 10 goals in the last 5 matches (2.0 avg), increasing the risk of more goals, although Berekum concedes only 0.6 goals per game and has 47% clean sheets. As a result, the strongest and most reliable signal from the data is a play on Over 1.5; the 2.5 line is balanced, and 3.5 clearly favors the Under.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Berekum Chelsea have a clear statistical advantage at home: they win 67% of matches and led at the break in 7 of 15 games (47%), and the home side’s average goals by half is 0.93 versus 0.50 for Medeama, which increases the likelihood of a lead at the 45-minute mark. Their xG per match is 1.85 versus the visitors’ 1.14, and average shots on target are 6.75 vs 3.23, meaning the hosts create substantially more clear chances and are better positioned to maintain a lead. Considering that the hosts finish matches with a win in about 67% of cases and losses are rare (~7%), I assess the scenario of leading at half-time and winning at full-time for Berekum Chelsea (1/1) as the most likely — 40% probability; the second-strongest signal is a draw at half-time followed by a home win (X/1) at 22%. A half-time draw and full-time draw (X/X) is given 10%, while the combined probability of a Medeama comeback to win after the break is low (total scenarios with an away win 6%), which aligns with their higher xG conceded (1.35) and lower shots on target (3.23).
View first-half and second-half statisticsHalf-by-half
Match statistics
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.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Attack and defence comparison for both teams in the current season.
Shooting quality
| Berekum Chelsea | Medeama | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 21% | 38% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.49 | 0.14 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 2.09 | 0.35 |
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 form— who is in better shape?
Last five matches and season record, overall and split by home and away matches.
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.
Medeama is 59% better for: goals scored per match.
0.9 goals / match - Berekum Chelsea · 1.43 goals / match - Medeama
Medeama is 49% better for: goals conceded per match.
1 goals / match - Berekum Chelsea · 0.67 goals / match - Medeama
Berekum Chelsea scores in 60% of matches (18 of 30 matches), while Medeama keeps a clean sheet in 47% (14 of 30 matches).
Medeama scores in 80% of matches (24 of 30 matches), while Berekum Chelsea keeps a clean sheet in 37% (11 of 30 matches).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* 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
BTTS and goal count
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.
Full match - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under - Berekum Chelsea
Over / Under - Medeama
1st half
2nd half
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.
Medeama is 20% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.33 pts / match - Berekum Chelsea · 1.6 pts / match - Medeama
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Berekum Chelsea - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 27% of matches and wins 33%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.3 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
Medeama - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 40% of matches and wins 50%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.60 | 1.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.6 | 0.2 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.2 | 0.2 |
| Average goals in match | 0.8 | 0.4 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 20% |
| 2 goals | 20% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 80% |
| No goal | 60% | 80% |
| Goal difference | +2 | 0 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 2.00 | 1.40 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.4 | 0.6 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| Average goals in match | 1.6 | 1.0 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 60% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 60% |
| No goal | 40% | 40% |
| Goal difference | +6 | +1 |
* 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.
Most dangerous in minutes 31-45 (6 goals). Concedes most in 61-75 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -3 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 16-30 (13 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (5). Late-goal balance (76-90): +9 - 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
Berekum Chelsea
Medeama
* 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 (Ghana Premier League).
Teams vs league
| Berekum Chelsea | Liga | Medeama | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | • 1.90 | 1.91 | ▲ 2.10 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 37% | 33% | ▲ 50% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 30% | 32% | ▲ 43% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 37% | 42% | ▲ 47% |
| Goal before half-time | ▼ 53% | 61% | ▲ 67% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 63% | 59% | ▲ 67% |
^ 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
Substitutes
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
Previous meeting: Berekum Chelsea 0 - 0 - 1 Medeama. Average goals 3.00, both teams scored in 100% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Berekum Chelsea vs Medeama?
The Ghana Premier League match finished Berekum Chelsea 2:1 Medeama. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Berekum Chelsea vs Medeama?
Berekum Chelsea score 0.90 goals per game on average and Medeama 1.43. The Ghana Premier League average is 1.91 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 32% of games. Both teams score in 37% of Berekum Chelsea's matches and 50% of Medeama's.
What form are Berekum Chelsea and Medeama in?
Over the last 5 games Berekum Chelsea have a 3-1-1 record (2.00 points per game) and Medeama 3-1-1 (2.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Berekum Chelsea vs Medeama?
Here you can check the pre-match numbers for Berekum Chelsea vs Medeama: form, H2H, goals and Over/Under. The pick itself, value and reasoning are published in the NoFluffPicks app.