Čukarički vs Radnik Surdulica: match statistics
Čukarički vs Radnik Surdulica: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Čukarički played Radnik Surdulica in SuperLiga (Serbia). The match was played on 13 December 2025. Final score: 1:1.
Current form
Čukarički: 2-2-1, 1.60 points/match. Radnik Surdulica: 3-2-0, 2.20 points/match.
Goal statistics
Čukarički scores 1.47 and concedes 1.41 goals per match. Radnik Surdulica scores 1.33 and concedes 1.28. League average: 2.84 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Čukarički 76%, Radnik Surdulica 44%. Over 2.5: Čukarički 53%, Radnik Surdulica 39%. League level: BTTS 57%, Over 2.5 50%.
xG, shots and style
Čukarički has higher xG: 1.63 vs 1.54. Čukarički: 14.0 shots per match, Radnik Surdulica: 12.4.
Match halves
Čukarički: half-time lead 53%, second-half goals 0.65. Radnik Surdulica: half-time lead 44%, second-half goals 0.33.
Goals by minute
Čukarički: 16-30 (7 goals). Radnik Surdulica: 31-45+ (8 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
SuperLiga: 2.84 goals per match, BTTS 57%, Over 2.5 50%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 1 previous H2H matches were available: 0-0-1. Average goals 4.00, BTTS 100%.
Half-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
| Čukarički | Radnik Surdulica | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 34% | 36% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.31 | 0.30 |
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.
Radnik Surdulica is 38% better for: last-5 form.
1.6 pts / match - Čukarički · 2.2 pts / match - Radnik Surdulica
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.
Čukarički is 11% better for: goals scored per match.
1.47 goals / match - Čukarički · 1.33 goals / match - Radnik Surdulica
Radnik Surdulica is 10% better for: goals conceded per match.
1.41 goals / match - Čukarički · 1.28 goals / match - Radnik Surdulica
Čukarički scores in 88% of matches (15 of 17 matches), while Radnik Surdulica keeps a clean sheet in 33% (6 of 18 matches).
Radnik Surdulica scores in 67% of matches (12 of 18 matches), while Čukarički keeps a clean sheet in 12% (2 of 17 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 - Čukarički
Over / Under - Radnik Surdulica
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.
Čukarički is 5% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.76 pts / match - Čukarički · 1.67 pts / match - Radnik Surdulica
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Čukarički - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 53% of matches and wins 41%. Sometimes loses the lead after half-time.
Concedes 0.2 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
Radnik Surdulica - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 44% of matches and wins 39%. Usually protects the lead until full-time.
Concedes 0.4 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 2.00 | 1.20 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.4 | 1.0 |
| Average goals in match | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 20% |
| No goal | 20% | 60% |
| Goal difference | +3 | -2 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.80 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.0 | 0.4 |
| Average goals in match | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| 1 goal | 40% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 20% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 100% | 60% |
| No goal | 60% | 40% |
| Goal difference | +4 | +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 16-30 (7 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (6). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 31-45 (8 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (8). 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 based on completed matches from the current season.
Match profile
Čukarički
Radnik Surdulica
* 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 (SuperLiga).
Teams vs league
| Čukarički | Liga | Radnik Surdulica | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | • 2.88 | 2.84 | ▼ 2.61 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 76% | 57% | ▼ 44% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 53% | 50% | ▼ 39% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 12% | 24% | ▲ 33% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 88% | 73% | ▼ 67% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 82% | 78% | ▼ 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
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.
Referee context
See how often this referee shows cards, awards penalties and how their matches tend to finish.
Head-to-head
Previous meeting: Čukarički 0 - 0 - 1 Radnik Surdulica. Average goals 4.00, both teams scored in 100% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Čukarički vs Radnik Surdulica?
The SuperLiga match finished Čukarički 1:1 Radnik Surdulica. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Čukarički vs Radnik Surdulica?
Čukarički score 1.47 goals per game on average and Radnik Surdulica 1.33. The SuperLiga average is 2.84 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 50% of games. Both teams score in 76% of Čukarički's matches and 44% of Radnik Surdulica's.
What form are Čukarički and Radnik Surdulica in?
Over the last 5 games Čukarički have a 2-2-1 record (1.60 points per game) and Radnik Surdulica 3-2-0 (2.20 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Čukarički vs Radnik Surdulica?
The statistical background for Čukarički vs Radnik Surdulica — 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.