Egersund vs Moss: match statistics
Egersund vs Moss: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Egersund played Moss in First Division (Norway). The match was played on 4 July 2026. Venue: Egersund Idrettsparken. Final score: 3:0.
Current form
Egersund: 1-0-4, 0.60 points/match. Moss: 1-1-3, 0.80 points/match.
Goal statistics
Egersund scores 1.62 and concedes 1.92 goals per match. Moss scores 1.77 and concedes 2.23. League average: 3.74 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Egersund 54%, Moss 85%. Over 2.5: Egersund 77%, Moss 85%. League level: BTTS 59%, Over 2.5 73%.
xG, shots and style
Moss has higher xG: 1.76 vs 1.40. Egersund: 11.4 shots per match, Moss: 15.3.
Match halves
Egersund: half-time lead 38%, second-half goals 0.77. Moss: half-time lead 31%, second-half goals 1.08.
Goals by minute
Egersund: 46-60 (6 goals). Moss: 76-90+ (7 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
First Division: 3.74 goals per match, BTTS 59%, Over 2.5 73%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 2 previous H2H matches were available: 2-0-0. Average goals 4.00, BTTS 50%.
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
I predict a home win (1): Egersund holds a defensive edge at home, conceding on average 1.29 goals at home versus Moss’s 2.57 conceded away. The hosts score 1.57 goals per home match with xG 1.51, while Moss scores 2.00 goals on the road with xG 1.87 and averages 6.71 shots on target, indicating higher attacking quality from the visitors. Egersund’s key advantage is 43% of home matches with a clean sheet versus 0% clean sheets for Moss away; at the same time Moss less frequently finish away matches without scoring (no goal in 14% of away fixtures), whereas the hosts had 43% of home games without scoring. Recent form is poor for both sides: Egersund has 0.6 pts in the last five and only 1 win, Moss has 0.8 pts and also 1 win in their last 5. Considering the hosts’ more stable defense and the visitors’ superior attacking quality, I expect a close match with a slight advantage for Egersund.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Both teams display very high seasonal BTTS rates: Egersund 83% and Moss 86%, while in the last 5 matches BTTS percentages are 80% for the home side and 100% for the away side, indicating a strong Goal/Goal trend. Egersund scores 1.5 and concedes 1.83 per match, whereas Moss scores 2.0 and concedes 2.57; in the last 5 fixtures the home team scored 9 and conceded 17 goals, the visitors scored 10 and conceded 14, confirming both sides are potent in attack but defensively vulnerable. Offensive xG is 1.64 for Egersund and 1.87 for Moss, with xG against at 1.73 and 1.80; additionally, on-target shots of 4.5 and 6.71 and conversion rates of 10% and 13% show scoring opportunities are created by both teams. Low clean sheet expected percentages (17% for the hosts and 0% for the visitors) alongside high rates of matches over 2.5 goals (67% and 100%) and a league-beating BTTS average of 59% increase the likelihood of BTTS - Yes. On this basis I tip BTTS = Yes at 88%, with BTTS - No at 12%, because despite the small chance of a home clean sheet (17%) or a goalless outing from the visitors (14%), the overall numbers and trends strongly support goals at both ends.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
The xG model indicates a total expected goals of 3.52: Egersund has xG_for 1.64 against an opponent xG_against of 1.80 → expected ~1.72 goals for the home side, while Moss has xG_for 1.87 against the home xG_against of 1.73 → expected ~1.80 for the away side. Seasonal percentages show a propensity for high-scoring games: Over 1.5 occurred in 83% of Egersund’s matches and 100% of Moss’s matches, Over 2.5 in 67%/100%, and Over 3.5 in 50%/86% respectively. Both teams frequently score in matches (both teams to score in 83% of home matches and 86% of away matches), and in the last 5 games Egersund scored 9 and conceded 17 goals (avg 1.8 scored, 3.4 conceded), while Moss scored 10 and conceded 14 (2.0/2.8). The league average is 3.71 goals per game, and offensive metrics confirm potential for many goals: shots on target 4.5 for home vs 6.71 for away and conversion 10% vs 13%. Therefore the strongest signal from the data is Over 2.5 — high total xG=3.52, Moss’s 100% occurrence of Over 2.5 and both sides’ last 5 matches featuring Over 2.5 provide high confidence in this selection.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Egersund led at the break in 50% of their home matches, while Moss led away only in 14%, indicating a home advantage after 45 minutes. Moss, however, is significantly more dangerous after the break: the visitors score on average 1.29 goals in the second half versus 0.83 for Egersund, and on the road Moss scored in the second half in 100% of fixtures. Over the full match Moss averages 2.0 goals with xG 1.87, while Egersund has 1.5 goals with xG 1.64, suggesting greater attacking efficiency from the visitors. Both sides score frequently (both teams to score: 83% hosts vs 86% visitors), so a realistic scenario is Moss overturning the deficit. On that basis the strongest signal is Egersund leading at half-time and Moss winning after 90 minutes (1/2) with an assigned probability of 30%; alternatives are 1/1 (16%) and X/2 (14%).
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
| Egersund | Moss | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 34% | 37% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.11 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.41 | 0.31 |
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.
Moss is 33% better for: last-5 form.
0.6 pts / match - Egersund · 0.8 pts / match - Moss
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.
Moss is 9% better for: goals scored per match.
1.62 goals / match - Egersund · 1.77 goals / match - Moss
Egersund is 16% better for: goals conceded per match.
1.92 goals / match - Egersund · 2.23 goals / match - Moss
Egersund scores in 77% of matches (10 of 13 matches), while Moss keeps a clean sheet in 8% (1 of 13 matches).
Moss scores in 92% of matches (12 of 13 matches), while Egersund keeps a clean sheet in 31% (4 of 13 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 - Egersund
Over / Under - Moss
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.
Egersund is 20% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.38 pts / match - Egersund · 1.15 pts / match - Moss
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Egersund - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 38% of matches and wins 38%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.2 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
Moss - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 31% of matches and wins 38%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.80 | 1.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.8 | 1.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.6 | 1.8 |
| Average goals in match | 2.4 | 2.8 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 80% | 100% |
| 3 goals | 40% | 60% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 0% |
| No goal | 60% | 20% |
| Goal difference | -4 | -4 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.40 | 0.80 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.2 | 1.6 |
| Average goals in match | 2.4 | 2.4 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 60% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 20% |
| No goal | 40% | 20% |
| Goal difference | 0 | -4 |
* 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 46-60 (6 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -4 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (7 goals). Concedes most in 16-30 (8). 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 based on completed matches from the current season.
Match profile
Egersund
Moss
* 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 (First Division).
Teams vs league
| Egersund | Liga | Moss | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▼ 3.54 | 3.74 | ▲ 4.00 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 54% | 59% | ▲ 85% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 77% | 73% | ▲ 85% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 31% | 21% | ▼ 8% |
| Goal before half-time | • 77% | 77% | • 77% |
| Goal after half-time | ▼ 85% | 88% | ▲ 92% |
^ 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
Recent meetings (2): Egersund 2 - 0 - 0 Moss. Average goals 4.00, both teams scored in 50% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Egersund vs Moss?
The First Division match finished Egersund 3:0 Moss. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Egersund and Moss?
In the last 2 head-to-head matches Egersund won 2, Moss won 0 and 0 ended level. These games averaged 4.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 50% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Egersund vs Moss?
Egersund score 1.62 goals per game on average and Moss 1.77. The First Division average is 3.74 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 73% of games. Both teams score in 54% of Egersund's matches and 85% of Moss's.
What form are Egersund and Moss in?
Over the last 5 games Egersund have a 1-0-4 record (0.60 points per game) and Moss 1-1-3 (0.80 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Egersund vs Moss?
The statistical background for Egersund vs Moss — 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.