Finland - YkkösliigaEkenäs CentrumplanData current as of 01 September 2026

EIF vs KTP: match statistics

EIF crest
EIF
0 : 1half-time 0:0
KTP crest
KTP

EIF vs KTP: form, goals and key statistics

Key match information

EIF played KTP in Ykkösliiga (Finland). The match was played on 22 August 2026. Venue: Ekenäs Centrumplan. Final score: 0:1.

Current form

EIF: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match. KTP: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match.

Goal statistics

EIF scores 1.37 and concedes 1.58 goals per match. KTP scores 1.74 and concedes 1.05. League average: 2.47 goals.

BTTS / Over / Under

BTTS: EIF 42%, KTP 47%. Over 2.5: EIF 53%, KTP 47%. League level: BTTS 44%, Over 2.5 45%.

xG, shots and style

KTP has higher xG: 1.81 vs 1.45. EIF: 11.6 shots per match, KTP: 15.5.

Match halves

EIF: half-time lead 26%, second-half goals 0.74. KTP: half-time lead 32%, second-half goals 1.05.

Goals by minute

EIF: 76-90+ (8 goals). KTP: 61-75 (8 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.

League context

Ykkösliiga: 2.47 goals per match, BTTS 44%, Over 2.5 45%.

Head-to-head

Before this fixture, 2 previous H2H matches were available: 1-0-1. Average goals 6.50, 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

KTP lead the table and have a clearly superior overall season record: 13 wins and 33 goals scored, compared with EIF’s 8 victories and 26 goals. However, both teams are in identical current form, each collecting 10 points from their last five matches through 3 wins, a draw and a defeat. EIF win 67% of their home matches, score an average of 1.67 goals and have conceded just 1 goal in their last five outings, significantly reducing the leaders’ advantage. KTP are equally effective away from home in terms of results, losing just 11% of their matches and keeping a clean sheet in 67% of them, while their average xG stands at 1.69 compared with EIF’s 1.44. The difference in the quality of chances created marginally favours the visitors, but EIF’s highly solid recent defensive record and balanced home and away statistics make a draw the most likely outcome.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

The “No” selection is primarily supported by KTP’s highly solid defence, with the team keeping a clean sheet in 67% of matches and conceding just 1.0 goal per game on average. EIF does average 2.0 goals at home, but it has scored only 5 goals in its last five matches, with BTTS - Yes failing to land in any of them. The hosts are also in excellent defensive form, having conceded just 1 goal during this period—0.2 per match—which limits KTP’s chances of scoring despite their average of 1.6 goals across their last five appearances. KTP has the higher average xG in the recent run, 1.84 compared with EIF’s 1.68, but faces a team that regularly closes out matches without conceding. EIF’s season BTTS rate stands at 60%, compared with just 33% for KTP and 44% across the league, making the scenario in which at least one team fails to score more likely. In other words, BTTS - No is the stronger selection; it does not automatically imply a 0:0 result or that neither team will score.

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

KTP concede an average of just 1.0 goal per match and have kept a clean sheet in 67% of their games, significantly limiting EIF’s attacking potential. The hosts have scored 2.0 goals per match this season, with an xG of 1.91, but have managed just 5 goals in their last five appearances—an average of 1.0 per game—and none of those matches went over the 2.5-goal line. KTP are in better attacking form, averaging 1.6 goals scored across their last five matches, but EIF have conceded only 1 goal during this period. The 3.5 line is strongly supported by seasonal trends: 70% of EIF’s matches and 78% of KTP’s games finished below it, which is why the projected total of 2.35 goals favors Under 3.5.

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

A draw at half-time is the most likely starting point, as EIF have been level at the break in 5 of their 10 matches, while KTP have done so in 4 of 9. However, the hosts have been particularly solid before half-time in their current form: they have conceded no goals during that period in their last five matches, while averaging 0.8 goals scored. After the break, EIF’s season-long attacking output rises to 1.3 goals per match, whereas KTP average 0.78 goals in this phase away from home. EIF also produce more shots on target, 6.1 compared with 4.89, and have a higher average xG, 1.91 versus KTP’s 1.69, which slightly tilts the final result in the hosts’ favour. The X/1 scenario best combines a cautious, evenly balanced first half with EIF gaining the greater advantage during the decisive phase of the match.

View first-half and second-half statistics

Half-by-half

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

Match statistics

53Possession (%)47
EIFKTP
9Shots11
EIFKTP
3Shots on target3
EIFKTP
1.25xG1.34
EIFKTP
9Corners5
EIFKTP
66Dangerous attacks60
EIFKTP
13Fouls12
EIFKTP
1Cards1
EIFKTP

Pre-match profilewhat 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.

1.37Goals scored / match1.74
EIFKTP
1.58Goals conceded / match1.05
EIFKTP
50%Average possession50%
EIFKTP
4.26Shots on target / match5.53
EIFKTP

Team statswho is more efficient?

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

11.58Shots per match15.53
EIFKTP
4.26Shots on target5.53
EIFKTP
11.8%Shot conversion11.2%
EIFKTP
50%Possession50%
EIFKTP
1.45xG for1.81
EIFKTP
1.49xG against1.23
EIFKTP

Shooting quality

EIF: BalancedKTP: Attacking
EIFKTP
Accuracy (shots on target)37%36%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.130.12
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.320.31

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 formwho is in better shape?

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

EIF
LDWWW
Season result split
42% W11% R47% P
Season (W-D-L)
8-2-9
1.37 pts / match · goal difference -4
Last 5 (W-D-L)
3-1-1
2.00 pts / match
Record at home (W-D-L)
6-0-3
Last 5 at home
3-0-2
WWLLW
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 1.0Goals conceded: 0.2xG: 1.76Opponent xG: 1.47BTTS: 0%Over 2.5: 0%
KTP
LDWWW
Season result split
68% W16% R16% P
Season (W-D-L)
13-3-3
2.21 pts / match · goal difference +13
Last 5 (W-D-L)
3-1-1
2.00 pts / match
Record away (W-D-L)
6-2-1
Last 5 away
4-1-0
WWWDW
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 1.6Goals conceded: 1.2xG: 1.84Opponent xG: 1.52BTTS: 60%Over 2.5: 60%

Goalshow 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.

KTP is 27% better for: goals scored per match.

1.37 goals / match - EIF · 1.74 goals / match - KTP

KTP is 50% better for: goals conceded per match.

1.58 goals / match - EIF · 1.05 goals / match - KTP

EIF scoring profile: strong

EIF scores in 74% of matches (14 of 19 matches), while KTP keeps a clean sheet in 42% (8 of 19 matches).

KTP scoring profile: very strong

KTP scores in 84% of matches (16 of 19 matches), while EIF keeps a clean sheet in 37% (7 of 19 matches).

26Goals scored (season)33
EIFKTP
30Goals conceded (season)20
EIFKTP
2.95Average goals in match2.79
EIFKTP
5Goals scored (last 5)8
EIFKTP
1Goals conceded (last 5)6
EIFKTP

How often they score at least...

74%1 goal84%
EIFKTP
37%2 goals53%
EIFKTP
16%3 goals21%
EIFKTP
5%4 goals11%
EIFKTP

How often they concede at least...

63%1 goal58%
EIFKTP
42%2 goals21%
EIFKTP
32%3 goals16%
EIFKTP
16%4 goals5%
EIFKTP

* 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

21%BTTS at half-time32%
EIFKTP
16%BTTS in both halves16%
EIFKTP
21%Scored in both halves42%
EIFKTP

BTTS and goal count

37%Min. 3 goals and BTTS47%
EIFKTP
16%Min. 3 goals without BTTS0%
EIFKTP
0%BTTS - last 560%
EIFKTP

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

58%Min. 1 goal before half-time68%
EIFKTP
42%Min. 2 goals before half-time32%
EIFKTP
21%Min. 3 goals before half-time21%
EIFKTP

2nd half

79%Min. 1 goal after half-time79%
EIFKTP
42%Min. 2 goals after half-time37%
EIFKTP
37%Min. 3 goals after half-time26%
EIFKTP

Match halveswhen do the teams score more often?

How teams split performance between first and second half: goals, points, clean sheets and half-time state.

KTP is 17% better for: first-half form (half-time points).

1.21 pts / match - EIF · 1.42 pts / match - KTP

EIF - half-time state
26% leading42% draw32% trailing
KTP - half-time state
32% leading47% draw21% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

1.21Points per match (1st half)1.42
EIFKTP
0.63Goals scored (1st half)0.68
EIFKTP
0.58Goals conceded (1st half)0.58
EIFKTP
1.21Average goals (1st half)1.26
EIFKTP
63%Clean sheet before half-time58%
EIFKTP
58%No goal before half-time42%
EIFKTP

After half-time (2nd half)

1.37Points per match (2nd half)1.89
EIFKTP
0.74Goals scored (2nd half)1.05
EIFKTP
1Goals conceded (2nd half)0.47
EIFKTP
1.74Average goals (2nd half)1.53
EIFKTP
47%Clean sheet after half-time63%
EIFKTP
47%No goal after half-time32%
EIFKTP

EIF - second-half results

37% W26% R37% P
23
Half-time points
12
Half-time goals
+1
Goal difference (1st half)
26
Second-half points
-5
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.21
PPG before half-time
Lead holding162%

Leads at half-time in 26% of matches and wins 42%. 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.

KTP - second-half results

53% W32% R16% P
27
Half-time points
13
Half-time goals
+2
Goal difference (1st half)
36
Second-half points
+11
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.42
PPG before half-time
Lead holding213%

Leads at half-time in 32% of matches and wins 68%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.

Defence after half-time-0.1

Defence stays stable across the full match.

EIF - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match1.801.20
Goals scored / match0.80.2
Goals conceded / match0.00.2
Average goals in match0.80.4
1 goal40%40%
2 goals40%0%
3 goals0%0%
Clean sheet100%80%
No goal60%80%
Goal difference+40
Half-time: 40% leading - 60% draw - 0% trailing
2nd half: 20% won - 60% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 4
KTP - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match1.601.60
Goals scored / match0.80.8
Goals conceded / match0.60.6
Average goals in match1.41.4
1 goal80%80%
2 goals40%40%
3 goals20%20%
Clean sheet60%40%
No goal20%40%
Goal difference+1+1
Half-time: 40% leading - 40% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 40% won - 40% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 40% - Half-time goals total: 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 minutewhen do goals arrive?

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

EIF
ScoredConceded
3
3
0-15
4
2
16-30
5
6
31-45
4
7
46-60
2
5
61-75
8
7
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (8 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - wins late phases.

KTP
ScoredConceded
6
3
0-15
2
2
16-30
5
6
31-45
5
5
46-60
8
1
61-75
7
3
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 61-75 (8 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (6). Late-goal balance (76-90): +4 - wins late phases.

* Buckets 31-45 and 76-90 include added-time goals.

Additional team indicatorswhat do xG, efficiency and form show?

A comparison of chance quality, results and trends based on completed matches from the current season.

Match profile

2.87
Estimated goals
attack vs opponent defence
1.2 : 1.7
Estimated goal split
home : away
116%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
45%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
+126%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
62%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
4%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 25 matches
0-1
Most common goal range
attack vs defence on both sides

EIF

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
-0.04
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.17
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+1.6 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.08
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
-0.09
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
102%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
140%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
+0.63
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.1
Late goals
31% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 12% come in the first quarter-hour.
31%

KTP

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+0.58
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.11
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+0.3 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.07
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
+0.18
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
154%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
78%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
-0.21
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.4
Late goals
21% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 18% come in the first quarter-hour.
21%

* 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 contextis this a high-scoring league?

How both teams compare with league-wide averages (Ykkösliiga).

Teams vs league

EIFLigaKTP
Average goals in match 2.952.47 2.79
Both teams scored 42%44% 47%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) 53%45% 47%
Clean sheets 37%31% 42%
Goal before half-time 58%63% 68%
Goal after half-time 79%72% 79%

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

2.47
Average goals per match
44%
Both teams scored
45%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
31%
Clean sheets
1.34
Home goals / match
1.13
Away goals / match
+19%
Home attack advantage
+16%
Home defence advantage
+9%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
63%
1 goal
30%
2 goals
11%
3 goals
1%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
72%
1 goal
39%
2 goals
20%
3 goals
10%
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. EIFYellow cardNasiru Mohammed
  2. KTPYellow cardAhmed Adebayo Basher
  3. EIFSubstitutionOn: Fahad MohamedOff: Mamadou Saidou Bah
  4. EIFSubstitutionOn: David AgboOff: Oskari Sallinen
  5. KTPSubstitutionOn: Onni HänninenOff: Petteri Forsell
  6. EIFSubstitutionOn: Deniz KocolOff: Francis Etu

Referee and managers

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

Head-to-head

Recent meetings (2): EIF 1 - 0 - 1 KTP. Average goals 6.50, both teams scored in 100% matches.

FAQ

What was the result of EIF vs KTP?

The Ykkösliiga match finished EIF 0:1 KTP. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What is the head-to-head record between EIF and KTP?

In the last 2 head-to-head matches EIF won 1, KTP won 1 and 0 ended level. These games averaged 6.50 goals, with both teams scoring in 100% of them.

What do the goal statistics show before EIF vs KTP?

EIF score 1.37 goals per game on average and KTP 1.74. The Ykkösliiga average is 2.47 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 45% of games. Both teams score in 42% of EIF's matches and 47% of KTP's.

What form are EIF and KTP in?

Over the last 5 games EIF have a 3-1-1 record (2.00 points per game) and KTP 3-1-1 (2.00 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for EIF vs KTP?

Here you can check the pre-match numbers for EIF vs KTP: form, H2H, goals and Over/Under. The pick itself, value and reasoning are published in the NoFluffPicks app.