Denmark - 1st DivisionBlue Water ArenaData current as of 06 September 2026

Esbjerg vs Kolding IF: match statistics

Esbjerg crest
Esbjerg
1 : 1half-time 1:1
Kolding IF crest
Kolding IF

Esbjerg vs Kolding IF: form, goals and key statistics

Key match information

Esbjerg played Kolding IF in 1st Division (Denmark). The match was played on 25 July 2026. Venue: Blue Water Arena. Final score: 1:1.

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

Analysis of the last five matches favors Esbjerg: the home side scored 10 goals (avg. 2.0 per match) and conceded 4 (0.8 per match), recording 3 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss and averaging 2.0 points per match. Kolding in the same period scored 5 goals (1.0 per match), conceded 8 (1.6 per match) and have a record of 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses, averaging 0.8 points per match. Goal difference is +6 for Esbjerg (10–4) versus -3 for Kolding (5–8), which together with the points advantage (2.0 vs 0.8) suggests better efficiency and stability from the hosts. Lack of detailed xG and shots data limits assessment of chance quality, but forms confirm the trend: Esbjerg lwdww vs Kolding dllwl. On this basis I favor Esbjerg and estimate probabilities: 65% for the hosts, 20% for a draw and 15% for the visitors.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

Esbjerg has averaged 2.0 goals in the last 5 matches with an xG of 1.71, while Kolding concedes 1.6 goals on average with an opposing xG of 1.58, suggesting the home side should find the net. Kolding themselves average 1.0 goal and have xG 1.34, and Esbjerg concedes 0.8 goals across those five fixtures, so the visitors also have a realistic chance to score despite a weaker goalscoring record. BTTS occurred in 60% of Esbjerg’s last 5 matches and 40% of Kolding’s last 5 (average 50%), and the goal totals 10 for Esbjerg versus 5 for Kolding and goals conceded 4 vs 8 further indicate both teams’ matches are goal-active. Considering Esbjerg’s attacking edge (2.0 goals and xG 1.71) and that Kolding generates xG 1.34 while conceding 1.6 on average, I assess the “both teams to score” (BTTS - Yes) scenario as more likely.

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

The model projects a total of 3.05 goals: 1.71 for Esbjerg and 1.34 for Kolding. Esbjerg have scored 10 goals in their last 5 matches (2.0 per game) and conceded 4 (0.8), while Kolding have scored 5 (1.0 per game) and conceded 8 (1.6), indicating a clear attacking edge for the home side. xG supports this trend — Esbjerg xG is 1.71 versus Kolding xG 1.34, with xG against at 1.44 for Esbjerg and 1.58 for Kolding, so the hosts are creating more high-quality chances. Both teams have had 60% of matches over 2.5 goals in their last 5 fixtures, and BTTS occurred in 60% of Esbjerg games and 40% of Kolding games, further increasing the likelihood of goals from both sides. Given the combined xG of 3.05 and the above indicators, I recommend Over 2.5 goals as the strongest signal (over 2.5), with implied probabilities: Over 1.5 = 95%, Over 2.5 = 68%, Over 3.5 = 34%.

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

Esbjerg has averaged 2.0 goals scored and 0.8 conceded in their last five matches, while Kolding averages 1.0 scored and 1.6 conceded, which translates into a clear home advantage and higher points per game (2.0 vs 0.8) as well as 60% wins versus 20%. In the first half Kolding performs slightly better — their average goals by half-time is 0.6 versus 0.4 for Esbjerg, and Kolding led at the break in 40% of their matches (2 of 5), so a draw or a narrow away lead after 45 minutes is realistic. The key signal is the second half: Esbjerg scores an average of 1.6 goals after the break compared to 0.4 for Kolding, and the hosts have 80% of matches with more than 0.5 goals in the second half, suggesting a turnaround and an Esbjerg win before full-time. Therefore the most likely scenario is a draw at half-time and an Esbjerg win at full-time (X/1), which I assign the highest probability to, with alternatives 1/1 (20%) and 2/1 (15%).

View first-half and second-half statistics

Half-by-half

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

Match statistics

54Possession (%)46
EsbjergKolding IF
12Shots20
EsbjergKolding IF
3Shots on target8
EsbjergKolding IF
1.34xG2.14
EsbjergKolding IF
5Corners5
EsbjergKolding IF
50Dangerous attacks44
EsbjergKolding IF
11Fouls9
EsbjergKolding IF
2Cards0
EsbjergKolding IF

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. Kolding IFGoalSterling Yateke
  2. EsbjergYellow cardSander Eng Strand
  3. Kolding IFSubstitutionOn: Nicolai BossenOff: Sterling Yateke
  4. EsbjergSubstitutionOn: Marcus HansenOff: Peter Bjur
  5. EsbjergSubstitutionOn: Julius LucenaOff: Lucas Skjoldborg From
  6. EsbjergSubstitutionOn: Noah Oliver StrandbyOff: Oskar Boesen

Referee and managers

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

Head-to-head

Recent meetings (4): Esbjerg 1 - 1 - 2 Kolding IF. Average goals 2.50, both teams scored in 50% matches.

Esbjerg fB
3 : 0
Kolding IF
Kolding IF
1 : 1
Esbjerg fB
Kolding IF
2 : 1
Esbjerg fB
Esbjerg fB
0 : 2
Kolding IF

FAQ

What was the result of Esbjerg vs Kolding IF?

The 1st Division match finished Esbjerg 1:1 Kolding IF. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What is the head-to-head record between Esbjerg and Kolding IF?

In the last 4 head-to-head matches Esbjerg won 1, Kolding IF won 2 and 1 ended level. These games averaged 2.50 goals, with both teams scoring in 50% of them.

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Esbjerg vs Kolding IF?

The statistical background for Esbjerg vs Kolding IF — 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.