Hapoel Petah Tikva vs Maccabi Tel Aviv: match statistics

I predict an away win (2) because Maccabi Tel Aviv averages 2.12 goals per away match versus Hapoel’s 1.18 at home. The visitors create significantly more chances: 14.38 average shots and 5.5 shots on target per away game compared to the hosts’ 10.71 shots and 3.94 on target; their away xG is 1.75 versus Hapoel’s 1.36 xG. The form gap is clear — in the last 5 matches Maccabi scored 11 goals and averages 1.4 points per game, while Hapoel scored 3 goals, averages 0.4 points per game and failed to win any of those five fixtures. Defensively the average goals conceded are similar (Hapoel 1.35 at home vs Maccabi 1.29 away), but Hapoel has a higher average xG against (1.57 vs 1.38) and conceded 10 goals in the last 5 matches versus 7 for Maccabi, increasing their vulnerability. Considering Maccabi’s superior finishing (conversion 14% vs 11%) and lower share of shutout matches (18% vs 47%), I estimate probabilities: home 15%, draw 25%, away 60%.

Both teams have BTTS at 61% (Hapoel) and 65% (Maccabi), above the league average of 54%, so seasonally the "both teams to score" outcome occurs frequently. Seasonally Hapoel scores 2.06 and concedes 1.22, while Maccabi scores 2.12 and concedes 1.29; their average xG is 2.01 (Hapoel) and 1.75 (Maccabi), with xG against 1.20 and 1.38 respectively, indicating both sides create scoring opportunities. The last 5 matches, however, lower BTTS probability from the home side — Hapoel has only 3 goals in the last 5 (0.6 per match) and 10 conceded (2.0 per match) and 40% BTTS in the last 5, while Maccabi scored 11 goals (2.2 per match), conceded 7 (1.4) and has 60% BTTS. Season-long shots on target 5.72 (Hapoel) vs 5.50 (Maccabi) and low clean sheet expected percentages 39% and 29% suggest both teams create chances and the away side is particularly dangerous offensively. Considering the seasonal BTTS rates (61%/65%), higher xG figures on both sides and Maccabi’s clear ability to score in the last 5 (11 goals), I tip BTTS - Yes at 62%, and No at 38%.

Both teams have high season goals averages: Hapoel scores 2.06 goals/match, Maccabi 2.12, and offensive xG stands at 2.01 and 1.75 (combined xG_for = 3.76), indicating significant goal potential. Averaging each side’s offensive xG with opponents’ defensive xG (Hapoel xG_against 1.2, Maccabi xG_against 1.38) the model projects 1.70 goals for the home side and 1.48 for the away side, totaling 3.18 goals. Seasonally, over 1.5 goals occur in 83% of Hapoel’s matches and 82% of Maccabi’s, and over 2.5 in 72% and 65% of cases respectively — a strong signal for the over, particularly the 1.5 line. Additionally, BTTS occurs in 61% of Hapoel’s games and 65% of Maccabi’s, and in the last 5 matches Maccabi scored 11 goals versus Hapoel’s 3 (averages 2.2 vs 0.6), which increases the likelihood of further scoring. Based on this, I recommend Over 1.5 as the best line (strongest signal: 83%/82% seasonally and projected 3.18 goals); Over 2.5 also looks attractive (~69%), while Over 3.5 is more risky (~53%).

I back 2/2 (Maccabi leading at half-time and winning) because Maccabi, in their last 5 away matches, led at the break in 60% of games and averaged 1.6 goals before half-time, whereas Hapoel, in their last 5 home matches, did not lead at half-time (0%) and averaged 0.0 goals by the break. The full-time data from recent form confirm the away side’s advantage – Maccabi have averaged 2.2 goals per match in their last 5, while Hapoel only 0.6, with Hapoel conceding 2.0 goals on average in that run versus Maccabi conceding 1.4. Season-long indicators show that historically Hapoel are strong at home (average points at home 2.0 and leading at half-time in 50% of matches), and they also have a slightly higher home xG (xG 2.01 vs 1.75 for the visitors), but the hosts’ poor recent results (0% wins in 5 matches) reduce their chances. The second half is an area where Hapoel can respond – the average second-half goals at home is 2.17 with 1.22 scored after the break – which is why I also assign a meaningful probability to a draw or a home turnaround. That explains the distribution with a dominant 2/2 (36%) and additional weights for 2/X (18%) and X/2 (12%).