Henan Jianye vs Chongqing Tongliang Long: match statistics
Henan Jianye vs Chongqing Tongliang Long: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Henan Jianye played Chongqing Tongliang Long in Chinese Super League (China). The match was played on 29 August 2026. Venue: Zhengzhou Hanghai Stadium. Final score: 1:1.
Current form
Henan Jianye: 1-3-1, 1.20 points/match. Chongqing Tongliang Long: 0-1-4, 0.20 points/match.
Goal statistics
Henan Jianye scores 1.35 and concedes 1.43 goals per match. Chongqing Tongliang Long scores 1.04 and concedes 1.17. League average: 3.12 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Henan Jianye 61%, Chongqing Tongliang Long 50%. Over 2.5: Henan Jianye 61%, Chongqing Tongliang Long 33%. League level: BTTS 64%, Over 2.5 58%.
xG, shots and style
Henan Jianye has higher xG: 1.39 vs 1.04. Henan Jianye: 12.1 shots per match, Chongqing Tongliang Long: 9.2.
Match halves
Henan Jianye: half-time lead 43%, second-half goals 0.61. Chongqing Tongliang Long: half-time lead 17%, second-half goals 0.63.
Goals by minute
Henan Jianye: 16-30 (8 goals). Chongqing Tongliang Long: 46-60 (6 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
Chinese Super League: 3.12 goals per match, BTTS 64%, Over 2.5 58%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 1 previous H2H matches were available: 0-1-0. Average goals 2.00, 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
Henan Jianye have a clear advantage in current form: they have taken 6 points from their last 5 matches, while Chongqing Tongliang Long have managed just 1 point and lost 4 games. At home, the hosts average 1.36 goals scored with an xG of 1.64, whereas the visitors average just 0.75 goals and an xG of 0.86 away from home. The difference in chance creation is significant: Henan average 14.73 shots and 4.73 shots on target per home game, compared with Chongqing’s 7.5 shots and 2.83 shots on target away. The hosts’ defence also looks more reliable, conceding 1.09 goals per match, while their opponents allow opposing teams an xG of 1.61. A draw remains a realistic possibility given Henan’s 27% home draw rate and Chongqing’s 33% away draw rate, but the visitors’ poor run, during which they have scored only 2 goals in their last five matches, supports backing a home win.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
A no-goal-for-both-sides scenario is slightly more likely, primarily due to Chongqing Tongliang Long’s limited attacking output: the visitors score an average of 0.75 goals per game this season and just 0.4 across their last five matches. During that period, they found the net only 2 times, while they failed to score in 42% of their league fixtures, clearly increasing the likelihood of a Henan clean sheet. Henan are admittedly on a weaker defensive run, conceding an average of 2.0 goals in their last five appearances, but Chongqing manage only 2.83 shots on target per match compared with the hosts’ 3.5. The home side should have good conditions to score, as their opponents allow an average xG of 1.61, but this does not automatically imply a response from the visitors. BTTS is supported by Henan recording this outcome in 80% of their last five matches, but this contrasts with just 20% for Chongqing; therefore, the stronger selection remains BTTS - No.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
The match profile points to a moderate number of goals: Henan average 1.33 goals per match, while Chongqing average just 0.75. The visitors have been particularly unproductive in their last five outings, scoring 2 goals in total—just 0.4 per match—despite recording an average xG of 1.25. Both teams finished below 3.5 goals in 75% of their league matches, and neither has scored more than three goals in a single game this season. Henan could gain an advantage, as they average 10.83 shots compared with Chongqing’s 7.5, but their average xG of 1.22 limits the likelihood of a very high-scoring game. The Under 3.5 goals line therefore has the strongest support from both seasonal trends and the visitors’ limited attacking potential.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
A half-time draw is the most likely outcome, as Henan were level at the break in 67% of their matches this season, compared with 50% for Chongqing; the visitors failed to score in the first half in as many as 75% of their games. After the interval, the advantage should shift to the hosts: they average 0.92 goals in the second half, while Chongqing average just 0.33, with corresponding second-half records of +4 and -6. Henan’s last five matches further support the home side, as they scored an average of 1.6 goals per game compared with only 0.4 for their opponents, while Chongqing lost 80% of those fixtures. The hosts also have the higher xG, 1.22 versus 0.86, while the visitors’ defence allows an average of 1.61 xG. Therefore, the HT/FT scenario of a draw at half-time followed by a Henan win is the strongest outcome.
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
| Henan Jianye | Chongqing Tongliang Long | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 34% | 35% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.11 | 0.11 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.33 | 0.33 |
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.
Henan Jianye is 500% better for: last-5 form.
1.2 pts / match - Henan Jianye · 0.2 pts / match - Chongqing Tongliang Long
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.
Henan Jianye is 30% better for: goals scored per match.
1.35 goals / match - Henan Jianye · 1.04 goals / match - Chongqing Tongliang Long
Chongqing Tongliang Long is 22% better for: goals conceded per match.
1.43 goals / match - Henan Jianye · 1.17 goals / match - Chongqing Tongliang Long
Henan Jianye scores in 70% of matches (16 of 23 matches), while Chongqing Tongliang Long keeps a clean sheet in 33% (8 of 24 matches).
Chongqing Tongliang Long scores in 71% of matches (17 of 24 matches), while Henan Jianye keeps a clean sheet in 17% (4 of 23 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 - Henan Jianye
Over / Under - Chongqing Tongliang Long
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.
Henan Jianye is 53% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.65 pts / match - Henan Jianye · 1.08 pts / match - Chongqing Tongliang Long
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Henan Jianye - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 43% of matches and wins 35%. Usually protects the lead until full-time.
Concedes 0.7 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
Chongqing Tongliang Long - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 17% of matches and wins 29%. 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.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 2.20 | 0.20 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.2 | 0.4 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.2 | 1.8 |
| Average goals in match | 1.4 | 2.2 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 20% |
| No goal | 20% | 80% |
| Goal difference | +5 | -7 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.80 | 0.40 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.4 | 0.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Average goals in match | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| 1 goal | 40% | 60% |
| 2 goals | 20% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 40% |
| No goal | 80% | 100% |
| Goal difference | -1 | -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 16-30 (8 goals). Concedes most in 61-75 (10). Late-goal balance (76-90): -2 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 46-60 (6 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -2 - 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
Henan Jianye
Chongqing Tongliang Long
* 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 (Chinese Super League).
Teams vs league
| Henan Jianye | Liga | Chongqing Tongliang Long | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▼ 2.78 | 3.12 | ▼ 2.21 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 61% | 64% | ▼ 50% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 61% | 58% | ▼ 33% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 17% | 20% | ▲ 33% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 74% | 71% | ▼ 50% |
| Goal after half-time | ▼ 83% | 88% | ▼ 79% |
^ 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.
Head-to-head
Previous meeting: Henan Jianye 0 - 1 - 0 Chongqing Tongliang Long. Average goals 2.00, both teams scored in 100% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Henan Jianye vs Chongqing Tongliang Long?
The Chinese Super League match finished Henan Jianye 1:1 Chongqing Tongliang Long. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Henan Jianye vs Chongqing Tongliang Long?
Henan Jianye score 1.35 goals per game on average and Chongqing Tongliang Long 1.04. The Chinese Super League average is 3.12 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 58% of games. Both teams score in 61% of Henan Jianye's matches and 50% of Chongqing Tongliang Long's.
What form are Henan Jianye and Chongqing Tongliang Long in?
Over the last 5 games Henan Jianye have a 1-3-1 record (1.20 points per game) and Chongqing Tongliang Long 0-1-4 (0.20 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Henan Jianye vs Chongqing Tongliang Long?
This page shows the full statistical context — form, head-to-head, goals, BTTS and Over/Under. The tip, value assessment and full reasoning are in the NoFluffPicks app.


