Mtibwa Sugar vs Kitayosce: form, goals and key statistics

Key match information

Mtibwa Sugar played Kitayosce in Ligi kuu Bara (Tanzania). The match was played on 29 November 2025. Final score: 2:1.

Current form

Mtibwa Sugar: 1-3-1, 1.20 points/match. Kitayosce: 1-3-1, 1.20 points/match.

Goal statistics

Mtibwa Sugar scores 0.33 and concedes 0.50 goals per match. Kitayosce scores 0.60 and concedes 0.60. League average: 1.70 goals.

BTTS / Over / Under

BTTS: Mtibwa Sugar 0%, Kitayosce 20%. Over 2.5: Mtibwa Sugar 0%, Kitayosce 20%. League level: BTTS 26%, Over 2.5 24%.

xG, shots and style

Mtibwa Sugar has higher xG: 1.11 vs 1.02. Mtibwa Sugar: 4.0 shots per match, Kitayosce: 6.2.

Match halves

Mtibwa Sugar: half-time lead 0%, second-half goals 0.00. Kitayosce: half-time lead 0%, second-half goals 0.60.

Goals by minute

Mtibwa Sugar: 0-15 (2 goals). Kitayosce: 46-60 (2 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.

League context

Ligi kuu Bara: 1.70 goals per match, BTTS 26%, Over 2.5 24%.

Head-to-head

No aligned head-to-head sample is available in the database.

Half-by-half

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

Match statistics

53Possession (%)47
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
2Shots2
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
2Shots on target1
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0.66xG0.54
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
7Corners6
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
53Dangerous attacks46
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
-1Fouls-1
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
-1Cards-1
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

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.

0.33Goals scored / match0.6
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0.5Goals conceded / match0.6
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
32%Average possession40%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
1.83Shots on target / match1.6
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

Team statswho is more efficient?

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

4Shots per match6.2
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
1.83Shots on target1.6
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
8.3%Shot conversion9.7%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
32%Possession40%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
1.11xG for1.02
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
1.52xG against1.38
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

Shooting quality

Mtibwa Sugar: BalancedKitayosce: Balanced
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
Accuracy (shots on target)46%26%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.280.16
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.180.37

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.

Mtibwa Sugar
WDDLD
Season result split
17% W50% R33% P
Season (W-D-L)
1-3-2
1.00 pts / match · goal difference -1
Last 5 (W-D-L)
1-3-1
1.20 pts / match
Record at home (W-D-L)
1-1-0
Last 5 at home
1-1-0
WD
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 0.4Goals conceded: 0.4xG: 1.11Opponent xG: 1.52BTTS: 0%Over 2.5: 0%
Kitayosce
DDDWL
Season result split
20% W60% R20% P
Season (W-D-L)
1-3-1
1.20 pts / match · goal difference 0
Last 5 (W-D-L)
1-3-1
1.20 pts / match
Record away (W-D-L)
0-1-1
Last 5 away
0-1-1
DL
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 0.6Goals conceded: 0.6xG: 1.02Opponent xG: 1.38BTTS: 20%Over 2.5: 20%

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.

Kitayosce is 82% better for: goals scored per match.

0.33 goals / match - Mtibwa Sugar · 0.6 goals / match - Kitayosce

Mtibwa Sugar is 20% better for: goals conceded per match.

0.5 goals / match - Mtibwa Sugar · 0.6 goals / match - Kitayosce

Mtibwa Sugar scoring profile: more difficult

Mtibwa Sugar scores in 17% of matches (1 of 6 matches), while Kitayosce keeps a clean sheet in 60% (3 of 5 matches).

Kitayosce scoring profile: more difficult

Kitayosce scores in 40% of matches (2 of 5 matches), while Mtibwa Sugar keeps a clean sheet in 67% (4 of 6 matches).

2Goals scored (season)3
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
3Goals conceded (season)3
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0.83Average goals in match1.2
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
2Goals scored (last 5)3
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
2Goals conceded (last 5)3
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

How often they score at least...

17%1 goal40%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
17%2 goals20%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%3 goals0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%4 goals0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

How often they concede at least...

33%1 goal40%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
17%2 goals20%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%3 goals0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%4 goals0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

* 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.

26%
League average

Goal patterns

0%BTTS at half-time0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%BTTS in both halves0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%Scored in both halves0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

BTTS and goal count

0%Min. 3 goals and BTTS20%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%Min. 3 goals without BTTS0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%BTTS - last 520%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

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

33%Min. 1 goal before half-time0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%Min. 2 goals before half-time0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%Min. 3 goals before half-time0%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

2nd half

17%Min. 1 goal after half-time60%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%Min. 2 goals after half-time20%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0%Min. 3 goals after half-time20%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

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.

Kitayosce is 49% better for: first-half form (half-time points).

0.67 pts / match - Mtibwa Sugar · 1 pts / match - Kitayosce

Mtibwa Sugar - half-time state
0% leading67% draw33% trailing
Kitayosce - half-time state
0% leading100% draw0% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

0.67Points per match (1st half)1
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0Goals scored (1st half)0
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0.33Goals conceded (1st half)0
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0.33Average goals (1st half)0
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
67%Clean sheet before half-time100%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
100%No goal before half-time100%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

After half-time (2nd half)

0.83Points per match (2nd half)1.2
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0Goals scored (2nd half)0.6
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0.17Goals conceded (2nd half)0.6
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
0.17Average goals (2nd half)1.2
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
83%Clean sheet after half-time60%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce
100%No goal after half-time60%
Mtibwa SugarKitayosce

Mtibwa Sugar - second-half results

0% W83% R17% P
4
Half-time points
0
Half-time goals
-2
Goal difference (1st half)
5
Second-half points
-1
Goal difference (2nd half)
0.67
PPG before half-time
Defence after half-time-0.2

Defence stays stable across the full match.

Kitayosce - second-half results

20% W60% R20% P
5
Half-time points
0
Half-time goals
0
Goal difference (1st half)
6
Second-half points
0
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.00
PPG before half-time
Defence after half-time+0.6

Concedes 0.6 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.

Mtibwa Sugar - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match0.800.80
Goals scored / match0.00.0
Goals conceded / match0.20.2
Average goals in match0.20.2
1 goal20%20%
2 goals0%0%
3 goals0%0%
Clean sheet80%80%
No goal100%100%
Goal difference-1-1
Half-time: 0% leading - 80% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 0% won - 80% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 0
Kitayosce - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match1.001.20
Goals scored / match0.00.6
Goals conceded / match0.00.6
Average goals in match0.01.2
1 goal0%60%
2 goals0%20%
3 goals0%20%
Clean sheet100%60%
No goal100%60%
Goal difference00
Half-time: 0% leading - 100% draw - 0% trailing
2nd half: 20% won - 60% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 0

* 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.

Mtibwa Sugar
ScoredConceded
2
0
0-15
0
0
16-30
0
2
31-45
0
0
46-60
0
0
61-75
0
1
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (2 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (2). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - late phases are a weakness.

Kitayosce
ScoredConceded
0
0
0-15
0
0
16-30
0
0
31-45
2
1
46-60
0
0
61-75
1
2
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 46-60 (2 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (2). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - late phases are a weakness.

* 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

1.02
Estimated goals
attack vs opponent defence
0.5 : 0.6
Estimated goal split
home : away
60%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
10%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
-100%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
7%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
50%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 2 matches
0-1
Most common goal range
attack vs defence on both sides

Mtibwa Sugar

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
-0.41
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.24
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+0.5 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.78
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
+1.02
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
29%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
89%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
+0.20
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
0.0
Late goals
0% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 100% come in the first quarter-hour.
0%

Kitayosce

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
-0.36
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.36
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-1.5 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.42
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
+0.78
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
107%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
53%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
0.00
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.6
Late goals
33% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 0% come in the first quarter-hour.
33%

* 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 (Ligi kuu Bara).

Teams vs league

Mtibwa SugarLigaKitayosce
Average goals in match 0.831.70 1.20
Both teams scored 0%26% 20%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) 0%24% 20%
Clean sheets 67%44% 60%
Goal before half-time 33%44% 0%
Goal after half-time 17%56% 60%

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

1.70
Average goals per match
26%
Both teams scored
24%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
44%
Clean sheets
1.14
Home goals / match
0.56
Away goals / match
+104%
Home attack advantage
+51%
Home defence advantage
+36%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
44%
1 goal
14%
2 goals
0%
3 goals
0%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
56%
1 goal
18%
2 goals
8%
3 goals
2%
4 goals

FAQ

What was the result of Mtibwa Sugar vs Kitayosce?

The Ligi kuu Bara match finished Mtibwa Sugar 2:1 Kitayosce. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What do the goal statistics show before Mtibwa Sugar vs Kitayosce?

Mtibwa Sugar score 0.33 goals per game on average and Kitayosce 0.60. The Ligi kuu Bara average is 1.70 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 24% of games. Both teams score in 0% of Mtibwa Sugar's matches and 20% of Kitayosce's.

What form are Mtibwa Sugar and Kitayosce in?

Over the last 5 games Mtibwa Sugar have a 1-3-1 record (1.20 points per game) and Kitayosce 1-3-1 (1.20 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Mtibwa Sugar vs Kitayosce?

The statistical background for Mtibwa Sugar vs Kitayosce — 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.