Nasaf vs Andijan: match statistics
Nasaf vs Andijan: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Nasaf play Andijan in Uzbekistan Super League (Uzbekistan). The match date is 3 April 2026 at 17:15. Final score: 1:0.
Current form
Nasaf: 1-3-1, 1.20 points/match. Andijan: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match.
Goal statistics
Nasaf scores 1.23 and concedes 1.00 goals per match. Andijan scores 1.54 and concedes 1.23. League average: 2.63 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Nasaf 62%, Andijan 46%. Over 2.5: Nasaf 31%, Andijan 69%. League level: BTTS 57%, Over 2.5 53%.
xG, shots and style
Andijan has higher xG: 1.48 vs 1.45. Nasaf: 13.2 shots per match, Andijan: 11.8.
Match halves
Nasaf: half-time lead 8%, second-half goals 0.77. Andijan: half-time lead 31%, second-half goals 1.08.
Goals by minute
Nasaf: 76-90+ (5 goals). Andijan: 76-90+ (8 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
Uzbekistan Super League: 2.63 goals per match, BTTS 57%, Over 2.5 53%.
Head-to-head
2 H2H matches: 0-2-0. Average goals 2.00, BTTS 100%.
Match description
I predict a Nasaf win (1). At home the hosts generate 1.65 xG on average, produce 15 shots (4.5 on target) per match, concede 0.5 goals on average and keep 50% clean sheets; in the last 5 matches they have 3 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss, averaging 2 points per game. Andijan away records only 1.01 xG, 8.5 shots (1.5 on target) per match, concedes 2.5 goals on the road and has lost 100% of away matches. Nasaf’s main advantages are possession dominance (64% vs 46%), significantly more shots per game (15 vs 8.5) and higher xG (1.65 vs 1.01), indicating better quality of chances. The risk stems from the hosts’ low conversion—only 0.5 goals taken from 1.65 xG—and the fact Andijan scored 7 goals in their last 5 matches, so I expect a Nasaf win by a small margin.
Half-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
| Nasaf | Andijan | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 30% | 34% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.11 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.31 | 0.38 |
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.
Andijan is 67% better for: last-5 form.
1.2 pts / match - Nasaf · 2 pts / match - Andijan
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.
Andijan is 25% better for: goals scored per match.
1.23 goals / match - Nasaf · 1.54 goals / match - Andijan
Nasaf is 23% better for: goals conceded per match.
1 goals / match - Nasaf · 1.23 goals / match - Andijan
Nasaf scores in 85% of matches (11 of 13 matches), while Andijan keeps a clean sheet in 31% (4 of 13 matches).
Andijan scores in 69% of matches (9 of 13 matches), while Nasaf keeps a clean sheet in 31% (4 of 13 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 — Nasaf
Over / Under — Andijan
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.
Andijan is 31% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1 pts / match - Nasaf · 1.31 pts / match - Andijan
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Nasaf - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 8% of matches and wins 31%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
Andijan - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 31% of matches and wins 38%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.5 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.80 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.6 | 1.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| Average goals in match | 1.4 | 1.6 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 60% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 60% |
| No goal | 40% | 40% |
| Goal difference | -1 | +2 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.60 | 2.40 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.6 | 1.8 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.2 | 1.2 |
| Average goals in match | 0.8 | 3.0 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 20% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 80% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 20% |
| No goal | 60% | 0% |
| Goal difference | +2 | +3 |
* 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 76-90 (5 goli). Concedes most in 76-90 (4). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (8 goli). Concedes most in 76-90 (6). Late-goal balance (76-90): +2 - wins late phases.
* 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
Nasaf
Andijan
* 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 (Uzbekistan Super League).
Teams vs league
| Nasaf | Liga | Andijan | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▼ 2.23 | 2.63 | ▲ 2.77 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 62% | 57% | ▼ 46% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 31% | 53% | ▲ 69% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 31% | 25% | ▲ 31% |
| Goal before half-time | ▼ 54% | 69% | ▼ 62% |
| Goal after half-time | • 77% | 78% | ▲ 92% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Head-to-head
Recent meetings (2): Nasaf 0 - 2 - 0 Andijan. Average goals 2.00, both teams scored in 100% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Nasaf vs Andijan?
The Uzbekistan Super League match finished Nasaf 1:0 Andijan. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Nasaf and Andijan?
In the last 2 head-to-head matches Nasaf won 0, Andijan won 0 and 2 ended level. These games averaged 2.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 100% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Nasaf vs Andijan?
Nasaf score 1.23 goals per game on average and Andijan 1.54. The Uzbekistan Super League average is 2.63 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 53% of games. Both teams score in 62% of Nasaf's matches and 46% of Andijan's.
What form are Nasaf and Andijan in?
Over the last 5 games Nasaf have a 1-3-1 record (1.20 points per game) and Andijan 3-1-1 (2.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Nasaf vs Andijan?
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.