Rīgas FS vs FS Jelgava: match statistics
Rīgas FS vs FS Jelgava: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Rīgas FS played FS Jelgava in Virsliga (Latvia). The match was played on 21 May 2026. Venue: Stadions Arkādija grass. Final score: 4:0.
Current form
Rīgas FS: 4-1-0, 2.60 points/match. FS Jelgava: 2-2-1, 1.60 points/match.
Goal statistics
Rīgas FS scores 2.23 and concedes 0.69 goals per match. FS Jelgava scores 0.77 and concedes 1.85. League average: 3.09 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Rīgas FS 31%, FS Jelgava 38%. Over 2.5: Rīgas FS 46%, FS Jelgava 38%. League level: BTTS 60%, Over 2.5 56%.
xG, shots and style
Rīgas FS has higher xG: 2.05 vs 1.21. Rīgas FS: 17.4 shots per match, FS Jelgava: 9.5.
Match halves
Rīgas FS: half-time lead 54%, second-half goals 1.15. FS Jelgava: half-time lead 31%, second-half goals 0.23.
Goals by minute
Rīgas FS: 16-30 (5 goals). FS Jelgava: 0-15 (4 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
Virsliga: 3.09 goals per match, BTTS 60%, Over 2.5 56%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 5 previous H2H matches were available: 3-1-1. Average goals 2.40, BTTS 40%.
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
Rīgas FS lead the table (1st) with a record of 11 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss and 29 goals scored this season, including 16 in the last 5 matches (avg. 3.2 per game). At home the hosts score an average of 2.67 goals and concede 0.83 per match, with an average xG of 1.90 versus opponent xG 0.87; they also register 60% possession, 6 shots on target and 16.33 total shots per game. FS Jelgava have only 0.71 goals per away match and concede 1.43, producing 2.43 shots on target and xG 1.22, with a conversion rate of 7% and no goal in 43% of away fixtures. The gap is also evident in recent form: the hosts have won 4 of their last 5 matches (scoring 16 goals), while the visitors have 2 wins, 2 draws and 1 loss with 4 goals in the same period. Considering the home advantage in quality of chances (xG 1.90 vs 1.22), finishing efficiency (16% vs 7%) and defensive stability at home, I tip Rīgas FS to win.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Seasonal BTTS rates are 33% for Rīgas FS and 43% for FS Jelgava, while the league average BTTS is 60%, so both teams are below the league rate. In the last 5 matches Rīgas FS had BTTS in 40% of games, and Jelgava only in 20%; the home side scored 16 goals in the last 5 (3.2 per match) versus 4 away goals (0.8 per match). FS Jelgava has poor goal output: 10 goals this season (0.71 per match) and a low shot conversion of 7%, despite an xG per match of 1.22, indicating chance creation without finishing. Rīgas FS in the last 5 records xG 2.12 and seasonal xG 1.19, so the hosts are more effective offensively, although seasonally they concede 2.33 goals on average, indicating some defensive instability. Considering Jelgava’s very low efficiency and goal output (10 goals/season and 0.8 in L5) and Riga’s stronger attack in the last 5, I forecast a higher probability of BTTS = "No" (65%) than "Yes" (35%).
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
The model combines attacking xG with opponent defensive xG: Rīgas FS attacking xG 1.19 and FS Jelgava defensive xG 1.77 yield 1.48 expected goals for the home side, while away attacking xG 1.22 and home defensive xG 1.52 yield 1.37 for the visitors — a total of 2.85 goals. A Poisson distribution with λ=2.85 translates to roughly a 78% chance of Over 1.5, 54% for Over 2.5 and 32% for Over 3.5. In the last 5 matches Rīgas FS scored an average of 3.2 goals (16 goals in 5 matches) and had last5 xG 2.12, while FS Jelgava has 0.8 goals in the last 5 (4 goals) and last5 xG 1.3, suggesting greater attacking activity from the home side. Both teams generate many chances (homes 9.0 shots and 3.0 on target vs guests 9.86 and 2.43), and the home conversion of 9% versus 7% for the visitors further supports goal expectation. For these reasons the strongest signal is Over 1.5 (over) — Over 2.5 offers only a marginal edge (54%), and Over 3.5 is too risky (32%).
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
I back 1/1 (home leading at half-time and winning) because Rīgas FS have averaged 2.0 goals before the break in their last five matches and led at the break in 80% of those games, while also averaging 3.2 goals per match across those five appearances. FS Jelgava have averaged just 0.4 goals before the break in their last five and led at the break in only 20% of cases, weakening their chances of taking a lead at the break. Over the season Jelgava, however, have led at the break in 43% of matches and recorded 86% clean sheets to half-time, so scenarios where the visitors lead at half-time and win (2/2) remain material. Rīgas show superior overall form (last 5: dwwww, averaging 2.6 points per game) compared to Jelgava (wlwdd, averaging 1.6 points per game) and generate more shots on target on average (3.0 vs 2.43), which supports a full-time victory for the hosts. Additionally, xG values are similar (1.19 for the home side vs 1.22 for the visitors), so Rīgas’s edge mainly comes from recent attacking form and therefore they are most likely to take a lead at the break and see the match through to a win.
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
| Rīgas FS | FS Jelgava | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 36% | 28% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.13 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.35 | 0.29 |
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.
Rīgas FS is 63% better for: last-5 form.
2.6 pts / match - Rīgas FS · 1.6 pts / match - FS Jelgava
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.
Rīgas FS is 190% better for: goals scored per match.
2.23 goals / match - Rīgas FS · 0.77 goals / match - FS Jelgava
Rīgas FS is 168% better for: goals conceded per match.
0.69 goals / match - Rīgas FS · 1.85 goals / match - FS Jelgava
Rīgas FS scores in 92% of matches (12 of 13 matches), while FS Jelgava keeps a clean sheet in 23% (3 of 13 matches).
FS Jelgava scores in 54% of matches (7 of 13 matches), while Rīgas FS keeps a clean sheet in 62% (8 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 - Rīgas FS
Over / Under - FS Jelgava
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.
Rīgas FS is 47% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.92 pts / match - Rīgas FS · 1.31 pts / match - FS Jelgava
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Rīgas FS - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 54% of matches and wins 85%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
FS Jelgava - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 31% of matches and wins 23%. Sometimes loses the lead after half-time.
Concedes 0.5 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 2.40 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 2.0 | 1.2 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.8 | 0.4 |
| Average goals in match | 2.8 | 1.6 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 80% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 60% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 80% |
| No goal | 0% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +6 | +4 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.20 | 1.40 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Average goals in match | 1.0 | 1.2 |
| 1 goal | 40% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 80% | 60% |
| No goal | 80% | 60% |
| Goal difference | -1 | -2 |
* 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 (5 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (4). Late-goal balance (76-90): +4 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (4 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (10). Late-goal balance (76-90): -8 - 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
Rīgas FS
FS Jelgava
* 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 (Virsliga).
Teams vs league
| Rīgas FS | Liga | FS Jelgava | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▼ 2.92 | 3.09 | ▼ 2.62 |
| Both teams scored | ▼ 31% | 60% | ▼ 38% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 46% | 56% | ▼ 38% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 62% | 21% | ▲ 23% |
| Goal before half-time | • 77% | 76% | ▼ 69% |
| Goal after half-time | ▼ 69% | 87% | ▼ 77% |
^ 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
Substitutes
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
Recent meetings (5): Rīgas FS 3 - 1 - 1 FS Jelgava. Average goals 2.40, both teams scored in 40% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Rīgas FS vs FS Jelgava?
The Virsliga match finished Rīgas FS 4:0 FS Jelgava. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Rīgas FS and FS Jelgava?
In the last 5 head-to-head matches Rīgas FS won 3, FS Jelgava won 1 and 1 ended level. These games averaged 2.40 goals, with both teams scoring in 40% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Rīgas FS vs FS Jelgava?
Rīgas FS score 2.23 goals per game on average and FS Jelgava 0.77. The Virsliga average is 3.09 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 56% of games. Both teams score in 31% of Rīgas FS's matches and 38% of FS Jelgava's.
What form are Rīgas FS and FS Jelgava in?
Over the last 5 games Rīgas FS have a 4-1-0 record (2.60 points per game) and FS Jelgava 2-2-1 (1.60 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Rīgas FS vs FS Jelgava?
The statistical background for Rīgas FS vs FS Jelgava — 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.