Spokane Velocity vs Richmond Kickers: match statistics
Spokane Velocity vs Richmond Kickers: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Spokane Velocity played Richmond Kickers in USL League One (United States). The match was played on 12 April 2026. Final score: 3:1.
Current form
Spokane Velocity: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match. Richmond Kickers: 0-1-2, 0.33 points/match.
Goal statistics
Spokane Velocity scores 1.60 and concedes 1.40 goals per match. Richmond Kickers scores 0.33 and concedes 1.00. League average: 2.68 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Spokane Velocity 60%, Richmond Kickers 33%. Over 2.5: Spokane Velocity 60%, Richmond Kickers 0%. League level: BTTS 54%, Over 2.5 49%.
xG, shots and style
Spokane Velocity has higher xG: 1.29 vs 1.02. Spokane Velocity: 11.0 shots per match, Richmond Kickers: 9.0.
Match halves
Spokane Velocity: half-time lead 40%, second-half goals 0.60. Richmond Kickers: half-time lead 0%, second-half goals 0.00.
Goals by minute
Spokane Velocity: 31-45+ (3 goals). Richmond Kickers: 0-15 (1 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
USL League One: 2.68 goals per match, BTTS 54%, Over 2.5 49%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 2 previous H2H matches were available: 2-0-0. Average goals 1.00, BTTS 0%.
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
Spokane Velocity are clear favorites at home: they have a 100% home win rate, score on average 2.33 goals and concede only 0.67 per match, with a home goal difference of +5 and 4.33 shots on target per game. Richmond Kickers have yet to win away (0% wins), score 0.5 goals per away match on average, register 1.5 shots on target and fail to score in 50% of their away fixtures; their away xG against is 2.08, indicating defensive vulnerability to chance creation. The quality gap is also visible in offensive xG — 1.4 for Spokane versus 0.94 for Richmond — and in shot conversion 21% vs 6%, meaning the hosts convert chances into goals far more efficiently. Spokane’s home form is recorded as 'www' and they average 1.6 points per match over the last 5 games, while Richmond average 1.4 points per match and have no away wins. In summary, superiority in chance creation and finishing combined with better defensive stats make a Spokane victory the most likely outcome.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
I back BTTS - Yes based on offensive signals and defensive vulnerabilities. Spokane has BTTS in 80% of their last 5 matches (4/5), averages 1.6 goals scored and 1.6 conceded (8 for and 8 against), and their recent xG is 1.2 versus opponents’ average xG of 1.47, indicating the hosts will create scoring opportunities. Richmond has BTTS in only 20% of their last 5, averages 0.8 goals scored (4 in last 5) and concedes 0.6 (3 in last 5), but seasonal average xG against Richmond is 2.08, meaning over the season the guests allow many high-quality chances. Additionally, the league features 61% of matches with BTTS, and the hosts average 4.0 shots on target versus 1.5 for the visitors and have a seasonal xG of 1.21, which increases the likelihood of goals from both sides. Considering these figures and uncertainties in some seasonal metrics (e.g. hosts’ seasonal BTTS percent 0% and visitors’ only 1 seasonal goal), I assign Yes 65% and No 35%.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
Based on xG: Spokane has xG_for 1.21, Richmond xG_against 2.08; average (1.21+2.08)/2 = 1.65 projected goals for the home side. For the visitors the average (0.94+0.99)/2 = 0.97, giving a total of 2.62 expected goals. A Poisson model with mean 2.62 yields probability of at least 2 goals (Over 1.5) around 74% (probability of at most 1 goal ≈26%), Over 2.5 ≈49% and Over 3.5 ≈27%. Spokane averages 11 shots and 4.0 on target per match versus Richmond’s 8 and 1.5, and in the last 5 matches Spokane had 60% of games with over 2.5 goals, which strengthens the signal for the over. Given this data I recommend playing Over 1.5 as the strongest and most data-driven option.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
At half-time the home team were trailing in 100% of their home matches (trailingAtHTPercentage_home = 100.0) and conceded on average 1.0 goal by the break (concededAVGHT_home = 1.0), while the away team score on average 0.5 goals before half-time (scoredAVGHT_away = 0.5). For the full match the home side have a seasonal home scoring average of 0.0 goals (seasonScoredAVG_home = 0.0) versus 0.5 for the visitors away (seasonScoredAVG_away = 0.5), indicating an advantage for the away team in results. The home team produce more xG and chances (xG 1.21 vs 0.94, shots on target 4.0 vs 1.5), but their conversion rate is 0% compared to 6% for the away team (shot_conversion_rate_home = 0.0, shot_conversion_rate_away = 6.0), so created chances are not translating into goals. Additionally the away side score on average 0.5 goals after the break (AVG_2hg_away = 0.5) versus 0.0 for the home team, which increases the likelihood of maintaining or extending a lead; therefore the most probable scenario I select is HT/FT 2/2.
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
| Spokane Velocity | Richmond Kickers | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 29% | 26% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.11 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.50 | 0.14 |
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.
Spokane Velocity is 506% better for: last-5 form.
2 pts / match - Spokane Velocity · 0.33 pts / match - Richmond Kickers
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.
Spokane Velocity is 385% better for: goals scored per match.
1.6 goals / match - Spokane Velocity · 0.33 goals / match - Richmond Kickers
Richmond Kickers is 40% better for: goals conceded per match.
1.4 goals / match - Spokane Velocity · 1 goals / match - Richmond Kickers
Spokane Velocity scores in 80% of matches (4 of 5 matches), while Richmond Kickers keeps a clean sheet in 0% (0 of 3 matches).
Richmond Kickers scores in 33% of matches (1 of 3 matches), while Spokane Velocity keeps a clean sheet in 20% (1 of 5 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 - Spokane Velocity
Over / Under - Richmond Kickers
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.
Spokane Velocity is 139% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.6 pts / match - Spokane Velocity · 0.67 pts / match - Richmond Kickers
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Spokane Velocity - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 40% of matches and wins 60%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
Richmond Kickers - second-half results
Defence stays stable across the full match.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.60 | 1.20 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| Average goals in match | 1.8 | 1.2 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 40% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 40% |
| No goal | 40% | 60% |
| Goal difference | +1 | 0 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.67 | 0.67 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.3 | 0.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.7 | 0.3 |
| Average goals in match | 1.0 | 0.3 |
| 1 goal | 67% | 33% |
| 2 goals | 33% | 0% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 33% | 67% |
| No goal | 67% | 100% |
| Goal difference | -1 | -1 |
* 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 31-45 (3 goals). Concedes most in 0-15 (2). Late-goal balance (76-90): 0.
Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (1 goal). Concedes most in 16-30 (2). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - 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
Spokane Velocity
Richmond Kickers
* 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 (USL League One).
Teams vs league
| Spokane Velocity | Liga | Richmond Kickers | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 3.00 | 2.68 | ▼ 1.33 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 60% | 54% | ▼ 33% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 60% | 49% | ▼ 0% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 20% | 27% | ▼ 0% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 80% | 70% | ▼ 67% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 100% | 73% | ▼ 33% |
^ 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
Recent meetings (2): Spokane Velocity 2 - 0 - 0 Richmond Kickers. Average goals 1.00, both teams scored in 0% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Spokane Velocity vs Richmond Kickers?
The USL League One match finished Spokane Velocity 3:1 Richmond Kickers. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Spokane Velocity and Richmond Kickers?
In the last 2 head-to-head matches Spokane Velocity won 2, Richmond Kickers won 0 and 0 ended level. These games averaged 1.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 0% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Spokane Velocity vs Richmond Kickers?
Spokane Velocity score 1.60 goals per game on average and Richmond Kickers 0.33. The USL League One average is 2.68 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 49% of games. Both teams score in 60% of Spokane Velocity's matches and 33% of Richmond Kickers's.
What form are Spokane Velocity and Richmond Kickers in?
Over the last 5 games Spokane Velocity have a 3-1-1 record (2.00 points per game) and Richmond Kickers 0-1-2 (0.33 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Spokane Velocity vs Richmond Kickers?
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.