Stockport County vs Port Vale: match statistics
Stockport County vs Port Vale: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Stockport County played Port Vale in EFL League One (England). The match was played on 28 April 2026. Final score: 1:2.
Current form
Stockport County: 2-2-1, 1.60 points/match. Port Vale: 1-2-2, 1.00 points/match.
Goal statistics
Stockport County scores 1.52 and concedes 1.25 goals per match. Port Vale scores 0.77 and concedes 1.32. League average: 2.61 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Stockport County 59%, Port Vale 34%. Over 2.5: Stockport County 59%, Port Vale 39%. League level: BTTS 52%, Over 2.5 50%.
xG, shots and style
Stockport County has higher xG: 1.53 vs 1.25. Stockport County: 13.2 shots per match, Port Vale: 11.1.
Match halves
Stockport County: half-time lead 32%, second-half goals 0.80. Port Vale: half-time lead 20%, second-half goals 0.39.
Goals by minute
Stockport County: 76-90+ (16 goals). Port Vale: 0-15 (9 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
League One: 2.61 goals per match, BTTS 52%, Over 2.5 50%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 1 previous H2H matches were available: 1-0-0. Average goals 3.00, 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
Stockport is the clear favourite: at home they score on average 1.68 goals per game with xG 1.70 and have a 59% win rate at their stadium, whereas Port Vale on the road score only 0.77 goals on average with xG 1.10 and win 23% of away matches. The hosts create far more chances — on average 14.73 shots and 5.14 on target at home versus 9.59 shots and 2.68 on target for the visitors — and maintain 57% possession compared to Port Vale’s 45%. Defensively the visitors fare worse: Port Vale concede 1.59 goals on average away, while Stockport concede only 1.09 at home; additionally the visitors fail to score in 50% of away games versus 14% of home matches without a goal for Stockport. In the last 5 matches Stockport have scored 9 goals (1.8 avg) and accumulate around 1.4 points per game, while Port Vale have 4 goals (0.8 avg) and about 1.0 point per game, which confirms the hosts’ advantage and leads to backing their victory.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Seasonal BTTS rates are low: Stockport has BTTS 36% and Port Vale 32%, averaging 34% and indicating a low baseline chance for both teams to score. However, in the last 5 matches Stockport records BTTS 60% and Port Vale 40% (50% average), and clean sheet rates are 36% for the home side and 23% for the visitors, implying probabilities of conceding of about 64% and 77%; their product gives roughly a 49% chance that both teams will concede. Combined xG is 1.39 (Stockport) + 1.10 (Port Vale) = 2.49 xG, with 1.39 against an opponent xG against of 1.48 and 1.10 against 1.29, suggesting a sufficient number of scoring opportunities from both sides. In the last 5 matches the hosts scored 9 and conceded 8 goals (1.8 and 1.6 on average), while Port Vale scored 4 and conceded 4 (0.8 and 0.8), so Stockport is more offensively active but the visitors also tend to concede. Considering the mixed signals (seasonally low BTTS 34% versus recent form, combined xG 2.49 and an estimated 49% when accounting for clean sheets), I give a slight edge to the "yes" option and estimate 52% vs 48%.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
I calculated expected goals as the average of attack and defense: home ~1.44 (attacking xG 1.39 vs away defense 1.48), away ~1.20 (attacking xG 1.10 vs home defense 1.29), total ~2.64 goals. According to a Poisson distribution, the probability of at least 2 goals (Over 1.5) is about 74% (P(0)+P(1) ≈ 26%), while Over 2.5 is ~49% and Over 3.5 ~27%. Additionally, in the last 5 matches Stockport scored 9 goals (1.8 avg) with xG 2.12, and Port Vale 4 goals (0.8 avg) with xG 1.22 — a combined 13 goals in 5 matches (2.6 per match), which confirms a higher goal rate than the minimal line of 1.5. Seasonal metrics also support this pick: Over 0.5 is 73% for the home side and 95% for the away, and although the seasonal percentage for Over 2.5 is closer to 50%, the strongest signal from the data is Over 1.5 (74% vs 26%), hence the recommendation Over 1.5.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Stockport draw at half-time in 55% of their home matches, while Port Vale record a draw in 45% of their away games, so the strongest signal for the break is a draw. The home side have a higher xG: 1.39 versus the visitors' 1.10, and Port Vale also have a worse xG against (1.48) than Stockport (1.29), which gives Stockport an advantage in chance creation. In the second half Stockport have scored an average of 1.0 goals in their last 5 home matches, whereas Port Vale average only 0.2 on the road, with the visitors conceding 1.59 goals per match compared to the hosts' 1.05 conceded, increasing the likelihood of a turnaround by the home side after the break. Taking these figures into account, the most probable scenario is a draw at half-time and a Stockport win at full-time (X/1).
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
| Stockport County | Port Vale | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 36% | 28% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.11 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.32 | 0.25 |
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.
Stockport County is 60% better for: last-5 form.
1.6 pts / match - Stockport County · 1 pts / match - Port Vale
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.
Stockport County is 97% better for: goals scored per match.
1.52 goals / match - Stockport County · 0.77 goals / match - Port Vale
Stockport County is 6% better for: goals conceded per match.
1.25 goals / match - Stockport County · 1.32 goals / match - Port Vale
Stockport County scores in 82% of matches (36 of 44 matches), while Port Vale keeps a clean sheet in 30% (13 of 44 matches).
Port Vale scores in 48% of matches (21 of 44 matches), while Stockport County keeps a clean sheet in 27% (12 of 44 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 - Stockport County
Over / Under - Port Vale
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.
Stockport County is 27% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.41 pts / match - Stockport County · 1.11 pts / match - Port Vale
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Stockport County - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 32% of matches and wins 48%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.1 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
Port Vale - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 20% of matches and wins 20%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.1 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.40 | 1.40 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.8 | 1.2 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.6 | 0.8 |
| Average goals in match | 1.4 | 2.0 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 60% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 40% |
| No goal | 40% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +1 | +2 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.40 | 1.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.6 | 0.2 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Average goals in match | 1.0 | 0.6 |
| 1 goal | 40% | 60% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 0% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 60% |
| No goal | 60% | 80% |
| 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 76-90 (16 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (12). Late-goal balance (76-90): +4 - wins late phases.
Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (9 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (12). Late-goal balance (76-90): -4 - 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
Stockport County
Port Vale
* 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 (League One).
Teams vs league
| Stockport County | Liga | Port Vale | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 2.77 | 2.61 | ▼ 2.09 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 59% | 52% | ▼ 34% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 59% | 50% | ▼ 39% |
| Clean sheets | • 27% | 27% | ▲ 30% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 75% | 70% | ▼ 57% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 89% | 81% | ▼ 61% |
^ 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.
Referee context
See how often this referee shows cards, awards penalties and how their matches tend to finish.
Head-to-head
Previous meeting: Stockport County 1 - 0 - 0 Port Vale. Average goals 3.00, both teams scored in 0% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Stockport County vs Port Vale?
The EFL League One match finished Stockport County 1:2 Port Vale. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Stockport County vs Port Vale?
Stockport County score 1.52 goals per game on average and Port Vale 0.77. The EFL League One average is 2.61 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 50% of games. Both teams score in 59% of Stockport County's matches and 34% of Port Vale's.
What form are Stockport County and Port Vale in?
Over the last 5 games Stockport County have a 2-2-1 record (1.60 points per game) and Port Vale 1-2-2 (1.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Stockport County vs Port Vale?
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.


