United States - USL ChampionshipData current as of 07 September 2026

Tulsa Roughnecks vs Lexington: match statistics

Tulsa Roughnecks crest
Tulsa Roughnecks
0 : 0half-time 0:0
Lexington crest
Lexington

Tulsa Roughnecks vs Lexington: form, goals and key statistics

Key match information

Tulsa Roughnecks played Lexington in USL Championship (United States). The match was played on 26 July 2026. Final score: 0:0.

Current form

Tulsa Roughnecks: 2-1-2, 1.40 points/match. Lexington: 3-0-2, 1.80 points/match.

Goal statistics

Tulsa Roughnecks scores 1.29 and concedes 1.14 goals per match. Lexington scores 1.57 and concedes 1.43. League average: 2.79 goals.

BTTS / Over / Under

BTTS: Tulsa Roughnecks 50%, Lexington 64%. Over 2.5: Tulsa Roughnecks 36%, Lexington 64%. League level: BTTS 58%, Over 2.5 52%.

xG, shots and style

Lexington has higher xG: 1.43 vs 1.29. Tulsa Roughnecks: 10.9 shots per match, Lexington: 12.2.

Match halves

Tulsa Roughnecks: half-time lead 36%, second-half goals 0.79. Lexington: half-time lead 36%, second-half goals 0.86.

Goals by minute

Tulsa Roughnecks: 31-45+ (5 goals). Lexington: 0-15 (5 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.

League context

USL Championship: 2.79 goals per match, BTTS 58%, Over 2.5 52%.

Head-to-head

Before this fixture, 2 previous H2H matches were available: 2-0-0. Average goals 2.50, 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

I back a home win (1): Tulsa has strong defensive metrics at home — conceding just 0.75 goals per game and keeping a clean sheet in 50% of home matches, with a 50% home win rate. Lexington is more dangerous offensively on the road — scoring 1.57 goals per away game on average, registering 4 shots on target per game and a conversion rate of 14% versus Tulsa’s 12%; in the last 5 matches the visitors scored 9 goals while Tulsa scored 6. However, the hosts control defensive risk better: the visitors concede 1.43 goals on average away and have only 14% clean sheets on the road, whereas Tulsa concedes 0.75 at home. Additionally Tulsa sits 9th in the table vs Lexington in 19th. Considering xG (Tulsa 1.24 at home vs Lexington 1.37 away) and recent form (Tulsa conceded 10 goals in the last 5 matches and averages 1.2 points per game, Lexington conceded 9 and averages 1.4 points per game), I expect a narrow home victory and estimate probabilities of approximately 52% for Tulsa, 25% for a draw and 23% for Lexington.

View the statistical overview
BTTS - will both teams score?

Seasonal statistics strongly support BTTS: Tulsa has 57% of matches with both teams scoring, Lexington as high as 71%, and the league average is 57%. In the last 5 matches both teams had BTTS in 60%; over that period Tulsa averaged 1.2 goals scored and 2.0 conceded, while Lexington averaged 1.8 scored and 1.8 conceded, indicating both sides regularly concede. xG and shot analysis confirm offensive potential: xG for Tulsa 1.49 versus 1.37 for Lexington, xG against 1.19 versus 1.50, and average shots 13.14 (Tulsa) and 11.29 (Lexington) with 4.71 and 4.00 shots on target. Additionally, clean sheet percentage is 43% for Tulsa and only 14% for Lexington, and over 2.5 occurs for the home team in 71% and the away team in 57% of cases; the combination of over2.5 and BTTS is 56% for both teams, further indicating goal-heavy matches. Considering these figures (57% vs 71% BTTS, 60% in last 5, xG around 1.4–1.5 and defensive susceptibility), I assess the probability of BTTS at 72% vs 28% and recommend the 'BTTS - Yes' selection.

View BTTS statistics
Over/Under - goals analysis

Seasonal data indicate Over 1.5 occurs extremely often: both teams have 86% of matches over 1.5 goals, and the league average is 2.79 goals per match, suggesting a goals edge. xG for Tulsa is 1.49, for Lexington 1.37; combining the home xG with the away xG conceded yields expected ~1.50 goals for Tulsa and ~1.28 for Lexington, i.e. roughly 2.78 goals total. Shooting stats (Tulsa 13.14 shots, 4.71 on target; Lexington 11.29 shots, 4.00 on target) and conversion rates (12% vs 14%) support these values, and BTTS is 57% for hosts and 71% for visitors, indicating both teams likely to score. Over 2.5 occurs for Tulsa in 71% of matches and for Lexington in 57%, and in the last 5 meetings both teams have 60% Over 2.5, so I estimate Over 2.5 probability at ~66%, while Over 3.5 is less likely (~43%). Based on this, the strongest signal is Over 1.5 (86% seasonally and combined xG ~2.78), therefore I recommend betting the Over line at 1.5.

View Over/Under statistics
HT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario

Overall analysis gives a slight edge to the home side: Tulsa has a higher xG 1.49 versus 1.37, a better average points per game 1.43 vs 1.14, and a higher win rate 43% vs 29%. First-half data are mixed – on the season the visitors have scored more goals by half-time (11 vs 7) and have a higher HT goals average 1.00 vs 0.43, although in the last 5 matches Tulsa has led at the break in 60% of games. Crucially, Tulsa is significantly stronger after the break: they average 1.14 goals in the second half versus 0.57 for the visitors and have 86% of matches with at least one goal after the break (vs 71% for the visitors). Given the higher xG, greater shooting activity (4.71 on target vs 4.0) and dominance in second halves, the most reliable signal is Half-Time/Full-Time: draw at the break and home win (X/1).

View first-half and second-half statistics

Half-by-half

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

Match statistics

-1Possession (%)-1
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
-1Shots-1
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
-1Shots on target-1
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0xG0
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
-1Corners-1
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0Dangerous attacks0
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
-1Fouls-1
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
-1Cards-1
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

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.

Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
1.29Goals scored / match1.57
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
1.14Goals conceded / match1.43
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
45%Average possession51%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
3.36Shots on target / match4.36
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

Team statswho is more efficient?

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

10.93Shots per match12.21
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
3.36Shots on target4.36
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
11.8%Shot conversion12.9%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
45%Possession51%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
1.29xG for1.43
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
1.29xG against1.34
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

Shooting quality

Tulsa Roughnecks: BalancedLexington: Balanced
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
Accuracy (shots on target)31%36%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.120.12
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.380.36

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.

Lexington is 29% better for: last-5 form.

1.4 pts / match - Tulsa Roughnecks · 1.8 pts / match - Lexington

Tulsa Roughnecks
DLWLW
Season result split
43% W29% R29% P
Season (W-D-L)
6-4-4
1.57 pts / match · goal difference +2
Last 5 (W-D-L)
2-1-2
1.40 pts / match
Record at home (W-D-L)
4-2-2
Last 5 at home
3-0-2
LWWLW
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 1.0Goals conceded: 1.4xG: 1.17Opponent xG: 1.41BTTS: 40%Over 2.5: 40%
Lexington
LWWWL
Season result split
36% W21% R43% P
Season (W-D-L)
5-3-6
1.29 pts / match · goal difference +2
Last 5 (W-D-L)
3-0-2
1.80 pts / match
Record away (W-D-L)
2-2-3
Last 5 away
2-1-2
DLLWW
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 2.4Goals conceded: 1.8xG: 1.44Opponent xG: 1.44BTTS: 80%Over 2.5: 80%

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.

Lexington is 22% better for: goals scored per match.

1.29 goals / match - Tulsa Roughnecks · 1.57 goals / match - Lexington

Tulsa Roughnecks is 25% better for: goals conceded per match.

1.14 goals / match - Tulsa Roughnecks · 1.43 goals / match - Lexington

Tulsa Roughnecks scoring profile: strong

Tulsa Roughnecks scores in 71% of matches (10 of 14 matches), while Lexington keeps a clean sheet in 29% (4 of 14 matches).

Lexington scoring profile: strong

Lexington scores in 79% of matches (11 of 14 matches), while Tulsa Roughnecks keeps a clean sheet in 36% (5 of 14 matches).

18Goals scored (season)22
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
16Goals conceded (season)20
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
2.43Average goals in match3
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
5Goals scored (last 5)12
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
7Goals conceded (last 5)9
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

How often they score at least...

71%1 goal79%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
36%2 goals36%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
14%3 goals29%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
7%4 goals14%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

How often they concede at least...

64%1 goal71%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
29%2 goals43%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
7%3 goals21%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
7%4 goals7%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

* 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.

58%
League average

Goal patterns

14%BTTS at half-time7%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
7%BTTS in both halves0%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
29%Scored in both halves21%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

BTTS and goal count

36%Min. 3 goals and BTTS57%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0%Min. 3 goals without BTTS7%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
40%BTTS - last 580%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

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

64%Min. 1 goal before half-time71%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
14%Min. 2 goals before half-time43%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
7%Min. 3 goals before half-time14%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

2nd half

79%Min. 1 goal after half-time79%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
50%Min. 2 goals after half-time64%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
14%Min. 3 goals after half-time29%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

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.

Tulsa Roughnecks is 10% better for: first-half form (half-time points).

1.5 pts / match - Tulsa Roughnecks · 1.36 pts / match - Lexington

Tulsa Roughnecks - half-time state
36% leading43% draw21% trailing
Lexington - half-time state
36% leading29% draw36% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

1.5Points per match (1st half)1.36
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0.5Goals scored (1st half)0.71
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0.43Goals conceded (1st half)0.57
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0.93Average goals (1st half)1.29
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
71%Clean sheet before half-time64%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
50%No goal before half-time57%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

After half-time (2nd half)

1.57Points per match (2nd half)1.07
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0.79Goals scored (2nd half)0.86
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
0.71Goals conceded (2nd half)0.86
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
1.5Average goals (2nd half)1.71
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
50%Clean sheet after half-time36%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington
50%No goal after half-time43%
Tulsa RoughnecksLexington

Tulsa Roughnecks - second-half results

43% W29% R29% P
21
Half-time points
7
Half-time goals
+1
Goal difference (1st half)
22
Second-half points
+1
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.50
PPG before half-time
Lead holding119%

Leads at half-time in 36% of matches and wins 43%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.

Defence after half-time+0.3

Concedes 0.3 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.

Lexington - second-half results

21% W43% R36% P
19
Half-time points
10
Half-time goals
+2
Goal difference (1st half)
15
Second-half points
0
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.36
PPG before half-time
Lead holding100%

Leads at half-time in 36% of matches and wins 36%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.

Defence after half-time+0.3

Concedes 0.3 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.

Tulsa Roughnecks - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match2.001.00
Goals scored / match0.80.2
Goals conceded / match0.60.8
Average goals in match1.41.0
1 goal80%60%
2 goals20%40%
3 goals20%0%
Clean sheet80%60%
No goal20%80%
Goal difference+1-3
Half-time: 60% leading - 20% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 20% won - 40% draw - 40% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 20% - Half-time goals total: 4
Lexington - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match1.401.40
Goals scored / match1.01.4
Goals conceded / match0.61.2
Average goals in match1.62.6
1 goal80%100%
2 goals60%100%
3 goals20%60%
Clean sheet60%20%
No goal60%0%
Goal difference+2+1
Half-time: 40% leading - 20% draw - 40% trailing
2nd half: 40% won - 20% draw - 40% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 5

* 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.

Tulsa Roughnecks
ScoredConceded
1
1
0-15
1
3
16-30
5
2
31-45
5
4
46-60
4
3
61-75
2
3
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 31-45 (5 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (4). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - late phases are a weakness.

Lexington
ScoredConceded
5
2
0-15
2
3
16-30
3
3
31-45
3
1
46-60
4
6
61-75
5
5
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 0-15 (5 goals). Concedes most in 61-75 (6). Late-goal balance (76-90): 0.

* 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

2.71
Estimated goals
attack vs opponent defence
1.4 : 1.4
Estimated goal split
home : away
97%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
57%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
-8%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
56%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
6%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 17 matches
0-1
Most common goal range
attack vs defence on both sides

Tulsa Roughnecks

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
0.00
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.15
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.
0.00
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
+0.15
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
84%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
91%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
-0.17
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.3
Late goals
11% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 6% come in the first quarter-hour.
11%

Lexington

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+0.09
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.05
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-5.0 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
+0.14
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
-0.09
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
126%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
93%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
+0.51
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.2
Late goals
23% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 23% come in the first quarter-hour.
23%

* 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 (USL Championship).

Teams vs league

Tulsa RoughnecksLigaLexington
Average goals in match 2.432.79 3.00
Both teams scored 50%58% 64%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) 36%52% 64%
Clean sheets 36%26% 29%
Goal before half-time 64%67% 71%
Goal after half-time 79%80% 79%

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

2.79
Average goals per match
58%
Both teams scored
52%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
26%
Clean sheets
1.54
Home goals / match
1.25
Away goals / match
+23%
Home attack advantage
+19%
Home defence advantage
+17%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
67%
1 goal
36%
2 goals
10%
3 goals
3%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
80%
1 goal
50%
2 goals
22%
3 goals
8%
4 goals

Lineups and player events

Verified starters, substitutes and recorded player events for this match.

Match timeline

Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.

  1. LexingtonYellow cardPhillip Goodrum
  2. Tulsa RoughnecksYellow cardAbdoulaye Cissoko
  3. Tulsa RoughnecksYellow cardLogan Dorsey
  4. LexingtonYellow cardElio Nicolas Firmino
  5. Tulsa RoughnecksYellow cardLucas Stauffer
  6. Tulsa RoughnecksYellow cardLamar Batista
  7. LexingtonYellow cardXavier Zengue
  8. LexingtonSubstitutionOn: Tarik ScottOff: Elio Nicolas Firmino
  9. LexingtonYellow cardTarik Scott
  10. Tulsa RoughnecksSubstitutionOn: Stefan LukicOff: Logan Dorsey
  11. LexingtonYellow cardMalik Henry-Scott
  12. LexingtonYellow cardAaron Molloy

Head-to-head

Recent meetings (2): Tulsa Roughnecks 2 - 0 - 0 Lexington. Average goals 2.50, both teams scored in 0% matches.

Tulsa Roughnecks FC
3 : 0
Lexington SC
Lexington SC
0 : 2
Tulsa Roughnecks FC

FAQ

What was the result of Tulsa Roughnecks vs Lexington?

The USL Championship match finished Tulsa Roughnecks 0:0 Lexington. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What is the head-to-head record between Tulsa Roughnecks and Lexington?

In the last 2 head-to-head matches Tulsa Roughnecks won 2, Lexington won 0 and 0 ended level. These games averaged 2.50 goals, with both teams scoring in 0% of them.

What do the goal statistics show before Tulsa Roughnecks vs Lexington?

Tulsa Roughnecks score 1.29 goals per game on average and Lexington 1.57. The USL Championship average is 2.79 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 52% of games. Both teams score in 50% of Tulsa Roughnecks's matches and 64% of Lexington's.

What form are Tulsa Roughnecks and Lexington in?

Over the last 5 games Tulsa Roughnecks have a 2-1-2 record (1.40 points per game) and Lexington 3-0-2 (1.80 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Tulsa Roughnecks vs Lexington?

The statistical background for Tulsa Roughnecks vs Lexington — 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.