Yacoub El Mansour vs UTS Rabat: match statistics
Yacoub El Mansour vs UTS Rabat: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Yacoub El Mansour played UTS Rabat in Botola Pro (Morocco). The match was played on 23 May 2026. Final score: 1:2.
Current form
Yacoub El Mansour: 2-3-0, 1.80 points/match. UTS Rabat: 1-1-3, 0.80 points/match.
Goal statistics
Yacoub El Mansour scores 1.05 and concedes 1.55 goals per match. UTS Rabat scores 1.00 and concedes 1.60. League average: 2.17 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Yacoub El Mansour 70%, UTS Rabat 70%. Over 2.5: Yacoub El Mansour 50%, UTS Rabat 30%. League level: BTTS 50%, Over 2.5 38%.
xG, shots and style
Yacoub El Mansour has higher xG: 1.32 vs 1.20. Yacoub El Mansour: 10.8 shots per match, UTS Rabat: 9.0.
Match halves
Yacoub El Mansour: half-time lead 20%, second-half goals 0.65. UTS Rabat: half-time lead 10%, second-half goals 0.55.
Goals by minute
Yacoub El Mansour: 61-75 (7 goals). UTS Rabat: 76-90+ (6 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
Botola Pro: 2.17 goals per match, BTTS 50%, Over 2.5 38%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 1 previous H2H matches were available: 0-1-0. Average goals 2.00, BTTS 100%.
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
Yacoub El Mansour shows clearly better form over the last five matches: record of 2 wins and 3 draws and an average of 1.8 points per game, while UTS Rabat have 1 win, 1 draw and 3 losses and 0.8 points per game. In the last 5 fixtures the hosts scored 8 goals (1.6 per game) and conceded 6 (1.2 per game), whereas the visitors scored 6 goals (1.2 per game) and conceded 9 (1.8 per game), indicating superior offensive and defensive performance for the home side. Seasonally the hosts average 1.2 goals per home game and only 10% of matches without scoring, while UTS Rabat on the road average 1.0 goal and have as many as 33% of matches without a goal, which increases the home side’s chances. From a quality-of-chances perspective, home xG at home is 1.41 with xG against 1.19, while the visitors’ away xG is 1.40 with xG against 1.44; although the visitors have more shots on target (4.11 vs 3.5), their defense performs worse. Considering better form (PPG 1.8 vs 0.8), lower share of matches without scoring and more favorable xG against, I forecast a home win; suggested probabilities are 60% home, 25% draw and 15% away.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Both teams show high season BTTS rates: Yacoub El Mansour 73% and UTS Rabat 67%, averaging 70% versus the league average of 50%. In the last 5 matches the home side had BTTS in 100% of games and the visitors in 60%; in those 5 games Yacoub scored 8 and conceded 6 (1.6 and 1.2 per game), while UTS scored 6 and conceded 9 (1.2 and 1.8 per game). xG indicates 1.06 for the home team versus 1.40 for the visitors, and xG against is similar: 1.45 vs 1.44, suggesting both teams create and concede around 1.4 xG each. The away side attempts more shots and shots on target (10.11 and 4.11 vs 8.09 and 3.09) despite lower conversion (10% vs 12%), and season clean sheet percentages are 0% for both teams, so a clean sheet is unlikely. Considering season rates of 73% and 67%, recent 100% and 60%, plus xG and shot stats, I assess BTTS probability at 78% to 22% and recommend the bet BTTS - Yes as the strongest signal.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
Both teams average 1.00 goals scored this season, but they concede significantly more: Yacoub El Mansour concedes 1.64 goals per match on average, and UTS Rabat 1.56, which increases the likelihood of goals from both sides. xG analysis gives an expected 1.25 goals for the home side (average of 1.06 and 1.44) and 1.43 for the visitors (average of 1.40 and 1.45), totaling 2.68 xG; a Poisson model at this level estimates roughly a 75% probability of Over 1.5 and about 50% probability of Over 2.5. However, seasonal stats show Over 2.5 occurs infrequently: only 27% of home matches and 33% of away matches, while Over 1.5 is common (91% and 78%), which favors the lower line. Additionally, both teams have a high BTTS rate — 73% for the home side and 67% for the visitors — 0% clean sheets and 100% of matches with at least one goal conceded, which amplifies the chance of at least two goals. As a result, I recommend Over 1.5 as the best line (I rate Over 1.5 at 85%); for 2.5 I assign Over 45% and Under 55% (I prefer Under 2.5), and I rate Over 3.5 at 15% versus Under 85%.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Halftime draws appear most likely: the home side were level at the break in 64% of matches, the visitors in 44%, hence a high incidence of draws after 45 minutes. Crucially, the away team performs significantly better after the break — they average 1.44 points in the second half versus 0.64 for the hosts and win the second half in 33% of cases compared to 9% for the home side. Additionally, the visitors have higher xG (1.40 vs 1.06) and more shots on target (4.11 vs 3.09), while the hosts concede on average 1.09 goals in the second half, increasing the likelihood of a turnaround. For these reasons the primary selection is X/2 (draw at half-time, away win) — so I assigned this combination the highest weight (34%), while maintaining realistic alternatives X/X (18%) and X/1 (12%).
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
| Yacoub El Mansour | UTS Rabat | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 32% | 39% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.13 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.30 | 0.28 |
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.
Yacoub El Mansour is 125% better for: last-5 form.
1.8 pts / match - Yacoub El Mansour · 0.8 pts / match - UTS Rabat
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.
Yacoub El Mansour is 5% better for: goals scored per match.
1.05 goals / match - Yacoub El Mansour · 1 goals / match - UTS Rabat
Yacoub El Mansour scores in 75% of matches (15 of 20 matches), while UTS Rabat keeps a clean sheet in 0% (0 of 20 matches).
UTS Rabat scores in 70% of matches (14 of 20 matches), while Yacoub El Mansour keeps a clean sheet in 10% (2 of 20 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 - Yacoub El Mansour
Over / Under - UTS Rabat
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.
Yacoub El Mansour is 12% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
0.95 pts / match - Yacoub El Mansour · 0.85 pts / match - UTS Rabat
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Yacoub El Mansour - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 20% of matches and wins 15%. Sometimes loses the lead after half-time.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
UTS Rabat - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 10% of matches and wins 5%. Sometimes loses the lead after half-time.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.20 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.4 | 1.2 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| Average goals in match | 1.0 | 1.8 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 0% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 40% |
| No goal | 60% | 20% |
| Goal difference | -1 | +3 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.60 | 1.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.6 | 0.6 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Average goals in match | 1.6 | 1.4 |
| 1 goal | 60% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 20% |
| No goal | 60% | 60% |
| Goal difference | -2 | -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 61-75 (7 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (9). Late-goal balance (76-90): -8 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (6 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (11). Late-goal balance (76-90): -3 - 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
Yacoub El Mansour
UTS Rabat
* 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 (Botola Pro).
Teams vs league
| Yacoub El Mansour | Liga | UTS Rabat | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 2.60 | 2.17 | ▲ 2.60 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 70% | 50% | ▲ 70% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 50% | 38% | ▼ 30% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 10% | 31% | ▼ 0% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 75% | 61% | • 60% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 90% | 75% | ▲ 85% |
^ 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: Yacoub El Mansour 0 - 1 - 0 UTS Rabat. Average goals 2.00, both teams scored in 100% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Yacoub El Mansour vs UTS Rabat?
The Botola Pro match finished Yacoub El Mansour 1:2 UTS Rabat. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Yacoub El Mansour vs UTS Rabat?
Yacoub El Mansour score 1.05 goals per game on average and UTS Rabat 1.00. The Botola Pro average is 2.17 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 38% of games. Both teams score in 70% of Yacoub El Mansour's matches and 70% of UTS Rabat's.
What form are Yacoub El Mansour and UTS Rabat in?
Over the last 5 games Yacoub El Mansour have a 2-3-0 record (1.80 points per game) and UTS Rabat 1-1-3 (0.80 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Yacoub El Mansour vs UTS Rabat?
Here you can check the pre-match numbers for Yacoub El Mansour vs UTS Rabat: form, H2H, goals and Over/Under. The pick itself, value and reasoning are published in the NoFluffPicks app.


