# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
34 | 21 | 62% |
2 |
![]() Kunshan |
34 | 21 | 62% |
3 |
![]() Beijing BG |
34 | 19 | 56% |
4 |
![]() Hangzhou |
34 | 18 | 53% |
5 |
![]() Meizhou Hakka |
34 | 18 | 53% |
6 |
![]() Wuhan Three Towns |
34 | 18 | 53% |
7 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
34 | 17 | 50% |
8 |
![]() Shaanxi Chang'an |
34 | 17 | 50% |
9 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
34 | 16 | 47% |
10 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
34 | 16 | 47% |
11 |
![]() Chengdu Better City FC |
34 | 16 | 47% |
12 |
![]() Nanjing City |
34 | 16 | 47% |
13 |
![]() Jiangxi Liansheng |
34 | 15 | 44% |
14 |
![]() Zibo Cuju |
34 | 15 | 44% |
15 |
![]() BIT |
34 | 14 | 41% |
16 |
![]() Sichuan Jiuniu |
34 | 13 | 38% |
17 |
![]() Guizhou Zhicheng |
34 | 12 | 35% |
18 |
![]() Xinjiang Tianshan |
34 | 12 | 35% |
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Meizhou Hakka |
17 | 11 | 65% |
2 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
17 | 11 | 65% |
3 |
![]() Jiangxi Liansheng |
17 | 10 | 59% |
4 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
17 | 10 | 59% |
5 |
![]() Wuhan Three Towns |
17 | 10 | 59% |
6 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
17 | 10 | 59% |
7 |
![]() Hangzhou |
17 | 9 | 53% |
8 |
![]() Beijing BG |
17 | 9 | 53% |
9 |
![]() Kunshan |
17 | 9 | 53% |
10 |
![]() Nanjing City |
17 | 9 | 53% |
11 |
![]() BIT |
17 | 8 | 47% |
12 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
17 | 8 | 47% |
13 |
![]() Zibo Cuju |
17 | 7 | 41% |
14 |
![]() Guizhou Zhicheng |
17 | 6 | 35% |
15 |
![]() Shaanxi Chang'an |
17 | 6 | 35% |
16 |
![]() Chengdu Better City FC |
17 | 6 | 35% |
17 |
![]() Xinjiang Tianshan |
17 | 4 | 24% |
18 |
![]() Sichuan Jiuniu |
17 | 4 | 24% |
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Kunshan |
17 | 12 | 71% |
2 |
![]() Shaanxi Chang'an |
17 | 11 | 65% |
3 |
![]() Beijing BG |
17 | 10 | 59% |
4 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
17 | 10 | 59% |
5 |
![]() Chengdu Better City FC |
17 | 10 | 59% |
6 |
![]() Hangzhou |
17 | 9 | 53% |
7 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
17 | 9 | 53% |
8 |
![]() Sichuan Jiuniu |
17 | 9 | 53% |
9 |
![]() Xinjiang Tianshan |
17 | 8 | 47% |
10 |
![]() Wuhan Three Towns |
17 | 8 | 47% |
11 |
![]() Zibo Cuju |
17 | 8 | 47% |
12 |
![]() Meizhou Hakka |
17 | 7 | 41% |
13 |
![]() Nanjing City |
17 | 7 | 41% |
14 |
![]() Guizhou Zhicheng |
17 | 6 | 35% |
15 |
![]() BIT |
17 | 6 | 35% |
16 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
17 | 6 | 35% |
17 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
17 | 6 | 35% |
18 |
![]() Jiangxi Liansheng |
17 | 5 | 29% |
This section shows the statistics on how many times BIT and Sichuan Jiuniu have both scored and conceded in the same match in the China League One.
The “Both Teams to Score” stat is a good data point to use for seeing whether or not a match will feature many (or any) goals. If both teams have a high rate of both scoring and conceding goals, then there is a good chance that a couple of goals will go in. But if one or both teams have low BTTS rates, then their match could be a lower-scoring affair.
Check out the BTTS (both teams to score) stats for the match:
It’s important to consider BTTS statistics when analysing teams as they provide insight into the teams’ overall approach and performance in matches. Teams with a high percentage of both teams scoring usually have more attacking approaches, whilst a lower rate of both teams scoring could point to a slightly more conservative gameplan for the most part.
And of course, this information should prove quite valuable when picking bets on the “Both Teams to Score” market and other goal-related markets
Search
Most Popular search
No results found
Switch to
Would you like to change to ?
Login or Signup to add to favourites
You can login with social media
Not registered yet? Create an Account.