# | Team | MP | Over 3.5 | Over 4.5 | Over 5.5 |
---|
# | Team | MP | Over 3.5 | Over 4.5 | Over 5.5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Beijing Guoan |
22 | 68% | 45% | 27% |
2 |
![]() Tianjin Teda |
22 | 68% | 45% | 27% |
3 |
![]() Shenzhen |
22 | 68% | 36% | 23% |
4 |
![]() Chongqing Dangdai Lifan |
22 | 64% | 36% | 23% |
5 |
![]() Guangzhou Evergrande |
22 | 59% | 36% | 14% |
6 |
![]() Shijiazhuang Ever Bright |
22 | 59% | 41% | 18% |
7 |
![]() Shanghai Shenhua |
22 | 59% | 45% | 32% |
8 |
![]() Dalian Yifang |
22 | 59% | 41% | 23% |
9 |
![]() Henan Jianye |
22 | 55% | 36% | 18% |
10 |
![]() Hebei CFFC |
22 | 55% | 32% | 27% |
11 |
![]() Wuhan Zall |
22 | 50% | 27% | 5% |
12 |
![]() Qingdao Huanghai |
22 | 50% | 32% | 14% |
13 |
![]() Guangzhou R&F |
22 | 45% | 36% | 14% |
14 |
![]() Shanghai SIPG |
22 | 41% | 27% | 14% |
15 |
![]() Changchun Yatai |
22 | 41% | 32% | 27% |
16 |
![]() Shandong Luneng |
22 | 41% | 23% | 14% |
# | Team | MP | Over 1.5 | Over 2.5 | Over 3.5 |
---|
# | Team | MP | Over 1.5 | Over 2.5 | Over 3.5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Tianjin Teda |
22 | 86% | 45% | 14% |
2 |
![]() Guangzhou Evergrande |
22 | 73% | 45% | 5% |
3 |
![]() Shijiazhuang Ever Bright |
22 | 73% | 41% | 14% |
4 |
![]() Qingdao Huanghai |
22 | 73% | 36% | 9% |
5 |
![]() Beijing Guoan |
22 | 68% | 41% | 18% |
6 |
![]() Dalian Yifang |
22 | 68% | 32% | 18% |
7 |
![]() Henan Jianye |
22 | 59% | 45% | 9% |
8 |
![]() Hebei CFFC |
22 | 59% | 41% | 14% |
9 |
![]() Changchun Yatai |
22 | 59% | 36% | 5% |
10 |
![]() Shanghai Shenhua |
22 | 59% | 32% | 0% |
11 |
![]() Wuhan Zall |
22 | 55% | 27% | 0% |
12 |
![]() Guangzhou R&F |
22 | 50% | 23% | 23% |
13 |
![]() Shenzhen |
22 | 50% | 27% | 14% |
14 |
![]() Shanghai SIPG |
22 | 45% | 23% | 5% |
15 |
![]() Chongqing Dangdai Lifan |
22 | 45% | 23% | 5% |
16 |
![]() Shandong Luneng |
22 | 36% | 18% | 5% |
# | Team | MP | Over 1.5 | Over 2.5 | Over 3.5 |
---|
# | Team | MP | Over 1.5 | Over 2.5 | Over 3.5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Chongqing Dangdai Lifan |
22 | 73% | 45% | 27% |
2 |
![]() Shanghai Shenhua |
22 | 73% | 36% | 18% |
3 |
![]() Shenzhen |
22 | 73% | 45% | 14% |
4 |
![]() Beijing Guoan |
22 | 68% | 45% | 14% |
5 |
![]() Dalian Yifang |
22 | 64% | 32% | 5% |
6 |
![]() Shijiazhuang Ever Bright |
22 | 59% | 23% | 0% |
7 |
![]() Shanghai SIPG |
22 | 59% | 18% | 5% |
8 |
![]() Changchun Yatai |
22 | 59% | 27% | 9% |
9 |
![]() Guangzhou R&F |
22 | 59% | 36% | 5% |
10 |
![]() Tianjin Teda |
22 | 59% | 41% | 14% |
11 |
![]() Guangzhou Evergrande |
22 | 55% | 36% | 14% |
12 |
![]() Henan Jianye |
22 | 55% | 27% | 9% |
13 |
![]() Hebei CFFC |
22 | 55% | 41% | 9% |
14 |
![]() Shandong Luneng |
22 | 55% | 27% | 9% |
15 |
![]() Wuhan Zall |
22 | 50% | 32% | 0% |
16 |
![]() Qingdao Huanghai |
22 | 45% | 23% | 5% |
Check out all the card statistics for Chongqing Dangdai Lifan vs Shanghai Shenhua here. Studying the number of cards a team receives over the course of a match and a season gives a good sense of a team’s level of discipline.
For this match, the card stat situation of both teams is as follows:
Card statistics for Chongqing Dangdai Lifan vs Shanghai Shenhua bring a different angle for analysing the match. It offers a deeper look at the dynamics during their matches and highlights the two club's potential problems when it comes to possibly going a man down.
And if you'd like to learn more about the card averages of these two teams or other clubs in the Liga de China, just check out the table above.
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.