# | Team | MP | Over 3.5 | Over 4.5 | Over 5.5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Créteil |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
2 |
![]() Chambly |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
3 |
![]() Épinal |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
4 |
![]() Furiani-Agliani |
30 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
5 |
![]() Fleury 91 |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
6 |
![]() Beauvais |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
7 |
![]() Wasquehal |
29 | 3% | 3% | 0% |
8 |
![]() Aubervilliers |
29 | 3% | 3% | 3% |
9 |
![]() Haguenau |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
10 |
![]() Chantilly |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
11 |
![]() Biesheim |
29 | 3% | 3% | 0% |
12 |
![]() Feignies-Aulnoye |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
13 |
![]() Bobigny AC |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
14 |
![]() FB Île Rousse |
29 | 7% | 7% | 3% |
15 |
![]() Villers Houlgate CF |
29 | 3% | 3% | 0% |
16 |
![]() Thionville Lusitanos |
30 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
# | Team | MP | Over 1.5 | Over 2.5 | Over 3.5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Créteil |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
2 |
![]() Chambly |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
3 |
![]() Épinal |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
4 |
![]() Furiani-Agliani |
30 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
5 |
![]() Fleury 91 |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
6 |
![]() Beauvais |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
7 |
![]() Wasquehal |
29 | 3% | 3% | 0% |
8 |
![]() Aubervilliers |
29 | 3% | 3% | 3% |
9 |
![]() Haguenau |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
10 |
![]() Chantilly |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
11 |
![]() Biesheim |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
12 |
![]() Feignies-Aulnoye |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
13 |
![]() Bobigny AC |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
14 |
![]() FB Île Rousse |
29 | 7% | 3% | 0% |
15 |
![]() Villers Houlgate CF |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
16 |
![]() Thionville Lusitanos |
30 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
# | Team | MP | Over 1.5 | Over 2.5 | Over 3.5 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Créteil |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
2 |
![]() Chambly |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
3 |
![]() Épinal |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
4 |
![]() Furiani-Agliani |
30 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
5 |
![]() Fleury 91 |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
6 |
![]() Beauvais |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
7 |
![]() Wasquehal |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
8 |
![]() Aubervilliers |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
9 |
![]() Haguenau |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
10 |
![]() Chantilly |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
11 |
![]() Biesheim |
29 | 3% | 3% | 0% |
12 |
![]() Feignies-Aulnoye |
29 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
13 |
![]() Bobigny AC |
29 | 3% | 0% | 0% |
14 |
![]() FB Île Rousse |
29 | 7% | 3% | 3% |
15 |
![]() Villers Houlgate CF |
29 | 3% | 3% | 0% |
16 |
![]() Thionville Lusitanos |
30 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Check out all the card statistics for FB Île Rousse vs Biesheim 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 FB Île Rousse vs Biesheim 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 National 2 Group C, just check out the table above.
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.