# | Team | MP | Clean Sheet | Overall |
---|
# | Team | MP | Clean Sheet | Overall |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Changchun Yatai |
15 | 8 | 53% |
2 |
![]() Kunshan |
15 | 8 | 53% |
3 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
17 | 7 | 41% |
4 |
![]() Hangzhou |
15 | 6 | 40% |
5 |
![]() Chengdu Better City FC |
15 | 6 | 40% |
6 |
![]() Meizhou Hakka |
15 | 5 | 33% |
7 |
![]() Shaanxi Chang'an |
15 | 5 | 33% |
8 |
![]() Taizhou Yuanda |
15 | 5 | 33% |
9 |
![]() Beijing Renhe |
17 | 4 | 24% |
10 |
![]() Guizhou Zhicheng |
15 | 4 | 27% |
11 |
![]() Beijing BG |
15 | 4 | 27% |
12 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
15 | 4 | 27% |
13 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
15 | 4 | 27% |
14 |
![]() Sichuan Jiuniu |
15 | 4 | 27% |
15 |
![]() Xinjiang Tianshan |
17 | 3 | 18% |
16 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
15 | 3 | 20% |
17 |
![]() Nei Mongol Zhongyou |
15 | 2 | 13% |
18 |
![]() Jiangxi Liansheng |
17 | 1 | 6% |
# | Team | MP | Clean Sheet | Home |
---|
# | Team | MP | Clean Sheet | Home |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Hangzhou |
7 | 4 | 57% |
2 |
![]() Changchun Yatai |
8 | 4 | 50% |
3 |
![]() Beijing BG |
8 | 4 | 50% |
4 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
9 | 4 | 44% |
5 |
![]() Taizhou Yuanda |
8 | 3 | 38% |
6 |
![]() Chengdu Better City FC |
8 | 3 | 38% |
7 |
![]() Guizhou Zhicheng |
7 | 2 | 29% |
8 |
![]() Meizhou Hakka |
7 | 2 | 29% |
9 |
![]() Shaanxi Chang'an |
7 | 2 | 29% |
10 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
8 | 2 | 25% |
11 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
8 | 2 | 25% |
12 |
![]() Sichuan Jiuniu |
7 | 2 | 29% |
13 |
![]() Kunshan |
7 | 2 | 29% |
14 |
![]() Beijing Renhe |
8 | 1 | 13% |
15 |
![]() Xinjiang Tianshan |
9 | 1 | 11% |
16 |
![]() Nei Mongol Zhongyou |
7 | 1 | 14% |
17 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
8 | 1 | 13% |
18 |
![]() Jiangxi Liansheng |
8 | 0 | 0% |
# | Team | MP | Clean Sheet | Away |
---|
# | Team | MP | Clean Sheet | Away |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Kunshan |
8 | 6 | 75% |
2 |
![]() Changchun Yatai |
7 | 4 | 57% |
3 |
![]() Beijing Renhe |
9 | 3 | 33% |
4 |
![]() Meizhou Hakka |
8 | 3 | 38% |
5 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
8 | 3 | 38% |
6 |
![]() Shaanxi Chang'an |
8 | 3 | 38% |
7 |
![]() Chengdu Better City FC |
7 | 3 | 43% |
8 |
![]() Hangzhou |
8 | 2 | 25% |
9 |
![]() Guizhou Zhicheng |
8 | 2 | 25% |
10 |
![]() Xinjiang Tianshan |
8 | 2 | 25% |
11 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
7 | 2 | 29% |
12 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
7 | 2 | 29% |
13 |
![]() Taizhou Yuanda |
7 | 2 | 29% |
14 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
7 | 2 | 29% |
15 |
![]() Sichuan Jiuniu |
8 | 2 | 25% |
16 |
![]() Nei Mongol Zhongyou |
8 | 1 | 13% |
17 |
![]() Jiangxi Liansheng |
9 | 1 | 11% |
18 |
![]() Beijing BG |
7 | 0 | 0% |
The number of clean sheets, or matches a team has without conceding a single goal, in a competition is a strong indicator of how well their defence is playing. The more times a team can completely keep their opponents from scoring, the more likely it is the team’s actual ability rather than just random chance.
We keep track of all the clean sheet information here, and these are the stats for Heilongjiang Lava Spring vs Xinjiang Tianshan:
If both clubs have a high rate of keeping clean sheets, then there’s a decent chance of seeing a low-scoring battle between two strong defensive clubs. But for matches between clubs with low rates of clean sheets, then it’s fair to expect a goal or two.
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.