# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Shaanxi Union |
25 | 18 | 72% |
2 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
25 | 16 | 64% |
3 |
![]() Dalian Huayi |
25 | 16 | 64% |
4 |
![]() Nanjing City |
25 | 16 | 64% |
5 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
25 | 15 | 60% |
6 |
![]() Shenzhen Juniors |
25 | 15 | 60% |
7 |
![]() Dongguan United |
25 | 14 | 56% |
8 |
![]() Chongqing Tongliang Long |
24 | 14 | 58% |
9 |
![]() Hebei Kungfu |
25 | 13 | 52% |
10 |
![]() Guangxi Baoyun |
25 | 12 | 48% |
11 |
![]() Guangzhou E-Power |
25 | 12 | 48% |
12 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
25 | 10 | 40% |
13 |
![]() Shanghai Jiading |
25 | 9 | 36% |
14 |
![]() Qingdao Red Lions |
25 | 9 | 36% |
15 |
![]() Yanbian Longding |
25 | 9 | 36% |
16 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
24 | 8 | 33% |
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Shaanxi Union |
13 | 10 | 77% |
2 |
![]() Nanjing City |
13 | 9 | 69% |
3 |
![]() Dongguan United |
13 | 9 | 69% |
4 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
12 | 8 | 67% |
5 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
13 | 8 | 62% |
6 |
![]() Dalian Huayi |
12 | 8 | 67% |
7 |
![]() Shenzhen Juniors |
12 | 8 | 67% |
8 |
![]() Guangxi Baoyun |
13 | 7 | 54% |
9 |
![]() Hebei Kungfu |
12 | 7 | 58% |
10 |
![]() Shanghai Jiading |
13 | 6 | 46% |
11 |
![]() Chongqing Tongliang Long |
12 | 6 | 50% |
12 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
13 | 5 | 38% |
13 |
![]() Qingdao Red Lions |
12 | 4 | 33% |
14 |
![]() Yanbian Longding |
13 | 3 | 23% |
15 |
![]() Guangzhou E-Power |
12 | 3 | 25% |
16 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
11 | 2 | 18% |
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|
# | Team | MP | BTTS | BTTS% |
---|---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Guangzhou E-Power |
13 | 9 | 69% |
2 |
![]() Shenyang Urban |
12 | 8 | 67% |
3 |
![]() Dalian Huayi |
13 | 8 | 62% |
4 |
![]() Chongqing Tongliang Long |
12 | 8 | 67% |
5 |
![]() Shaanxi Union |
12 | 8 | 67% |
6 |
![]() Heilongjiang Lava Spring |
13 | 7 | 54% |
7 |
![]() Nanjing City |
12 | 7 | 58% |
8 |
![]() Shenzhen Juniors |
13 | 7 | 54% |
9 |
![]() Suzhou Dongwu |
13 | 6 | 46% |
10 |
![]() Yanbian Longding |
12 | 6 | 50% |
11 |
![]() Hebei Kungfu |
13 | 6 | 46% |
12 |
![]() Nantong Zhiyun |
12 | 5 | 42% |
13 |
![]() Guangxi Baoyun |
12 | 5 | 42% |
14 |
![]() Qingdao Red Lions |
13 | 5 | 38% |
15 |
![]() Dongguan United |
12 | 5 | 42% |
16 |
![]() Shanghai Jiading |
12 | 3 | 25% |
This section shows the statistics on how many times Suzhou Dongwu and Hebei Kungfu 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.