# | Team | MP | Scoring First |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Detroit City FC |
18 | 67% |
2 |
![]() California Utd Strikers |
18 | 61% |
3 |
![]() LA Force |
18 | 56% |
4 |
![]() Chicago House |
18 | 50% |
5 |
![]() Michigan Stars |
18 | 44% |
6 |
![]() New Amsterdam |
18 | 44% |
7 |
![]() Maryland Bobcats |
18 | 44% |
8 |
![]() Stumptown Athletic |
18 | 33% |
9 |
![]() Chattanooga FC |
18 | 28% |
10 |
![]() San Diego 1904 |
18 | 22% |
# | Team | MP | Scoring First |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() California Utd Strikers |
9 | 67% |
2 |
![]() Chicago House |
9 | 56% |
3 |
![]() Detroit City FC |
9 | 56% |
4 |
![]() Maryland Bobcats |
9 | 56% |
5 |
![]() Chattanooga FC |
9 | 44% |
6 |
![]() LA Force |
9 | 44% |
7 |
![]() New Amsterdam |
9 | 33% |
8 |
![]() Michigan Stars |
9 | 33% |
9 |
![]() San Diego 1904 |
9 | 22% |
10 |
![]() Stumptown Athletic |
9 | 11% |
# | Team | MP | Scoring First |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Detroit City FC |
9 | 78% |
2 |
![]() LA Force |
9 | 67% |
3 |
![]() Michigan Stars |
9 | 56% |
4 |
![]() New Amsterdam |
9 | 56% |
5 |
![]() Stumptown Athletic |
9 | 56% |
6 |
![]() California Utd Strikers |
9 | 56% |
7 |
![]() Chicago House |
9 | 44% |
8 |
![]() Maryland Bobcats |
9 | 33% |
9 |
![]() San Diego 1904 |
9 | 22% |
10 |
![]() Chattanooga FC |
9 | 11% |
# | Team | MP | Conceding First |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() San Diego 1904 |
18 | 72% |
2 |
![]() Chattanooga FC |
18 | 72% |
3 |
![]() New Amsterdam |
18 | 50% |
4 |
![]() Stumptown Athletic |
18 | 44% |
5 |
![]() Maryland Bobcats |
18 | 44% |
6 |
![]() Chicago House |
18 | 44% |
7 |
![]() Michigan Stars |
18 | 39% |
8 |
![]() California Utd Strikers |
18 | 39% |
9 |
![]() Detroit City FC |
18 | 22% |
10 |
![]() LA Force |
18 | 22% |
# | Team | MP | Conceding First |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Stumptown Athletic |
9 | 67% |
2 |
![]() New Amsterdam |
9 | 67% |
3 |
![]() San Diego 1904 |
9 | 67% |
4 |
![]() Chattanooga FC |
9 | 56% |
5 |
![]() Michigan Stars |
9 | 44% |
6 |
![]() Maryland Bobcats |
9 | 44% |
7 |
![]() Chicago House |
9 | 44% |
8 |
![]() Detroit City FC |
9 | 33% |
9 |
![]() California Utd Strikers |
9 | 33% |
10 |
![]() LA Force |
9 | 22% |
# | Team | MP | Conceding First |
---|---|---|---|
1 |
![]() Chattanooga FC |
9 | 89% |
2 |
![]() San Diego 1904 |
9 | 78% |
3 |
![]() Chicago House |
9 | 44% |
4 |
![]() California Utd Strikers |
9 | 44% |
5 |
![]() Maryland Bobcats |
9 | 44% |
6 |
![]() Michigan Stars |
9 | 33% |
7 |
![]() New Amsterdam |
9 | 33% |
8 |
![]() LA Force |
9 | 22% |
9 |
![]() Stumptown Athletic |
9 | 22% |
10 |
![]() Detroit City FC |
9 | 11% |
This section of the APWin football statistics platform shows the times in which New Amsterdam scored before the opponent as well as the times in which they conceded the first goal of the match in the NISA 2021/2022.
Through this stat, we can see whether New Amsterdam is often the one in charge of matches and gets ahead most of the time, or if they are the ones playing catchup.
In the NISA, New Amsterdam has scored before the opponent in 44% of the games played. On the other hand, the percentage of times they have conceded the first goal is 50%.
This data helps give a clearer view of New Amsterdam’s habits on both offence and defence.
If the percentage of scoring first is high, it likely points to New Amsterdam being the more aggressive of the two sides with more control of the match. And if the percentage of conceding the first goal is higher, then it points to a club that is not among the best and has some defensive deficiencies.
If you want to dive even deeper into this statistic, you can also use the filters to see the score first/concede first rates in home and away games during the season.
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.