Mobile
APP
Hong Kong Odds
- Decimal Odds
- Hong Kong Odds
- Indonesian Odds
- American Odds
- Malay Odds
English
- English
Vietnam
Member Ranking
-
1
Samuel onyenachi OdadaFollow90%Win Rate +59.2%ROI 10Tips 1.89Avg Odds -
2
RinoandiFollow83.3%Win Rate +55.5%ROI 12Tips 1.89Avg Odds -
3
343Follow81.8%Win Rate +39.3%ROI 11Tips 1.91Avg Odds -
3
The Touchline | 𝐓Follow81.8%Win Rate +43.5%ROI 11Tips 1.88Avg Odds -
3
ApoorvWon 7/7Follow81.8%Win Rate +42.1%ROI 11Tips 1.84Avg Odds -
6
arpan paulFollow78.6%Win Rate +29.9%ROI 14Tips 1.81Avg Odds
Note: Statistics base on data from last 7 or 30 days
More Ranking
Further Reading
-
Iqbal ahmadAlashkert Armenia had a 58% ball possession rate at home. However, their offensive conversion rate was only 7.1%. They managed only 1 goal from 12 offensive finishes, with an xG value of 1.32, indicating that their offensive efficiency was far below expectations. On the other hand, Riga FC had a 42% ball - possession rate away from home. But they had a 22.2% conversion rate from 9 offensive finishes, and an xG value of 1.41, making efficient use of limited opportunities. The key pass success rate was 78% for Riga FC versus 61% for Alashkert Armenia, and the front - field passing value index was 1.82 vs 1.15, showing Riga FC's more precise offensive organization. Riga FC had a faster midfield passing rhythm, with an average passing time of 2.1 seconds, 0.6 seconds quicker than their opponents. Their fast - break conversion success rate was as high as 67%. They also covered a running distance of 112 kilometers and had 48 high - intensity sprints, leading Alashkert Armenia's 105 kilometerAH
UEFA CL
FC Ararat Armenia
2-0 Riga FC
-
JJ BEDDINGSArarat Yerevan had a 58% ball possession rate at home. However, their offensive conversion rate was only 7.1%. They managed only 1 goal from 12 offensive finishes, with an xG value of 1.32, indicating that their offensive efficiency was far below expectations. On the other hand, Riga FC had a 42% ball possession rate away from home. But their conversion rate from 9 offensive finishes reached 22.2%, with an xG value of 1.41, showing that they made efficient use of limited opportunities. The key pass success rate was 78% for Riga FC compared to 61% for Ararat Yerevan, and the front - field passing value index was 1.82 vs 1.15, suggesting that Riga FC had a more precise offensive organization. Riga FC also had a faster midfield passing rhythm, with an average passing time of 2.1 seconds, 0.6 seconds quicker than their opponents. Their success rate in quick transitions was as high as 67%. In terms of physical performance, Riga FC ran 112 kilometers and had 48 high - intensity sprints, leadAHUEFA CL
FC Ararat Armenia
2-0 Riga FC
-
MourdazioArarat Yerevan holds the home - field advantage. They've had a stable performance in their previous ten home games and have been consistently in the top positions of the league standings. However, in recent friendlies, their rhythm has been slow. They've drawn in two consecutive matches, with a decline in their offensive efficiency in the front - field. There have also been occasional coordination flaws in their defense, and they're prone to exposing defensive gaps when facing high - intensity pressing. The main lineup of the team is intact, but the players are used to slow - paced confrontations, and they have limited ways to deal with high - pressure situations. On the other hand, Riga FC has a higher overall competitive level. They've long been ranked second in the domestic league. In twenty domestic games, there have only been two draws. Out of ten away games, they've only failed to gain an advantage twice. The team has a balanced offense and defense. Several foreign players in theAHUEFA CL
FC Ararat Armenia
2-0 Riga FC
UEFA CL
Comments
All
By Author
Me
Post