Romania - Liga IData current as of 16 July 2026

Metaloglobus vs UTA Arad: match statistics

Metaloglobus crest
Metaloglobus
2 : 2half-time 1:1
UTA Arad crest
UTA Arad
120%(5.20)
X25%(3.60)
255%(1.64)

UTA Arad displays significantly superior form and quality compared to Metaloglobus, making them the clear favorites for this encounter. The hosts sit 16th in the table with just 2 wins all season, scoring a mere 23 goals while conceding 64. Their home form is disastrous, featuring a 64% loss rate, only 14% wins, and a winless run in their last 5 matches overall. Despite average recent form, UTA Arad boasts considerably better away stats: a 36% away win rate, 10% shot conversion, and an average of 1.21 goals per game. The visitors also lead in xG (1.41 vs 1.32), indicating superior chance creation. Given the vast gap in class and the fact that Metaloglobus loses 50% of their home games without scoring, UTA Arad is expected to secure the victory.

Metaloglobus vs UTA Arad: form, goals and key statistics

Key match information

Metaloglobus play UTA Arad in Liga I (Romania). The match date is 7 March 2026 at 13:30. Final score: 2:2.

Current form

Metaloglobus: 1-3-1, 1.20 points/match. UTA Arad: 2-2-1, 1.60 points/match.

Goal statistics

Metaloglobus scores 0.90 and concedes 2.05 goals per match. UTA Arad scores 1.36 and concedes 1.31. League average: 2.53 goals.

BTTS / Over / Under

BTTS: Metaloglobus 59%, UTA Arad 56%. Over 2.5: Metaloglobus 62%, UTA Arad 46%. League level: BTTS 51%, Over 2.5 46%.

xG, shots and style

UTA Arad has higher xG: 1.54 vs 1.26. Metaloglobus: 10.4 shots per match, UTA Arad: 14.0.

Match halves

Metaloglobus: half-time lead 10%, second-half goals 0.51. UTA Arad: half-time lead 28%, second-half goals 0.74.

Goals by minute

Metaloglobus: 46-60 (10 goals). UTA Arad: 76-90+ (16 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.

League context

Liga I: 2.53 goals per match, BTTS 51%, Over 2.5 46%.

Head-to-head

2 H2H matches: 0-0-2. Average goals 4.00, BTTS 50%.

Match description

UTA Arad displays significantly superior form and quality compared to Metaloglobus, making them the clear favorites for this encounter. The hosts sit 16th in the table with just 2 wins all season, scoring a mere 23 goals while conceding 64. Their home form is disastrous, featuring a 64% loss rate, only 14% wins, and a winless run in their last 5 matches overall. Despite average recent form, UTA Arad boasts considerably better away stats: a 36% away win rate, 10% shot conversion, and an average of 1.21 goals per game. The visitors also lead in xG (1.41 vs 1.32), indicating superior chance creation. Given the vast gap in class and the fact that Metaloglobus loses 50% of their home games without scoring, UTA Arad is expected to secure the victory.

Half-by-half

1 : 1
1st half
1 : 1
2nd half

Match statistics

46Possession (%)54
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
10Shots19
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
3Shots on target4
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
1.22xG1.92
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
7Corners6
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
51Dangerous attacks62
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
9Fouls12
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
3Cards0
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

Pre-match profilewhat do the season numbers say?

This is a team profile based on season data and form. Match-flow statistics are shown only after the fixture is played.

MetaloglobusUTA Arad
0.9Goals scored / match1.36
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
2.05Goals conceded / match1.31
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
46%Average possession46%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
3.46Shots on target / match4.46
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

Team statswho is more efficient?

Attack and defence comparison for both teams in the current season.

10.44Shots per match14.03
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
3.46Shots on target4.46
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
8.6%Shot conversion9.7%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
46%Possession46%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
1.26xG for1.54
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
1.96xG against1.5
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

Shooting quality

Metaloglobus: BalancedUTA Arad: Attacking
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
Accuracy (shots on target)33%32%
Chance quality (xG per shot)0.120.11
Finishing (goals per shot on target)0.260.30

xG per shot around 0.08 usually means long-range attempts; 0.15+ usually means box chances. The style label comes from possession, shot volume and conversion.

* xG (expected goals) says how many goals a team should score from its chances. If actual goals are above xG, finishing is above average; if below xG, chances are being missed.

Team formwho is in better shape?

Last five matches and season record, overall and split by home and away matches.

UTA Arad is 33% better for: last-5 form.

1.2 pts / match - Metaloglobus · 1.6 pts / match - UTA Arad

Metaloglobus
LDDDW
Season result split
10% W26% R64% P
Season (W-D-L)
4-10-25
0.56 pts / match · goal difference -45
Last 5 (W-D-L)
1-3-1
1.20 pts / match
Record at home (W-D-L)
3-6-10
Last 5 at home
1-3-1
DWLDD
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 1.6Goals conceded: 1.6xG: 1.36Opponent xG: 2.29BTTS: 80%Over 2.5: 60%
UTA Arad
LDDWW
Season result split
41% W31% R28% P
Season (W-D-L)
16-12-11
1.54 pts / match · goal difference +2
Last 5 (W-D-L)
2-2-1
1.60 pts / match
Record away (W-D-L)
6-7-6
Last 5 away
1-2-2
DLLDW
Last 5 matches - averages
Goals scored: 0.6Goals conceded: 0.4xG: 1.74Opponent xG: 1.32BTTS: 20%Over 2.5: 0%

Goalshow do both teams score and concede?

How many goals both teams score and concede, plus how often they keep a clean sheet or fail to score.

UTA Arad is 51% better for: goals scored per match.

0.9 goals / match - Metaloglobus · 1.36 goals / match - UTA Arad

UTA Arad is 56% better for: goals conceded per match.

2.05 goals / match - Metaloglobus · 1.31 goals / match - UTA Arad

Metaloglobus scoring profile: strong

Metaloglobus scores in 64% of matches (25 of 39 matches), while UTA Arad keeps a clean sheet in 23% (9 of 39 matches).

UTA Arad scoring profile: very strong

UTA Arad scores in 74% of matches (29 of 39 matches), while Metaloglobus keeps a clean sheet in 10% (4 of 39 matches).

35Goals scored (season)53
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
80Goals conceded (season)51
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
2.95Average goals in match2.67
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
8Goals scored (last 5)3
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
8Goals conceded (last 5)2
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

How often they score at least...

64%1 goal74%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
26%2 goals41%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
0%3 goals15%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
0%4 goals3%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

How often they concede at least...

90%1 goal77%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
64%2 goals33%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
31%3 goals13%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
18%4 goals8%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

* Statistics include both teams' home and away matches in the current season.

Both teams scored (BTTS)how often do both teams score?

How often both teams' matches have goals on both sides, compared with the league average.

51%
League average

Goal patterns

23%BTTS at half-time26%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
13%BTTS in both halves5%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
13%Scored in both halves31%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

BTTS and goal count

51%Min. 3 goals and BTTS41%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
10%Min. 3 goals without BTTS5%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
80%BTTS - last 520%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

Goal count (Over/Under)how often do these matches cross the goal lines?

How often matches involving these teams clear goal thresholds, in the full match and in each half.

1st half

79%Min. 1 goal before half-time69%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
46%Min. 2 goals before half-time41%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
15%Min. 3 goals before half-time8%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

2nd half

74%Min. 1 goal after half-time85%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
51%Min. 2 goals after half-time38%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
18%Min. 3 goals after half-time13%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

Match halveswhen do the teams score more often?

How teams split performance between first and second half: goals, points, clean sheets and half-time state.

UTA Arad is 99% better for: first-half form (half-time points).

0.67 pts / match - Metaloglobus · 1.33 pts / match - UTA Arad

Metaloglobus - half-time state
10% leading36% draw54% trailing
UTA Arad - half-time state
28% leading49% draw23% trailing

Before half-time (1st half)

0.67Points per match (1st half)1.33
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
0.38Goals scored (1st half)0.62
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
1.03Goals conceded (1st half)0.64
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
1.41Average goals (1st half)1.26
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
31%Clean sheet before half-time56%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
67%No goal before half-time49%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

After half-time (2nd half)

0.92Points per match (2nd half)1.44
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
0.51Goals scored (2nd half)0.74
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
1.03Goals conceded (2nd half)0.67
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
1.54Average goals (2nd half)1.41
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
41%Clean sheet after half-time46%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad
56%No goal after half-time46%
MetaloglobusUTA Arad

Metaloglobus - second-half results

18% W38% R44% P
26
Half-time points
15
Half-time goals
-25
Goal difference (1st half)
36
Second-half points
-20
Goal difference (2nd half)
0.67
PPG before half-time
Lead holding100%

Leads at half-time in 10% of matches and wins 10%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.

Defence after half-time0.0

Defence stays stable across the full match.

UTA Arad - second-half results

38% W28% R33% P
52
Half-time points
24
Half-time goals
-1
Goal difference (1st half)
56
Second-half points
+3
Goal difference (2nd half)
1.33
PPG before half-time
Lead holding146%

Leads at half-time in 28% of matches and wins 41%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.

Defence after half-time+0.0

Defence stays stable across the full match.

Metaloglobus - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match1.201.40
Goals scored / match0.80.8
Goals conceded / match0.61.0
Average goals in match1.41.8
1 goal80%100%
2 goals60%60%
3 goals0%20%
Clean sheet40%40%
No goal40%20%
Goal difference+1-1
Half-time: 20% leading - 60% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 40% won - 20% draw - 40% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 40% - Half-time goals total: 4
UTA Arad - last 5 matches by half
1st half2nd half
Points per match1.201.60
Goals scored / match0.20.4
Goals conceded / match0.20.2
Average goals in match0.40.6
1 goal40%60%
2 goals0%0%
3 goals0%0%
Clean sheet80%80%
No goal80%60%
Goal difference0+1
Half-time: 20% leading - 60% draw - 20% trailing
2nd half: 40% won - 40% draw - 20% lost
BTTS at half-time (last 5): 0% - Half-time goals total: 1

* Colours in tables show event frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate, red is rare. It is frequency, not a team rating.

Goals by minutewhen do goals arrive?

Match phases in which both teams most often score and concede.

Metaloglobus
ScoredConceded
7
12
0-15
4
14
16-30
4
14
31-45
10
7
46-60
4
14
61-75
6
19
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 46-60 (10 goli). Concedes most in 76-90 (19). Late-goal balance (76-90): -13 - late phases are a weakness.

UTA Arad
ScoredConceded
8
8
0-15
7
7
16-30
9
10
31-45
5
8
46-60
8
7
61-75
16
11
76-90

Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (16 goli). Concedes most in 76-90 (11). Late-goal balance (76-90): +5 - wins late phases.

* Buckets 31-45 and 76-90 include added-time goals.

Additional team indicatorswhat do xG, efficiency and form show?

A comparison of chance quality, results and trends based on completed matches from the current season.

Match profile

2.81
Estimated goals
attack vs opponent defence
1.1 : 1.7
Estimated goal split
home : away
111%
Pace vs league
100% = league average
58%
Both teams scored (BTTS)
average from both teams' seasons
+42%
Derby effect
H2H goals vs typical matches
47%
BTTS estimate
from both teams' scoring frequency
9%
0:0 risk
about 1 in 11 matches
0-1
Most common goal range
attack vs defence on both sides

Metaloglobus

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
-0.70
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
-0.45
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
+3.2 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.36
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
-0.09
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
63%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
188%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
+0.64
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.1
Late goals
17% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 20% come in the first quarter-hour.
17%

UTA Arad

Net xG balance
Difference between the quality of chances created and allowed per match.
+0.04
Results compared with xG
Difference between the actual goal balance and the balance suggested by xG.
+0.01
Points compared with goal balance
Comparison between collected points and the points implied by the team's goal balance.
-0.7 pts
Finishing efficiency
Does the team convert chances? Positive means it scores more than the quality of chances suggests.
-0.18
Defensive efficiency
Does the defence or goalkeeper save the team? Positive means it concedes less than the chances allowed suggest.
+0.19
Attack vs league
How much the team scores compared with the league average for this role. 120% means 20% above average.
125%
Defence vs league
How much the team concedes compared with the league average. 80% means 20% fewer goals conceded.
91%
Form trend
Compares points from the last 5 matches with the whole-season average.
+0.06
Stronger second half?
How many more goals the team scores after half-time than before it.
+0.1
Late goals
30% of this team's goals come in minutes 76-90. For comparison, 15% come in the first quarter-hour.
30%

* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range are calculated from public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical match profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed matches from the season.

League contextis this a high-scoring league?

How both teams compare with league-wide averages (Liga I).

Teams vs league

MetaloglobusLigaUTA Arad
Average goals in match 2.952.53 2.67
Both teams scored 59%51% 56%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) 62%46% 46%
Clean sheets 10%28% 23%
Goal before half-time 79%67% 69%
Goal after half-time 74%76% 85%

^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.

2.53
Average goals per match
51%
Both teams scored
46%
Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5)
28%
Clean sheets
1.44
Home goals / match
1.09
Away goals / match
+32%
Home attack advantage
+24%
Home defence advantage
+15%
Total home advantage
Goals in 1st half (whole league)
67%
1 goal
34%
2 goals
12%
3 goals
3%
4 goals
Goals in 2nd half (whole league)
76%
1 goal
43%
2 goals
15%
3 goals
3%
4 goals

Head-to-head

Recent meetings (2): Metaloglobus 0 - 0 - 2 UTA Arad. Average goals 4.00, both teams scored in 50% matches.

AFC UTA Arad
5 : 1
CS Metaloglobus Bucureşti
AFC UTA Arad
2 : 0
CS Metaloglobus Bucureşti

FAQ

What was the result of Metaloglobus vs UTA Arad?

The Liga I match finished Metaloglobus 2:2 UTA Arad. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.

What is the head-to-head record between Metaloglobus and UTA Arad?

In the last 2 head-to-head matches Metaloglobus won 0, UTA Arad won 2 and 0 ended level. These games averaged 4.00 goals, with both teams scoring in 50% of them.

What do the goal statistics show before Metaloglobus vs UTA Arad?

Metaloglobus score 0.90 goals per game on average and UTA Arad 1.36. The Liga I average is 2.53 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 46% of games. Both teams score in 59% of Metaloglobus's matches and 56% of UTA Arad's.

What form are Metaloglobus and UTA Arad in?

Over the last 5 games Metaloglobus have a 1-3-1 record (1.20 points per game) and UTA Arad 2-2-1 (1.60 points per game).

Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Metaloglobus vs UTA Arad?

Here you can check the pre-match numbers for Metaloglobus vs UTA Arad: form, H2H, goals and Over/Under. The pick itself, value and reasoning are published in the NoFluffPicks app.