🎯

Fixture360 only lists fixtures from a curated set of leagues, chosen specifically to keep our prediction model accurate.

📋

Poisson model rates Al-Hazm at 46%, yet other data sources diverge — this Al-Hazm vs Al Riyadh fixture contains genuine analytical tension.

✍️ Match Preview

Analysis

Al Riyadh make the trip to Al-Hazem Club Stadium to face Al-Hazm in Pro League, Regular Season - 29. The match kicks off on Friday 24 April 2026 at 17:10 UTC.

Form

Al-Hazm (all games): 4W 2D 4L across 10 Pro League fixtures this term — 1.40 PPG. Last five: W L W L W. They are averaging 1.20 goals per game and conceding 1.40 — a modest attacking output that tempers optimism on the Over 2.5 market. 1 clean sheet from 10 outings provides some defensive foundation. Both teams have scored in 60% of their games — a high BTTS rate that carries real weight in the goals markets.

Al-Hazm's home record at Al-Hazem Club Stadium: 6W 1D 3L from 10 Pro League appearances (1.90 PPG). At home they are averaging 1.70 goals scored and 1.80 conceded per game. Both teams have scored in 80% of their home games — an outstanding BTTS rate that is a key data point for this fixture. Their home PPG of 1.90 is noticeably stronger than their overall 1.40 — Al-Hazm are significantly better at Al-Hazem Club Stadium than their overall form suggests.

Al Riyadh's overall Pro League record this term: 3W 2D 5L from 10 games (1.10 PPG). Last five: L L W D W. Their scoring rate of 1.10 per game is modest, conceding 1.40 — not a side to back heavily on the Over 2.5 from their form alone. 1 clean sheet from 10 outings suggests some defensive organisation.

Al Riyadh's form when playing away from home: 2W 2D 6L across 10 road games this term (0.80 PPG). Away from home they average 1.10 goals scored and 2.10 conceded per game. BTTS has landed in 60% of their away games — meaningful support for the Yes angle in this specific context.

A near-identical PPG reading — 1.40 for Al-Hazm, 1.10 for Al Riyadh — means the form record is uninstructive on result selection. The goals and market sections will carry greater evidential weight.

In terms of goals, both squads have been finding the net consistently (using home/away splits) — Al-Hazm have seen both teams score in 80% of their games, Al Riyadh in 60%. That combined rate is a strong statistical case for BTTS Yes as a standalone play.

H2H History

Form and model data should carry more weight here — the historical record is too balanced to provide a directional steer. From 3 meetings: Al-Hazm 1W, Al Riyadh 0W, 2D.

Historically, goals have been at a premium in this fixture — just 1.7 per game from 3 meetings. The Under 2.5 has a clear base rate from the H2H record alone. The most recent clash, on 29 Dec 2025, ended 2–1 with Al-Hazm winning.

With a balanced win record and just 1.7 goals per game historically, the H2H points toward a tight, low-scoring contest. Under 2.5 goals has the strongest statistical grounding from the fixture history regardless of which side wins.

Trading & In-Play

Al-Hazm — key trading statistics (28 games, 14 at home): they score before half-time in 50% of fixtures in home games; when goalless at HT, a second-half goal follows 85% of the time; two or more arrive in the second half on 69% of those occasions; BTTS occurs in 64% of their matches (home games); Over 2.5 goals lands in 64% of games (home games); they fail to score in 36% of games.

Al Riyadh — key trading statistics (28 games, 14 at away): they score before half-time in 86% of fixtures in away games; when goalless at HT, a second-half goal follows 100% of the time; two or more arrive in the second half on 50% of those occasions; BTTS occurs in 64% of their matches (away games); Over 2.5 goals lands in 64% of games (away games); Over 3.5 in 36%.

From a combined perspective, both sides have high BTTS rates — Al-Hazm 61% and Al Riyadh 68% — which reinforces the BTTS Yes angle from in-play data. The over/under 2.5 picture is inconclusive from the in-play data (Al-Hazm 61% | Al Riyadh 50%).

Poisson Model

The Poisson distribution model projects Al-Hazm 1.80 xG and Al Riyadh 1.47 xG. These expected goals figures are the primary input: they feed a goal-probability matrix across all scoreline combinations to derive the result and market probabilities below. Underlying strength ratings: Al-Hazm attack 0.917 / defence 1.200 | Al Riyadh attack 0.882 / defence 1.256. League average goals — home 1.565 / away 1.390. Al Riyadh bring a strong defensive rating of 1.256 — this is suppressing Al-Hazm's projected output below what their attack strength alone would suggest. Data: 28 Al-Hazm games / 62 Al Riyadh games used (CurrentSeason).

Result probabilities: Al-Hazm 46% | Draw 23% | Al Riyadh 32%. Fair-value odds: Al-Hazm 2.17 | Draw 4.35 | Al Riyadh 3.12. Al-Hazm hold a narrow Poisson edge at 46% — the draw (23%) is close enough to merit draw-inclusive market consideration.

Goals markets: Over 2.5 probability 63% | BTTS probability 64% | Total xG 3.27. Over 2.5 holds a meaningful probability edge at 63% — the 3.27 total xG provides moderate support, though the model is not projecting a high-scoring game. BTTS Yes at 64% reflects that both xG figures (1.80 / 1.47) are above the threshold where scoring blanks become the primary outcome — both sides are projected to find the net.

Picks & Verdict

On the Poisson output, Al-Hazm are the pick at 46% — moderate model lean. Draw probability of 23% warrants consideration of Double Chance or Draw No Bet on Al-Hazm if the outright odds are short. The opposing side holds a 32% win probability per the model — this is not a banker and should be staked accordingly.

The Poisson model projects 3.27 xG in total — Over 2.5 at 63% — marginal — conflicting signals confidence, supported by form averaging 3.4 goals per game — though H2H averaging only 1.7 goals per meeting points in the other direction.

Poisson assigns a 64% probability to BTTS Yes based on the attack/defence strength model. Form rates corroborate: Al-Hazm 80% | Al Riyadh 60% BTTS from recent games.

The outsider holds a 32% win probability per the model — this is not a banker and should not be treated as one. Proportionate stakes are appropriate given the genuine contest the data projects.

🔮 Your Prediction

Sign in to submit your prediction and see how it compares to the rest of the community.

💡 Key Insights