FA Cup — Form Table
China · 2026/27
Combined Form Table — Last 7
| # ▴ | Club | MP | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Form | PPG | CS | FTS | BTTS | GF/g | 1.5+ | 2.5+ | AVG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Rizhao Yuqi | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 10 | 6 | +4 | 10 | WWDWL | 2.00 | 20% | 0% | 80% | 2.00 | 100% | 60% | 3.20 | |
| 2 |  Beijing Guoan | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 3 | +4 | 9 | WWW | 3.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.33 | 100% | 100% | 3.33 | |
| 3 |  Dalian Kewei | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 3 | +3 | 9 | WWWL | 2.25 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 1.50 | 75% | 50% | 2.25 | |
| 4 |  SHANGHAI SIPG | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 2 | +4 | 7 | WDW | 2.33 | 33% | 0% | 67% | 2.00 | 100% | 67% | 2.67 | |
| 5 |  Yunnan Yukun | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 8 | 5 | +3 | 7 | WDW | 2.33 | 33% | 0% | 67% | 2.67 | 67% | 67% | 4.33 | |
| 6 |  Langfang Glory City | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 1 | +3 | 7 | WWD | 2.33 | 67% | 0% | 33% | 1.33 | 67% | 0% | 1.67 | |
| 7 |  Qingdao Red Lions | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 7 | WWD | 2.33 | 100% | 33% | 0% | 0.67 | 0% | 0% | 0.67 | |
| 8 |  Jiangxi Liansheng | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 2 | +7 | 6 | WWL | 2.00 | 67% | 33% | 0% | 3.00 | 100% | 33% | 3.67 | |
| 9 |  Shanghai Shenhua | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 2 | +4 | 6 | WWL | 2.00 | 33% | 33% | 33% | 2.00 | 67% | 33% | 2.67 | |
| 10 |  Chongqing Tongliang Long | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 1 | +3 | 6 | WWL | 2.00 | 67% | 33% | 0% | 1.33 | 67% | 0% | 1.67 | |
| 11 |  Shanghai Second | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | +1 | 6 | WWL | 2.00 | 67% | 0% | 33% | 1.00 | 33% | 33% | 1.67 | |
| 12 |  Shanghai Zetian | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 6 | WWL | 2.00 | 0% | 33% | 67% | 2.67 | 100% | 100% | 5.33 | |
| 13 |  Xi'an Ronghai | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 4 | 2 | +2 | 5 | WDD | 1.67 | 33% | 0% | 67% | 1.33 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 14 |  Dalian Zhixing | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 2 | +1 | 5 | DDW | 1.67 | 33% | 0% | 67% | 1.00 | 67% | 0% | 1.67 | |
| 15 |  Chengdu Better City | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 3 | +4 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 3.50 | 100% | 100% | 5.00 | |
| 16 |  Shandong Luneng | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 5 | +2 | 4 | WDL | 1.33 | 33% | 33% | 33% | 2.33 | 100% | 100% | 4.00 | |
| 17 |  Wuxi Wugou | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | +2 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 2.00 | 100% | 50% | 3.00 | |
| 18 |  Sichuan Jiuniu | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | +2 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 50% | 3.00 | |
| 19 |  Henan Jianye | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 1 | +2 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 1.50 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 20 |  Guizhou Xufengtang | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 50% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 1.50 | |
| 21 |  Shaanxi Union | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 4 | WDL | 1.33 | 33% | 33% | 33% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 22 |  Ningbo Professional | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | +1 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 0% | 50% | 50% | 2.00 | 100% | 50% | 3.50 | |
| 23 |  Suzhou Dongwu | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 2.00 | 100% | 50% | 4.00 | |
| 24 |  Beijing Pengrui | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 0% | 50% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 2.00 | |
| 25 |  Guangzhou E-Power | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 2.00 | |
| 26 |  Yulin Miners | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 27 |  Wuhan Lianzhen | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 0.50 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 28 |  Guangxi Hengchen | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 5 | -1 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 4.50 | |
| 29 |  Shenzhen Juniors | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | -1 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 2.50 | |
| 30 |  Shenzhen 2028 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 0.50 | 50% | 0% | 1.50 | |
| 31 |  Wuhan Three Towns | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DD | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 2.00 | |
| 32 |  Tianjin Teda | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 33 |  BIT | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 34 |  Changchun Yatai | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 35 |  Hangzhou Greentown | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 36 |  Nantong Haimen Codion | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 0.00 | |
| 37 |  Yunnan Cuanhe | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 0.00 | |
| 38 |  Qingdao Youth Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | -2 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 0% | 50% | 50% | 0.50 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 39 |  Guangzhou Dandelion | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 50% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 40 |  Hebei Kungfu | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 50% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 41 |  Qingdao Jonoon | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | -3 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.50 | 100% | 100% | 4.50 | |
| 42 |  Liaocheng Legend | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | -3 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 50% | 3.50 | |
| 43 |  Hubei Chufeng Heli | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | -4 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 50% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 50% | 50% | 2.00 | |
| 44 |  Nantong Zhiyun | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 45 |  Tai'an Tiankuang | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 46 |  Guizhou Zhucheng | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 47 |  Meizhou Kejia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 48 |  Xiamen Feilu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 49 |  Shenyang Urban | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 50 |  Nanjing City | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 51 |  Guangdong Mingtu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 52 |  Dongguan United | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 53 |  Xiamen Chengyi | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 54 |  Yanbian Longding | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 55 |  Chongqing Handa | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 56 |  Heilongjiang Lava Spring | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 6.00 | |
| 57 |  Changchun Xidu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 6.00 | |
| 58 |  Dalian Huayi | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 59 |  Yichun Grand Tiger | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 60 |  Ningxia Pingluo | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 61 |  Qingdao Fuli | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 62 |  Shangyu Pterosaur | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 63 |  Guangdong Shudihong | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | -3 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 5.00 | |
| 64 |  Fujian Quanzhou Qinggong | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | -7 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 100% | 7.00 |
MP = Matches Played · W = Wins · D = Draws · L = Losses · GF = Goals For · GA = Goals Against · GD = Goal Difference · Pts = Points · Form = Last 5 results · PPG = Points Per Game · CS = Clean Sheets % · FTS = Failed to Score · BTTS = Both Teams To Score % · GF/g = Goals scored per game · 1.5+ = Over 1.5 Goals % · 2.5+ = Over 2.5 Goals % · AVG = Average total goals per game
Who Is in the Best Form in the Last 7 Games?
Beijing Guoan leads the form table with 100% wins and 3.00 PPG in the last 7 games.
SHANGHAI SIPG is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 games, with a win rate of 67% and 2.33 PPG.
Yunnan Yukun is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 games, with a win rate of 67% and 2.33 PPG.
Fujian Quanzhou Qinggong is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 games with a win rate of 0% and 0.00 PPG.
Guangdong Shudihong is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 games with a win rate of 0% and 0.00 PPG.
Shangyu Pterosaur has the worst form over the last 7 games with just 0% wins and only 0.00 PPG.
- •The FA Cup (China) Last 7 Games Form Table covers 64 teams, each having played a maximum of 7 recent games.
- •Win rate across the FA Cup in this period is 38%
- •Teams score an average of 1.27 goals per game and concede 1.27 — a combined 2.55 total goals per match, making Over 2.5 the statistically favoured outcome.
- •BTTS occurs in 43% of recent matches, while FTS (at least one team fails to score) is recorded in 32% of games.
FA Cup (China) Last 7 Games — Form Table Insights
Beijing Guoan, SHANGHAI SIPG and Yunnan Yukun have been the standout performers in the FA Cup (China) over the last 7 games, leading the form table with 3.00, 2.33 and 2.33 PPG respectively. Across the FA Cup, teams score an average of 1.27 goals and concede 1.27 per game — a combined 2.55 total goals, making Over 2.5 the most common outcome. BTTS has occurred in 43% of fixtures while 32% ended in FTS for at least one side.
On the other end, Fujian Quanzhou Qinggong and Guangdong Shudihong have struggled in recent games, collecting just 0.00 and 0.00 PPG respectively. Their FTS rate suggests attacking output remains a concern heading into upcoming fixtures in the FA Cup.
Home Form Table — Last 7
| # ▴ | Club | MP | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Form | PPG | CS | FTS | BTTS | GF/g | 1.5+ | 2.5+ | AVG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Dalian Kewei | 4 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 6 | 3 | +3 | 9 | WWWL | 2.25 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 1.50 | 75% | 50% | 2.25 | |
| 2 | Rizhao Yuqi | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5 | 2 | +3 | 7 | WDW | 2.33 | 33% | 0% | 67% | 1.67 | 100% | 33% | 2.33 | |
| 3 | Shanghai Second | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | +1 | 6 | WWL | 2.00 | 67% | 0% | 33% | 1.00 | 33% | 33% | 1.67 | |
| 4 | Shanghai Zetian | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 6 | WWL | 2.00 | 0% | 33% | 67% | 2.67 | 100% | 100% | 5.33 | |
| 5 | Yunnan Yukun | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | +1 | 4 | DW | 2.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 2.00 | 50% | 50% | 3.50 | |
| 6 | Guizhou Xufengtang | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 50% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 1.50 | |
| 7 | Langfang Glory City | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 0% | 1.50 | |
| 8 | Qingdao Red Lions | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +1 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 100% | 50% | 0% | 0.50 | 0% | 0% | 0.50 | |
| 9 | Shanghai Shenhua | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | +3 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4.00 | 100% | 100% | 5.00 | |
| 10 | Beijing Guoan | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 3.00 | 100% | 100% | 4.00 | |
| 11 | Chongqing Tongliang Long | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 2.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 12 | Dalian Zhixing | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +1 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 13 | Beijing Pengrui | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 0% | 50% | 50% | 1.00 | 50% | 50% | 2.00 | |
| 14 | Jiangxi Liansheng | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 15 | Yulin Miners | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 16 | Wuhan Lianzhen | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 0.50 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 17 | Xi'an Ronghai | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DD | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 18 | Wuxi Wugou | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 4.00 | |
| 19 | Wuhan Three Towns | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 4.00 | |
| 20 | Shaanxi Union | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 21 | SHANGHAI SIPG | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 22 | Henan Jianye | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 23 | Yunnan Cuanhe | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 0.00 | |
| 24 | Liaocheng Legend | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | -3 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 50% | 3.50 | |
| 25 | Hubei Chufeng Heli | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | -4 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 50% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 50% | 50% | 2.00 | |
| 26 | Guangzhou E-Power | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 27 | Xiamen Chengyi | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 28 | Chongqing Handa | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 29 | Suzhou Dongwu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 6.00 | |
| 30 | Shenzhen Juniors | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 4.00 | |
| 31 | Ningxia Pingluo | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 32 | Hebei Kungfu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 33 | Guangzhou Dandelion | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 34 | Shenzhen 2028 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 35 | Ningbo Professional | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 36 | Qingdao Fuli | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 37 | Guangdong Shudihong | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | -3 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 5.00 | |
| 38 | Shandong Luneng | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | -3 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 39 | Guangxi Hengchen | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5 | -5 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 100% | 5.00 | |
| 40 | Fujian Quanzhou Qinggong | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 7 | -7 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 100% | 7.00 |
MP = Matches Played · W = Wins · D = Draws · L = Losses · GF = Goals For · GA = Goals Against · GD = Goal Difference · Pts = Points · Form = Last 5 results · PPG = Points Per Game · CS = Clean Sheets % · FTS = Failed to Score · BTTS = Both Teams To Score % · GF/g = Goals scored per game · 1.5+ = Over 1.5 Goals % · 2.5+ = Over 2.5 Goals % · AVG = Average total goals per game
Which Teams Have The Best And Worst Home Forms? (Last 7 Home Games)
Shanghai Shenhua leads the form table with 100% wins and 3.00 PPG in the last 7 home games.
Beijing Guoan is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 home games, with a win rate of 100% and 3.00 PPG.
Chongqing Tongliang Long is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 home games, with a win rate of 100% and 3.00 PPG.
Fujian Quanzhou Qinggong is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 home games with a win rate of 0% and 0.00 PPG.
Guangxi Hengchen is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 home games with a win rate of 0% and 0.00 PPG.
Shandong Luneng has the worst form over the last 7 home games with just 0% wins and only 0.00 PPG.
- •The FA Cup (China) Home Form Table (Last 7) covers 40 teams, each having played a maximum of 7 recent home games.
- •Win rate across the FA Cup in this period is 35%
- •Teams score an average of 1.07 goals per game and concede 1.48 — a combined 2.55 total goals per match, making Over 2.5 the statistically favoured outcome.
- •BTTS occurs in 43% of recent matches, while FTS (at least one team fails to score) is recorded in 35% of games.
FA Cup (China) — Home Form Table Insights (Last 7 Home Games)
Shanghai Shenhua, Beijing Guoan and Chongqing Tongliang Long have been the standout performers in the FA Cup (China) over the last 7 home games, leading the form table with 3.00, 3.00 and 3.00 PPG respectively. Across the FA Cup, teams score an average of 1.07 goals and concede 1.48 per game — a combined 2.55 total goals, making Over 2.5 the most common outcome. BTTS has occurred in 43% of fixtures while 35% ended in FTS for at least one side.
On the other end, Fujian Quanzhou Qinggong and Guangxi Hengchen have struggled in recent home games, collecting just 0.00 and 0.00 PPG respectively. Their FTS rate suggests attacking output remains a concern heading into upcoming fixtures in the FA Cup.
Away Form Table — Last 7
| # ▴ | Club | MP | W | D | L | GF | GA | GD | Pts | Form | PPG | CS | FTS | BTTS | GF/g | 1.5+ | 2.5+ | AVG | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SHANGHAI SIPG | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | +4 | 6 | WW | 3.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 2.50 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 2 | Beijing Guoan | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | +2 | 6 | WW | 3.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 3 | Shandong Luneng | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 2 | +5 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 3.50 | 100% | 100% | 4.50 | |
| 4 | Chengdu Better City | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 3 | +4 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 50% | 0% | 50% | 3.50 | 100% | 100% | 5.00 | |
| 5 | Sichuan Jiuniu | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 2 | +2 | 4 | WD | 2.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 50% | 3.00 | |
| 6 | Jiangxi Liansheng | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 0 | +7 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 7.00 | 100% | 100% | 7.00 | |
| 7 | Guangxi Hengchen | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 0 | +4 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 4.00 | 100% | 100% | 4.00 | |
| 8 | Ningbo Professional | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 1 | +3 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4.00 | 100% | 100% | 5.00 | |
| 9 | Yunnan Yukun | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 2 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 4.00 | 100% | 100% | 6.00 | |
| 10 | Xi'an Ronghai | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 2.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 11 | Henan Jianye | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 2.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 12 | Langfang Glory City | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 2.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 13 | Suzhou Dongwu | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 2.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 14 | Wuxi Wugou | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 2.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 15 | Rizhao Yuqi | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 4 | +1 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.50 | 100% | 100% | 4.50 | |
| 16 | Chongqing Tongliang Long | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | 50% | 0% | 1.50 | |
| 17 | Shanghai Shenhua | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 1 | +1 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | 50% | 0% | 1.50 | |
| 18 | Guangzhou E-Power | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +1 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 19 | Shenzhen Juniors | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +1 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 20 | Shenzhen 2028 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +1 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 21 | Qingdao Red Lions | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +1 | 3 | W | 3.00 | 100% | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 22 | Shaanxi Union | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3 | WL | 1.50 | 50% | 50% | 0% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 23 | Dalian Zhixing | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 2 | DD | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 24 | Changchun Yatai | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 25 | Hangzhou Greentown | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 26 | BIT | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 27 | Tianjin Teda | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 28 | Guangzhou Dandelion | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 0.00 | |
| 29 | Nantong Haimen Codion | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 0.00 | |
| 30 | Wuhan Three Towns | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 0.00 | |
| 31 | Hebei Kungfu | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | D | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 0.00 | |
| 32 | Qingdao Youth Island | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | -2 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 0% | 50% | 50% | 0.50 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 33 | Qingdao Jonoon | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 6 | -3 | 1 | DL | 0.50 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.50 | 100% | 100% | 4.50 | |
| 34 | Meizhou Kejia | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 35 | Nantong Zhiyun | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 36 | Guizhou Zhucheng | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 37 | Tai'an Tiankuang | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.00 | 100% | 100% | 3.00 | |
| 38 | Xiamen Feilu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 39 | Nanjing City | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 40 | Yanbian Longding | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 41 | Shenyang Urban | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 42 | Guangdong Mingtu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 43 | Dongguan United | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -1 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 1.00 | |
| 44 | Changchun Xidu | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 6.00 | |
| 45 | Heilongjiang Lava Spring | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 100% | 6.00 | |
| 46 | Dalian Huayi | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 47 | Shangyu Pterosaur | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 | |
| 48 | Yichun Grand Tiger | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 | 0 | L | 0.00 | 0% | 100% | 0% | 0.00 | 100% | 0% | 2.00 |
MP = Matches Played · W = Wins · D = Draws · L = Losses · GF = Goals For · GA = Goals Against · GD = Goal Difference · Pts = Points · Form = Last 5 results · PPG = Points Per Game · CS = Clean Sheets % · FTS = Failed to Score · BTTS = Both Teams To Score % · GF/g = Goals scored per game · 1.5+ = Over 1.5 Goals % · 2.5+ = Over 2.5 Goals % · AVG = Average total goals per game
Which Teams Have The Best And Worst Away Forms? (Last 7 Away Games)
SHANGHAI SIPG leads the form table with 100% wins and 3.00 PPG in the last 7 away games.
Beijing Guoan is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 away games, with a win rate of 100% and 3.00 PPG.
Jiangxi Liansheng is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 away games, with a win rate of 100% and 3.00 PPG.
Yichun Grand Tiger is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 away games with a win rate of 0% and 0.00 PPG.
Shangyu Pterosaur is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 away games with a win rate of 0% and 0.00 PPG.
Dalian Huayi has the worst form over the last 7 away games with just 0% wins and only 0.00 PPG.
- •The FA Cup (China) Away Form Table (Last 7) covers 48 teams, each having played a maximum of 7 recent away games.
- •Win rate across the FA Cup in this period is 40%
- •Teams score an average of 1.48 goals per game and concede 1.07 — a combined 2.55 total goals per match, making Over 2.5 the statistically favoured outcome.
- •BTTS occurs in 43% of recent matches, while FTS (at least one team fails to score) is recorded in 28% of games.
FA Cup (China) — Away Form Table Insights (Last 7 Away Games)
SHANGHAI SIPG, Beijing Guoan and Jiangxi Liansheng have been the standout performers in the FA Cup (China) over the last 7 away games, leading the form table with 3.00, 3.00 and 3.00 PPG respectively. Across the FA Cup, teams score an average of 1.48 goals and concede 1.07 per game — a combined 2.55 total goals, making Over 2.5 the most common outcome. BTTS has occurred in 43% of fixtures while 28% ended in FTS for at least one side.
On the other end, Yichun Grand Tiger and Shangyu Pterosaur have struggled in recent away games, collecting just 0.00 and 0.00 PPG respectively. Their FTS rate suggests attacking output remains a concern heading into upcoming fixtures in the FA Cup.
Form Tables — China
- League One Form Table— Division Gold
- League Two Form Table— Division Pro
- Super Cup Form Table— Division Premium
- Super League Form Table— Division Premium