National Division — Failed To Score
Luxembourg · 2026/27
Failed To Score
| # | Team | MP | FTS | FTS% | Home% | Away% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Swift Hesperange | 12 | 11 | 92% | 83% | 100% |
| 2 |  Etzella Ettelbruck | 12 | 5 | 42% | 60% | 29% |
| 3 |  F91 Dudelange | 12 | 4 | 33% | 17% | 50% |
| 4 |  US Rumelange | 12 | 4 | 33% | 17% | 50% |
| 5 |  Victoria Rosport | 12 | 4 | 33% | 17% | 50% |
| 6 |  US Hostert | 12 | 4 | 33% | 67% | 0% |
| 7 |  Progres Niederkorn | 12 | 3 | 25% | 33% | 17% |
| 8 |  AS Jeunesse Esch | 12 | 3 | 25% | 40% | 14% |
| 9 |  Résidence Walferdange | 12 | 3 | 25% | 29% | 20% |
| 10 |  Racing FC Union Luxembourg | 12 | 2 | 17% | 0% | 33% |
| 11 |  Wiltz | 12 | 2 | 17% | 17% | 17% |
| 12 |  US Mondorf-les-bains | 12 | 1 | 8% | 0% | 17% |
| 13 |  Atert Bissen | 12 | 1 | 8% | 17% | 0% |
| 14 |  FC Differdange 03 | 12 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 15 |  UN Kaerjeng 97 | 12 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 16 |  UNA Strassen | 12 | 0 | 0% | 0% | 0% |
Home / Failed To Score
| # | Team | MP | FTS | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Swift Hesperange | 6 | 5 | 83% |
| 2 | US Hostert | 6 | 4 | 67% |
| 3 | Etzella Ettelbruck | 5 | 3 | 60% |
| 4 | AS Jeunesse Esch | 5 | 2 | 40% |
| 5 | Progres Niederkorn | 6 | 2 | 33% |
| 6 | Résidence Walferdange | 7 | 2 | 29% |
| 7 | F91 Dudelange | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 8 | US Rumelange | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 9 | Victoria Rosport | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 10 | Wiltz | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 11 | Atert Bissen | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 12 | FC Differdange 03 | 7 | 0 | 0% |
| 13 | Racing FC Union Luxembourg | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 14 | UN Kaerjeng 97 | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 15 | UNA Strassen | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 16 | US Mondorf-les-bains | 6 | 0 | 0% |
Away / Failed To Score
| # | Team | MP | FTS | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Swift Hesperange | 6 | 6 | 100% |
| 2 | F91 Dudelange | 6 | 3 | 50% |
| 3 | US Rumelange | 6 | 3 | 50% |
| 4 | Victoria Rosport | 6 | 3 | 50% |
| 5 | Racing FC Union Luxembourg | 6 | 2 | 33% |
| 6 | Etzella Ettelbruck | 7 | 2 | 29% |
| 7 | Résidence Walferdange | 5 | 1 | 20% |
| 8 | Progres Niederkorn | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 9 | US Mondorf-les-bains | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 10 | Wiltz | 6 | 1 | 17% |
| 11 | AS Jeunesse Esch | 7 | 1 | 14% |
| 12 | FC Differdange 03 | 5 | 0 | 0% |
| 13 | UN Kaerjeng 97 | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 14 | UNA Strassen | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 15 | US Hostert | 6 | 0 | 0% |
| 16 | Atert Bissen | 6 | 0 | 0% |
Which teams fail to score most often?
Swift Hesperange fails to score most often in the league — 92%
Etzella Ettelbruck is #2 for failed-to-score rate — 42%
F91 Dudelange is #3 for failed-to-score rate — 33%
UNA Strassen rarely fails to score — 0%
UN Kaerjeng 97 rarely fails to score — 0%
FC Differdange 03 rarely fails to score — 0%
League Blank Stats
- consists of 16 teams
- League failed-to-score rate: 24%
- Home FTS rate: 24%
- Away FTS rate: 25%
National Division (Luxembourg) — Failed To Score Analysis
In the National Division (Luxembourg), teams fail to score in 49% of matches this season. Swift Hesperange fails to score the most, going blank in 92% of their games (11 matches), with 83% at home and 100% away. UNA Strassen has the most reliable attack, failing to score in only 0% of games.
Betting Angle — Low-Scoring Markets
A high failed-to-score rate is a strong signal for BTTS No, Under 1.5, and Clean Sheet markets when facing that team. When two high-FTS teams play each other, the Under 1.5 and even the 0-0 Correct Score become statistically viable bets.
Statistics Tables — Luxembourg
- Cup Failed To Score— Division Pro