League Two — Form Table
England · 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 |  Salford City | 7 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 17 | 6 | +11 | 21 | WWWWWWW | 3.00 | 29% | 0% | 71% | 2.43 | 86% | 71% | 3.29 | |
| 2 |  Barnet | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 14 | 9 | +5 | 14 | WWWLDWD | 2.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.00 | 100% | 71% | 3.29 | |
| 3 |  Accrington ST | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 13 | 4 | +9 | 13 | DWDWDWD | 1.86 | 43% | 14% | 57% | 1.86 | 86% | 29% | 2.43 | |
| 4 |  Exeter City | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 7 | 4 | +3 | 13 | LWWDWWL | 1.86 | 57% | 29% | 29% | 1.00 | 43% | 29% | 1.57 | |
| 5 |  Port Vale | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 8 | 7 | +1 | 13 | WLWWDLW | 1.86 | 43% | 29% | 29% | 1.14 | 57% | 14% | 2.14 | |
| 6 |  Walsall | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 13 | 8 | +5 | 12 | WDDDWLW | 1.71 | 29% | 0% | 71% | 1.86 | 100% | 43% | 3.00 | |
| 7 |  Newport County | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 6 | +4 | 12 | WDWDDLW | 1.71 | 29% | 29% | 57% | 1.43 | 57% | 43% | 2.29 | |
| 8 |  Shrewsbury | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 11 | +1 | 11 | DWLWWDL | 1.57 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 1.71 | 71% | 71% | 3.29 | |
| 9 |  Crewe | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 10 | 12 | -2 | 11 | DWWWLLD | 1.57 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 1.43 | 86% | 43% | 3.14 | |
| 10 |  Swindon Town | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7 | 6 | +1 | 9 | DLLDWDW | 1.29 | 14% | 43% | 57% | 1.00 | 57% | 29% | 1.86 | |
| 11 |  York | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 11 | 11 | 0 | 9 | WDDDWLL | 1.29 | 29% | 0% | 71% | 1.57 | 100% | 43% | 3.14 | |
| 12 |  Tranmere | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 10 | 0 | 9 | DLDLWDW | 1.29 | 14% | 0% | 86% | 1.43 | 86% | 43% | 2.86 | |
| 13 |  Cheltenham | 7 | 3 | 0 | 4 | 9 | 14 | -5 | 9 | WLLLWWL | 1.29 | 14% | 29% | 57% | 1.29 | 86% | 57% | 3.29 | |
| 14 |  Chesterfield | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 14 | 13 | +1 | 8 | LWDLDWL | 1.14 | 0% | 14% | 86% | 2.00 | 86% | 71% | 3.86 | |
| 15 |  Northampton | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | +1 | 8 | LDWLWDL | 1.14 | 29% | 43% | 29% | 0.86 | 57% | 0% | 1.57 | |
| 16 |  Oldham | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 10 | -3 | 8 | LDWLDLW | 1.14 | 29% | 43% | 43% | 1.00 | 57% | 43% | 2.43 | |
| 17 |  Gillingham | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 13 | -4 | 8 | LDWLDLW | 1.14 | 14% | 29% | 71% | 1.29 | 86% | 71% | 3.14 | |
| 18 |  Rochdale | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 10 | 16 | -6 | 8 | WWDLDLL | 1.14 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 1.43 | 86% | 71% | 3.71 | |
| 19 |  Grimsby | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 13 | 12 | +1 | 7 | LLLLDWW | 1.00 | 0% | 29% | 71% | 1.86 | 86% | 71% | 3.57 | |
| 20 |  Fleetwood Town | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 10 | 11 | -1 | 7 | LLDWLLW | 1.00 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 1.43 | 86% | 57% | 3.00 | |
| 21 |  Crawley Town | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 13 | -5 | 5 | LLDLLDW | 0.71 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 1.14 | 86% | 57% | 3.00 | |
| 22 |  Colchester | 7 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 10 | -5 | 4 | DDLDDLL | 0.57 | 14% | 43% | 57% | 0.71 | 71% | 29% | 2.14 | |
| 23 |  Bristol Rovers | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 12 | -7 | 4 | WLLLLDL | 0.57 | 29% | 29% | 57% | 0.71 | 57% | 57% | 2.43 | |
| 24 |  Rotherham | 7 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 15 | -7 | 3 | DLLLDDL | 0.43 | 0% | 29% | 71% | 1.14 | 86% | 57% | 3.29 |
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?
Salford City leads the form table with 100% wins and 3.00 PPG in the last 7 games.
Barnet is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 games, with a win rate of 57% and 2.00 PPG.
Exeter City is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 games, with a win rate of 57% and 1.86 PPG.
Rotherham is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 games with a win rate of 0% and 0.43 PPG.
Colchester is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 games with a win rate of 0% and 0.57 PPG.
Bristol Rovers has the worst form over the last 7 games with just 14% wins and only 0.57 PPG.
- •The League Two (England) Last 7 Games Form Table covers 24 teams, each having played a maximum of 7 recent games.
- •Win rate across the League Two in this period is 35%
- •Teams score an average of 1.40 goals per game and concede 1.42 — a combined 2.82 total goals per match, making Over 2.5 the statistically favoured outcome.
- •BTTS occurs in 64% of recent matches, while FTS (at least one team fails to score) is recorded in 21% of games.
League Two (England) Last 7 Games — Form Table Insights
Salford City, Barnet and Exeter City have been the standout performers in the League Two (England) over the last 7 games, leading the form table with 3.00, 2.00 and 1.86 PPG respectively. Across the League Two, teams score an average of 1.40 goals and concede 1.42 per game — a combined 2.82 total goals, making Over 2.5 the most common outcome. BTTS has occurred in 64% of fixtures while 21% ended in FTS for at least one side.
On the other end, Rotherham and Colchester have struggled in recent games, collecting just 0.43 and 0.57 PPG respectively. Their FTS rate suggests attacking output remains a concern heading into upcoming fixtures in the League Two.
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 | Salford City | 7 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 4 | +5 | 18 | LWWWWWW | 2.57 | 43% | 14% | 43% | 1.29 | 43% | 43% | 1.86 | |
| 2 | York | 7 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 16 | 5 | +11 | 17 | WWWWDDW | 2.43 | 43% | 0% | 57% | 2.29 | 100% | 57% | 3.00 | |
| 3 | Cheltenham | 7 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 14 | 10 | +4 | 16 | WWDWLWW | 2.29 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 2.00 | 86% | 71% | 3.43 | |
| 4 | Newport County | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 14 | 6 | +8 | 15 | WDDWWDW | 2.14 | 29% | 0% | 71% | 2.00 | 86% | 57% | 2.86 | |
| 5 | Exeter City | 7 | 4 | 3 | 0 | 8 | 2 | +6 | 15 | WDDDWWW | 2.14 | 71% | 29% | 29% | 1.14 | 57% | 14% | 1.43 | |
| 6 | Barnet | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 15 | 10 | +5 | 14 | WDWWLDW | 2.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.14 | 100% | 86% | 3.57 | |
| 7 | Swindon Town | 7 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 12 | 7 | +5 | 14 | WWWDLDW | 2.00 | 0% | 14% | 86% | 1.71 | 86% | 57% | 2.71 | |
| 8 | Port Vale | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 3 | +5 | 14 | DDWWWW | 2.33 | 67% | 17% | 33% | 1.33 | 33% | 17% | 1.83 | |
| 9 | Accrington ST | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 13 | 8 | +5 | 13 | DDWDWWD | 1.86 | 29% | 14% | 71% | 1.86 | 86% | 57% | 3.00 | |
| 10 | Grimsby | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 13 | 8 | +5 | 13 | WDWWLLW | 1.86 | 43% | 14% | 43% | 1.86 | 86% | 43% | 3.00 | |
| 11 | Crewe | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 12 | 8 | +4 | 13 | WDDDWWD | 1.86 | 14% | 0% | 86% | 1.71 | 86% | 43% | 2.86 | |
| 12 | Bristol Rovers | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 8 | +3 | 13 | WWWWLLD | 1.86 | 57% | 14% | 43% | 1.57 | 57% | 43% | 2.71 | |
| 13 | Chesterfield | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 16 | 9 | +7 | 12 | LDDWWDW | 1.71 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 2.29 | 86% | 43% | 3.57 | |
| 14 | Tranmere | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 12 | 7 | +5 | 12 | WDWDDLW | 1.71 | 29% | 0% | 71% | 1.71 | 100% | 43% | 2.71 | |
| 15 | Fleetwood Town | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 10 | 5 | +5 | 12 | DDWLDWW | 1.71 | 43% | 14% | 57% | 1.43 | 86% | 29% | 2.14 | |
| 16 | Walsall | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 10 | 6 | +4 | 11 | DWDWWL | 1.83 | 67% | 33% | 33% | 1.67 | 67% | 50% | 2.67 | |
| 17 | Oldham | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 11 | 8 | +3 | 10 | WWLLDWL | 1.43 | 43% | 29% | 43% | 1.57 | 71% | 57% | 2.71 | |
| 18 | Shrewsbury | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 10 | LWWDLWL | 1.43 | 43% | 14% | 43% | 1.14 | 57% | 43% | 2.29 | |
| 19 | Rochdale | 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 10 | 13 | -3 | 10 | LWLWWDL | 1.43 | 43% | 14% | 43% | 1.43 | 86% | 71% | 3.29 | |
| 20 | Colchester | 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 9 | WWDDDL | 1.50 | 33% | 17% | 67% | 1.00 | 67% | 33% | 2.00 | |
| 21 | Gillingham | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 8 | 9 | -1 | 9 | LDWWDDL | 1.29 | 43% | 29% | 43% | 1.14 | 86% | 43% | 2.43 | |
| 22 | Northampton | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 8 | DDWLLWL | 1.14 | 43% | 57% | 14% | 0.57 | 29% | 0% | 1.14 | |
| 23 | Rotherham | 7 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 13 | 15 | -2 | 8 | DWDDLDD | 1.14 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 1.86 | 100% | 71% | 4.00 | |
| 24 | Crawley Town | 6 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 12 | -6 | 2 | LLLDLD | 0.33 | 0% | 33% | 67% | 1.00 | 83% | 50% | 3.00 |
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)
Salford City leads the form table with 86% wins and 2.57 PPG in the last 7 home games.
York is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 home games, with a win rate of 71% and 2.43 PPG.
Port Vale is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 home games, with a win rate of 67% and 2.33 PPG.
Crawley Town is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 home games with a win rate of 0% and 0.33 PPG.
Rotherham is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 home games with a win rate of 14% and 1.14 PPG.
Northampton has the worst form over the last 7 home games with just 29% wins and only 1.14 PPG.
- •The League Two (England) Home Form Table (Last 7) covers 24 teams, each having played a maximum of 7 recent home games.
- •Win rate across the League Two in this period is 48%
- •Teams score an average of 1.58 goals per game and concede 1.10 — a combined 2.68 total goals per match, making Over 2.5 the statistically favoured outcome.
- •BTTS occurs in 58% of recent matches, while FTS (at least one team fails to score) is recorded in 16% of games.
League Two (England) — Home Form Table Insights (Last 7 Home Games)
Salford City, York and Port Vale have been the standout performers in the League Two (England) over the last 7 home games, leading the form table with 2.57, 2.43 and 2.33 PPG respectively. Across the League Two, teams score an average of 1.58 goals and concede 1.10 per game — a combined 2.68 total goals, making Over 2.5 the most common outcome. BTTS has occurred in 58% of fixtures while 16% ended in FTS for at least one side.
On the other end, Crawley Town and Rotherham have struggled in recent home games, collecting just 0.33 and 1.14 PPG respectively. Their FTS rate suggests attacking output remains a concern heading into upcoming fixtures in the League Two.
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 | Salford City | 7 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 16 | 11 | +5 | 13 | LLDWWWW | 1.86 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 2.29 | 86% | 71% | 3.86 | |
| 2 | Barnet | 6 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 13 | 8 | +5 | 12 | WDDWWD | 2.00 | 0% | 0% | 100% | 2.17 | 100% | 67% | 3.50 | |
| 3 | Walsall | 7 | 2 | 5 | 0 | 11 | 6 | +5 | 11 | WDDDDDW | 1.57 | 29% | 14% | 71% | 1.57 | 86% | 43% | 2.43 | |
| 4 | Gillingham | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 12 | 10 | +2 | 11 | DDWLWLW | 1.57 | 14% | 29% | 71% | 1.71 | 86% | 71% | 3.14 | |
| 5 | Crewe | 7 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 9 | -4 | 9 | WDDDWLL | 1.29 | 43% | 29% | 43% | 0.71 | 57% | 14% | 2.00 | |
| 6 | Shrewsbury | 7 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 9 | 14 | -5 | 8 | LLLDWWD | 1.14 | 0% | 43% | 57% | 1.29 | 100% | 57% | 3.29 | |
| 7 | Grimsby | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 11 | 10 | +1 | 7 | DDDLLDW | 1.00 | 14% | 29% | 71% | 1.57 | 71% | 71% | 3.00 | |
| 8 | Crawley Town | 6 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 9 | -2 | 7 | WDLLLW | 1.17 | 17% | 17% | 67% | 1.17 | 83% | 50% | 2.67 | |
| 9 | Tranmere | 7 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 7 | 10 | -3 | 7 | DDLDLWD | 1.00 | 29% | 29% | 57% | 1.00 | 71% | 29% | 2.43 | |
| 10 | Chesterfield | 7 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 8 | 12 | -4 | 7 | WLWLDLL | 1.00 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 1.14 | 71% | 71% | 2.86 | |
| 11 | Accrington ST | 7 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 10 | 9 | +1 | 6 | LLLDDDW | 0.86 | 29% | 29% | 57% | 1.43 | 86% | 43% | 2.71 | |
| 12 | Northampton | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 6 | -1 | 6 | LDLDWD | 1.00 | 17% | 33% | 50% | 0.83 | 83% | 0% | 1.83 | |
| 13 | Fleetwood Town | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 13 | -5 | 5 | WDDLLLL | 0.71 | 14% | 14% | 71% | 1.14 | 71% | 57% | 3.00 | |
| 14 | Cheltenham | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 9 | 15 | -6 | 5 | LDWDLLL | 0.71 | 0% | 14% | 86% | 1.29 | 100% | 71% | 3.43 | |
| 15 | Rochdale | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 13 | -6 | 5 | LLDWDLL | 0.71 | 14% | 43% | 57% | 1.00 | 71% | 57% | 2.86 | |
| 16 | Oldham | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 11 | -7 | 5 | LDLLLDW | 0.71 | 14% | 43% | 43% | 0.57 | 86% | 29% | 2.14 | |
| 17 | Swindon Town | 7 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 3 | 10 | -7 | 5 | DLLLLWD | 0.71 | 29% | 86% | 14% | 0.43 | 43% | 43% | 1.86 | |
| 18 | Exeter City | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 3 | 7 | -4 | 4 | LLLLWDL | 0.57 | 29% | 57% | 29% | 0.43 | 29% | 29% | 1.43 | |
| 19 | Rotherham | 7 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 10 | -5 | 4 | LDLWLLL | 0.57 | 14% | 43% | 43% | 0.71 | 57% | 43% | 2.14 | |
| 20 | Newport County | 7 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 11 | -5 | 3 | LLLDDDL | 0.43 | 29% | 57% | 43% | 0.86 | 43% | 43% | 2.43 | |
| 21 | Colchester | 7 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 13 | -7 | 3 | DLLDLDL | 0.43 | 0% | 43% | 57% | 0.86 | 86% | 43% | 2.71 | |
| 22 | York | 7 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 8 | 16 | -8 | 3 | DLDLDLL | 0.43 | 0% | 14% | 86% | 1.14 | 100% | 43% | 3.43 | |
| 23 | Bristol Rovers | 7 | 1 | 0 | 6 | 6 | 15 | -9 | 3 | LWLLLLL | 0.43 | 14% | 43% | 43% | 0.86 | 86% | 57% | 3.00 | |
| 24 | Port Vale | 6 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 2 | 11 | -9 | 1 | LLLLDL | 0.17 | 0% | 67% | 33% | 0.33 | 83% | 17% | 2.17 |
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)
Barnet leads the form table with 50% wins and 2.00 PPG in the last 7 away games.
Salford City is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 away games, with a win rate of 57% and 1.86 PPG.
Gillingham is among the top 3 in-form teams over the last 7 away games, with a win rate of 43% and 1.57 PPG.
Port Vale is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 away games with a win rate of 0% and 0.17 PPG.
York is struggling — within the bottom 3 over the last 7 away games with a win rate of 0% and 0.43 PPG.
Colchester has the worst form over the last 7 away games with just 0% wins and only 0.43 PPG.
- •The League Two (England) Away Form Table (Last 7) covers 24 teams, each having played a maximum of 7 recent away games.
- •Win rate across the League Two in this period is 20%
- •Teams score an average of 1.10 goals per game and concede 1.58 — a combined 2.68 total goals per match, making Over 2.5 the statistically favoured outcome.
- •BTTS occurs in 58% of recent matches, while FTS (at least one team fails to score) is recorded in 34% of games.
League Two (England) — Away Form Table Insights (Last 7 Away Games)
Barnet, Salford City and Gillingham have been the standout performers in the League Two (England) over the last 7 away games, leading the form table with 2.00, 1.86 and 1.57 PPG respectively. Across the League Two, teams score an average of 1.10 goals and concede 1.58 per game — a combined 2.68 total goals, making Over 2.5 the most common outcome. BTTS has occurred in 58% of fixtures while 34% ended in FTS for at least one side.
On the other end, Port Vale and York have struggled in recent away games, collecting just 0.17 and 0.43 PPG respectively. Their FTS rate suggests attacking output remains a concern heading into upcoming fixtures in the League Two.
Form Tables — England
- Championship Form Table— Division Premium
- Community Shield Form Table— Division Elite
- Community Shield Women Form Table— Division Women's Pro
- EFL Trophy Form Table— Division Gold
- FA Cup Form Table— Division Premium
- FA Trophy Form Table— Division Pro
- FA WSL Form Table— Division Women's Elite
- FA Women's Cup Form Table— Division Women's Pro
- FA Youth Cup Form Table— Division Academy
- League Cup Form Table— Division Premium
- League One Form Table— Division Gold
- National League Form Table— Division Pro
- National League - North Form Table— Division Pro
- National League - North - Play-offs Form Table— Division Underground
- National League - Play-offs Form Table— Division Underground
- National League - South Form Table— Division Pro
- National League - South - Play-offs Form Table— Division Underground
- National League Cup Form Table— Division Underground
- Non League Div One - Isthmian North Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Isthmian South Central Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Isthmian South East Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Northern East Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Northern Midlands Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Northern West Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Play-offs Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Southern Central Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Div One - Southern South Form Table— Division Amateur
- Non League Premier - Isthmian Form Table— Division Regional
- Non League Premier - Isthmian - Play-offs Form Table— Division Regional
- Non League Premier - Northern Form Table— Division Regional
- Non League Premier - Northern - Play-offs Form Table— Division Regional
- Non League Premier - Southern Central Form Table— Division Regional
- Non League Premier - Southern Central - Play-offs Form Table— Division Regional
- Non League Premier - Southern South Form Table— Division Regional
- Non League Premier - Southern South - Play-offs Form Table— Division Regional
- Premier League Form Table— Division Elite
- Premier League - Summer Series Form Table— Division Underground
- Premier League 2 Division One Form Table— Division Academy
- Premier League Cup Form Table— Division Academy
- Professional Development League Form Table— Division Academy
- U18 Premier League - Championship Form Table— Division Academy
- U18 Premier League - North Form Table— Division Academy
- U18 Premier League - South Form Table— Division Academy
- WSL Cup Form Table— Division Women's Pro
- Women's Championship Form Table— Division Women's Elite