Charleston Battery have come here for an absorbing game versus the home side Tampa Bay Rowdies. Get smart on the game with this full USL Championship preview!
- Charleston Battery have the the best goal difference (+4) in USL Championship
There’s little time for restitution or working hard at the training pitch these days, with both teams having played their last game less than four days ago.
Tampa Bay Rowdies form and stats
Tampa Bay Rowdies have played 3 USL Championship games at their own stadium so far this season, resulting in 1-1-1 (wins-draws-losses).
A nice win for Tampa Bay Rowdies last time playing, versus Miami FC II. That was also a home game and the match ended 2-0 with Jennings and Schröter scoring for the victors. At last, a league win after four fixtures without one.
A win at home ahead of that match, as predicted. The team were solid favourites against Nona and won 2-0.
Early season league goal statistics from Tampa Bay Rowdies's 3 home games: {3 goals}, 3 conceded.
Charleston Battery form and stats
The visitors settled for one point in their first USL Championship away game of the season. During their previous season 17 away games resulted in 1 win, 5 draws and 11 defeats.
Charleston are travelling after their nice 3-2 home win in the fixture against Hartford Athletic (placed 11th). A heroic performance from Charleston Battery in their game against Hartford Athletic last time out. Things got complicated when Polvara was sent off in the 76th minute with the match level. Despite the red card the team were able to pull off a 3-2 victory!
A home victory as predicted against Savannah Clovers ahead of that, in the US Open Cup.
The visitors will be packing their bags again in only three days as another away game awaits: The USL Championship trip to Tulsa Roughnecks.
It's early days yet, but Charleston Battery has scored 1 and conceded 1 goals from their travels in the league so far (1 game).
Head 2 Head
The squads have met each other previously this season, with the final score Charleston Battery - Tampa Bay Rowdies 3-0 logged in the official records. Statistics for the former ten meetings featuring these two squads are: five wins for Rowdies, one draw and four wins for Charleston Battery. Over 2,5 goals: five times; under 2,5 goals: five games.
Top Goalscorers
  A. Williams 2 goals |  N. Markanich 2 goals |  J. Areman 1 goals |
Tampa Bay Rowdies missing players
Charleston Battery missing players
| Tampa Bay Rowdies | Charleston Battery | ||||||
| Total | Home | vs | Statistics | Stat | vs | Away | Total |
| 5 | 3 | 1 | Played | P | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 1 | 1 | 0 | Won | W | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 0 | Drew | D | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| 2 | 1 | 1 | Lost | L | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 4 | 3 | 0 | Scored | S | 0 | 1 | 8 |
| 7 | 3 | 2 | Conceded | C | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| 100% | 100% | 100% | Over 0.5 | O 0.5 | 0% | 100% | 100% |
| 100% | 100% | 100% | Over 1.5 | O 1.5 | 0% | 100% | 100% |
| 20% | 0% | 0% | Over 2.5 | O 2.5 | 0% | 0% | 50% |
| 0% | 0% | 0% | Over 3.5 | O 3.5 | 0% | 0% | 25% |
| 0% | 0% | 0% | Over 4.5 | O 4.5 | 0% | 0% | 25% |
| 40% | 33% | 0% | BTTS | BTTS | 0% | 100% | 75% |
| 20% | 33% | 0% | Clean Sheets | C S | 0% | 0% | 25% |
| 40% | 33% | 100% | Failed to Score | F T | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| 4 | 3.3 | 3 | Corners for (avg) | C F | 0 | 3 | 3.2 |
| 4.8 | 3.7 | 5 | Corners against (avg) | C A | 0 | 4 | 3.5 |
| 2.6 | 3.7 | 3 | Yellow cards (avg) | Y C | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| 0 | 0 | 0 | Red cards | R C | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| 9.6 | 10 | 12 | Shots (avg) | S ( | 0 | 13 | 13 |
| 2.2 | 2.3 | 0 | Shots on Target (avg) | S O | 0 | 4 | 5.2 |
| 36% | 43% | 0% | Goal Efficiency | G E | 0% | 25% | 38% |
| 10.4 | 9.7 | 11 | Shots against (avg) | S A | 0 | 12 | 9 |
| 4.6 | 4.3 | 7 | Shots on Target against (avg) | S O | 0 | 2 | 2.8 |
- Charleston Battery have the the best goal difference (+4) in USL Championship
| Tampa Bay Rowdies | Last season | Charleston Battery | |||||
| Total | Home | Statistics | Stat | Away | Total | ||
| 37 | 18 | Played | P | 17 | 34 | ||
| 22 | 13 | Won | W | 1 | 6 | ||
| 7 | 3 | Drew | D | 5 | 7 | ||
| 8 | 2 | Lost | L | 11 | 21 | ||
| 77 | 44 | Scored | S | 18 | 41 | ||
| 35 | 14 | Conceded | C | 42 | 77 | ||
| 97% | 100% | Over 0.5 | O 0.5 | 94% | 97% | ||
| 73% | 78% | Over 1.5 | O 1.5 | 82% | 88% | ||
| 51% | 50% | Over 2.5 | O 2.5 | 59% | 65% | ||
| 41% | 50% | Over 3.5 | O 3.5 | 47% | 38% | ||
| 19% | 17% | Over 4.5 | O 4.5 | 41% | 29% | ||
| 62% | 61% | BTTS | BTTS | 71% | 59% | ||
| 24% | 33% | Clean Sheets | C S | 6% | 12% | ||
| 16% | 6% | Failed to Score | F T | 29% | 32% | ||
| 5.2 | 6.2 | Corners for (avg) | C F | 3.9 | 4.6 | ||
| 3.5 | 2.5 | Corners against (avg) | C A | 5.2 | 4.2 | ||
| 1.9 | 1.8 | Yellow cards (avg) | Y C | 3.2 | 2.8 | ||
| 2 | 1 | Red cards | R C | 2 | 4 | ||
| 9.8 | 10.5 | Shots (avg) | S ( | 7.1 | 8.4 | ||
| 4.7 | 4.9 | Shots on Target (avg) | S O | 2.2 | 2.9 | ||
| 45% | 51% | Goal Efficiency | G E | 47% | 42% | ||
| 7.6 | 5.8 | Shots against (avg) | S A | 10.4 | 8.9 | ||
| 2.7 | 2.3 | Shots on Target against (avg) | S O | 4.8 | 4.2 | ||
| Total | Home | Away | |||||||||||||||||||
| # | Team | MP | W | D | L | F | A | MP | W | D | L | F | A | MP | W | D | L | F | A | +/- | P |
| 1 | Birmingham Legion | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 8 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 5 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 10 |
| 2 | Louisville City | 5 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 6 | -4 | 9 |
| 3 | Charleston Battery | 4 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 8 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 8 |
| 4 | Tulsa Roughnecks | 6 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 9 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 1 | 6 |
| 5 | Pittsburgh Riverhounds | 5 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 6 |
| 6 | Indy Eleven | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | -2 | 5 |
| 7 | Tampa Bay Rowdies | 5 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 4 | -3 | 5 |
| 8 | Loudoun United | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 4 | -2 | 4 |
| 9 | Detroit City | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | -2 | 3 |
| 10 | Miami FC II | 5 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 3 | -3 | 3 |
| 11 | Hartford Athletic | 5 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 6 | 9 | -4 | 2 |
| 12 | Memphis 901 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -4 | 1 |
