The 2022/23 Premier League was the highest-scoring 38-game season in the competition’s history, so identifying sides that regularly found the net but failed to protect their own goal became a natural angle for “both teams to score” (BTTS) bettors. The central question is not only which teams matched that description, but also why they did so and how that pattern translated into practical, risk-aware BTTS decisions across the season.
Why BTTS Logic Made Sense in 2022/23
A BTTS bet rests on the combination of attacking competence and defensive vulnerability, and the 2022/23 season produced plenty of teams that fit this mixed profile rather than polar extremes. The league-wide average of 2.85 goals per match pointed to an environment where open games were common, yet the distribution of goals for and against revealed that some clubs routinely contributed at both ends rather than simply overwhelming opponents or being outclassed.
From a cause–effect perspective, sides with proactive attacking styles but imperfect defensive structures naturally gravitated toward BTTS territory. High presses, full-backs pushed forward, and reliance on individual creativity meant that these teams generated chances while simultaneously leaving space for counters, thereby increasing the probability that both they and their opponents would score in the same match.
Teams That Scored Freely but Struggled Defensively
Looking at goals scored highlights which teams consistently contributed to the attacking side of the BTTS equation. Manchester City, Arsenal, Liverpool, Brighton, Tottenham, Newcastle, Brentford, and Fulham all finished with 55 or more goals, indicating strong or at least above-average offensive output. However, BTTS logic becomes most interesting where that scoring was paired with relatively generous defences rather than with elite rearguards.
A simple way to isolate BTTS-friendly profiles is to combine high goals scored with comparatively modest or poor defensive records. For instance, Tottenham scored 70 league goals but conceded 63, while Brentford hit 58 and allowed 46, and Fulham recorded 55 for and 53 against, all of which signal teams more likely to participate in multi-goal games than to shut opponents out. By contrast, Newcastle’s 68 goals scored paired with only 33 conceded pointed more toward a strong two-way team than a consistently loose one, making their BTTS suitability more opponent-dependent.
Snapshot Table of BTTS-Friendly Profiles
Identifying likely BTTS candidates benefits from seeing goals-for and goals-against side by side rather than relying on intuition alone. The league table summarises these metrics and helps pick out clubs whose balance tilted toward entertaining, two-way contests instead of controlled, one-sided results.
| Team | Goals scored (GF) | Goals conceded (GA) | Indicative BTTS profile (conceptual) |
| Tottenham | 70 | 63 | High-output attack with leaky defence; many matches with chances at both ends |
| Brentford | 58 | 46 | Strong forwards, set-piece threat, but not consistently restrictive at the back |
| Fulham | 55 | 53 | Promoted side combining Mitrović-led scoring with mid-table level defending |
| Leicester | 51 | 68 | Relegated team that still scored plenty but defended poorly |
| Leeds | 48 | 78 | Very porous defence with enough attacking intent to contribute goals |
This table does not claim that BTTS landed every week for these clubs, but it shows why they attracted sustained attention: they generated enough offense to threaten a goal while simultaneously conceding enough to keep opponents in every game.
Mechanisms Behind High-Scoring, Low-Clean-Sheet Teams
The underlying mechanisms that produced these patterns were rarely accidental; tactical choices and squad construction played decisive roles. Team setups that emphasised pressing high up the pitch, committing full-backs forward, and building around technically gifted forwards and attacking midfielders naturally fostered more open contests, particularly when paired with less mobile centre-backs or limited defensive midfield cover.
Leicester and Leeds illustrated a different mechanism, where long-standing defensive fragilities persisted despite reasonable attacking talent. Their midfields often struggled to protect the back line, and structural issues in transition meant that even when they scored, they frequently conceded soft goals, which helps explain how both clubs combined respectable goals totals with relegation. For BTTS-focused bettors, recognising whether a team’s openness stems from proactive tactics or systemic defensive weakness matters because the former may be more stable under a given coach, while the latter can spiral into heavy defeats rather than balanced scorelines.
Conditional Scenarios for BTTS Suitability
BTTS suitability is not fixed; it shifts with changing match conditions and opponents. When a high-scoring, weak-defending side faced another expansive team, the probability of mutual scoring naturally rose, but when they met a defensively disciplined, low-possession opponent, the pattern could tilt toward one-sided results or low-event matches.
Context also changed after managerial switches or tactical adjustments, as seen with clubs that tightened up defensively late in the season to escape relegation. In those cases, assuming a continuation of early-season BTTS trends without accounting for new systems, personnel, or game-state priorities could easily lead to mispriced expectations, even if the club’s season-long aggregate numbers still pointed toward open games.
Practical Criteria for Spotting BTTS Opportunities Pre-Match
Turning raw goals data into a pre-match BTTS decision requires more than noting totals; it involves assessing how current conditions align with past patterns. Bettors can construct simple frameworks that combine long-term scoring/conceding profiles with short-term indicators such as recent form, injuries, and tactical context to avoid overreacting to a handful of outcomes.
One useful way to structure that thinking is to treat BTTS as the result of converging factors:
- Team A’s season-long goals scored and conceded trends.
- Team B’s equivalent trends.
- Recent five-match patterns in xG for/against where available.
- Tactical intent (do both sides accept risk to win or is one primarily cautious?).
- Match state incentives (do both need points, or is one happy with a draw?).
When multiple factors point in the same direction—two teams with historically open profiles, both needing points, and both missing key defenders—the odds may undervalue BTTS if they focus narrowly on league position or reputation. Conversely, when only one factor supports BTTS and others point to caution, the nominally attractive label of a “BTTS team” may be misleading, particularly if bookmakers have already shortened the market in response to previous high-scoring matches.
Integrating BTTS Angles Into a Wider Routine (UFABET paragraph)
Because BTTS bets often feel more entertaining than standard win–draw–win wagers, they can tempt bettors into staking impulsively whenever they see a familiar team associated with goals, which increases the risk of overextending on narrative instead of evidence. One way to reduce that tendency is to predetermine how many BTTS selections will be taken per round and tie each to specific criteria—such as combined goals averages and recent defensive trends—before looking at the coupon, so that decisions flow from rules rather than from the day’s fixtures alone. Within that structured approach, a bettor might use a long-standing betting platform such as เว็บ ufabet168 merely as the operational layer for executing pre-planned BTTS positions on 2022/23-type profiles, treating the interface as a neutral tool and reserving discretion for whether the data actually supports entering the market instead of reacting to every game that seems “fun” on paper.
How Digital Context Shapes BTTS Behaviour (casino online paragraph)
Digital betting environments increasingly blend sports markets with other forms of wagering, and that blend can subtly influence how people approach high-variance bets such as BTTS. When in-play prompts, score alerts, and running price updates appear alongside quick-fire gambling options, the distinction between a reasoned BTTS position and a spur-of-the-moment punt can erode, particularly after emotional swings. In that setting, the presence of a casino online offering on the same login as football markets means that a sequence of dramatic both-teams-to-score outcomes can spill over into more impulsive activity, so anyone attempting to exploit structural patterns in 2022/23-style high-scoring, low-clean-sheet teams needs to consciously ring-fence their analytical football staking from the rest of the digital entertainment menu to prevent emotional carry-over from diluting the edge they are trying to cultivate.
Where the “Always BTTS” Idea Fails
While certain teams showed season-long tendencies toward open games, treating BTTS as an automatic option whenever they played ignores important sources of variance. Injuries to key attackers, weather conditions, tactical shifts toward survival, or opponents changing shape to nullify threats all reduce the likelihood that both sides score, even if seasonal aggregates remain high. Over-reliance on historical labels without checking current context can turn a once-profitable angle into a systematically overpriced habit.
Another failure point lies in misinterpreting extreme defensive weakness as BTTS-friendly when it actually signals potential one-sided losses. A team that concedes heavily but struggles to create chances against organised opponents may be a strong candidate for “over” markets in matches where the favourite dominates, yet a poor fit for BTTS if their own scoring probability has collapsed; Leeds and Southampton had stretches where this nuance mattered. Recognising whether a team still carries genuine attacking threat, rather than just a history of chaotic scorelines, is crucial to avoiding this trap.
Summary
The 2022/23 Premier League’s record goal tally created fertile ground for BTTS strategies built around teams that combined strong attacking output with frequent defensive lapses. Clubs such as Tottenham, Brentford, Fulham, Leicester, and Leeds embodied this balance to varying degrees, consistently providing both the scoring capacity and the defensive fragility needed to justify BTTS consideration.
However, the label of a “BTTS team” only holds value when anchored in both current context and opponent dynamics, not merely in last season’s totals or narrative memory. A robust understanding treats BTTS as a conditional, data-driven angle integrated into a disciplined routine, applied when converging evidence supports mutual scoring and withheld when injuries, tactical shifts, or market adjustments erode the edge that high-scoring, low-clean-sheet profiles initially appear to offer.
About the Author
