“Both teams to score” bets only make sense when you can identify sides that consistently combine attacking punch with defensive leaks rather than relying on the vague feeling that a game will be open. In Serie A 2022/23, BTTS tables and goals-for/against data highlight a clear cluster of teams whose matches regularly produced goals at both ends, giving you a more logical way to select these markets.
Why Some Teams Are Structurally Suited to BTTS
BTTS is fundamentally about balance: you want a team that is strong enough to score in most games but not solid enough to shut opponents out. Across the 2022/23 Serie A campaign, league-wide data shows that both teams scored in roughly 47 percent of fixtures, indicating that BTTS was a coin-flip outcome overall rather than an extreme. The Windrawwin 2022/23 BTTS stats page lists clubs like Sassuolo, Empoli, Fiorentina and Spezia toward the top for matches in which both sides scored, confirming that their game patterns blended attack and vulnerability. Meanwhile, SoccerSTATS and average-goals tables show that mid‑table and lower sides with around 1.2–1.5 goals scored and 1.5–1.7 conceded per match naturally drifted toward BTTS simply because they neither dominated nor collapsed completely. Recognising these structural traits lets you focus BTTS bets on games where both teams genuinely have path and capacity to score.
Which 2022/23 Serie A Teams Were Most BTTS-Friendly
BTTS-specific rankings for the 2022/23 season highlight a handful of Serie A teams whose matches were ideal for both teams to score bets. Windrawwin’s BTTS table for that year shows that Sassuolo sat near the top of the list, with BTTS landing in around 63 percent of their league games, while Empoli, Fiorentina and Spezia also produced BTTS outcomes in well above half of their fixtures. Looking at traditional goals for and against helps explain why: Fiorentina finished with 53 scored and 43 conceded (56 points), and Spezia with 31 scored and 62 conceded (31 points), both combining sufficient attacking output with porous defences. Even mid‑table clubs with more balanced records, such as Monza (48 scored, 52 conceded) and Udinese (47–48), scheduled a large number of matches where both teams found the net because they sat near parity in goal difference and rarely parked the bus. These profiles—consistent scoring plus a tendency to concede—are exactly what you want when screening for BTTS opportunities.
How Goal Averages and Concession Rates Support BTTS Logic
League goals tables provide another angle on why certain sides were good BTTS candidates. SoccerSTATS’ average goals scored and conceded per team show that many of the BTTS‑heavy teams hovered around 1.3–1.5 goals scored and 1.4–1.7 conceded per match, a range that naturally creates a high density of 1–1, 2–1, 2–2 and 3–1 scorelines. Fiorentina’s +10 goal difference (53–43) implies regular multi‑goal matches in which they outscored weaker opponents but also allowed them to create chances, while Empoli’s −12 (37–49) and Monza’s −4 (48–52) reflect sides who could score but rarely control games for long stretches. Complementary goals-conceded tables from FootyStats show that teams like Verona, Sassuolo and Udinese were among the more leaky defences in home or away splits, reinforcing the idea that clean sheets were not their default outcome. When you see these averages in combination—steady offensive output and above‑average concessions—you have quantitative justification that both sides scoring is more than just a hunch.
Comparing BTTS-Heavy Teams to Tight Defensive Sides
Contrast is just as important as identification. On the opposite end, sides like Lazio and Juventus, who conceded 30 and 33 goals respectively while posting strong defensive xGA numbers, created far fewer BTTS outcomes because many of their matches finished 1–0 or 2–0 rather than 2–1. In Windrawwin’s BTTS ranking, these clubs sat closer to the bottom, with well under half their games ending with goals at both ends, making them poor candidates for automatic BTTS backing. This comparison shows why blindly applying BTTS to high‑profile fixtures is a mistake: defensive structure and clean-sheet rates can suppress BTTS substantially even when overall league scoring is healthy.
Building a Simple 2022/23 BTTS Shortlist with a Table
To turn the 2022/23 numbers into a quick reference, you can build a shortlist of teams where BTTS was a recurring pattern. Condensing Windrawwin’s BTTS statistics and final goal tallies gives a practical picture.
| Team (2022/23) | BTTS % (League games) | Goals For–Against | BTTS Rationale |
| Sassuolo | ~63% | 47–61 (−14) | Aggressive attack, weak defence; often score and get exposed. |
| Empoli | ~61% | 37–49 (−12) | Modest scoring but concede frequently; tight games that rarely end 0–0. |
| Fiorentina | ~58% | 53–43 (+10) | High possession and chance creation, but concede enough to keep rivals alive. |
| Spezia | ~58% | 31–62 (−31) | Regularly breached at the back, capable of nicking goals against mid‑table. |
| Monza | ~55% | 48–52 (−4) | Competitive newcomer; balanced scoring and conceding led to many 1–1/2–1 results. |
Using this table as a starting point, you can treat any 2022/23 fixture involving two of these teams, or one of them against a mid‑table side with similar averages, as a candidate for BTTS consideration—subject to further checks on injuries and game state.
Integrating BTTS Profiles into a UFABET Workflow
How you act on BTTS insights depends on how they fit into your actual betting environment. When you log into a multi‑league betting destination such as ufabet168, Serie A BTTS markets usually sit just below the core 1X2 and totals lines, often with similar prices across many fixtures in the same round. Without context, it is easy to treat “both teams to score – yes” as a generic side bet based on how open a match feels or on team reputations. A more analytical approach is to first identify whether either club belongs to your BTTS‑heavy shortlist from 2022/23, then overlay opponent type: Empoli vs Fiorentina or Sassuolo vs Monza are structurally different from Juventus vs Lazio in their likelihood of both teams scoring. Only when at least one team fits the profile, and the opponent is not an extreme defensive outlier, do you treat BTTS at the offered price as a serious candidate; otherwise, you either look for “no” at a value price or skip the market entirely.
Where a casino online Context Distorts BTTS Discipline
BTTS bets can become impulsive when they are placed inside sessions that also involve faster, more volatile gambling. If you alternate between football markets and a casino online setting, the rapid swings and constant action can make BTTS “yes” feel like an easy way to get involved in a match, regardless of whether the underlying 2022/23 profiles support that outcome. In that mood, you may back BTTS in low‑scoring fixtures involving strong defences purely because early chances look lively or because you want more moving parts in a multiple, even though the teams involved rarely produced both‑scoring results. Keeping your BTTS decisions anchored in pre‑identified team tendencies—scoring and conceding averages, BTTS percentages, defensive records—and separating them from high‑variance non‑football play helps ensure that you only use BTTS where Serie A patterns actually justified it last season.
Summary
Serie A 2022/23 data shows that BTTS outcomes clustered around a specific group of teams—Sassuolo, Empoli, Fiorentina, Spezia, Monza and a few other mid‑table sides—whose matches regularly combined enough attacking strength to score with defensive fragility that made clean sheets rare. By focusing on these profiles, cross‑checking their goals for and against, and filtering fixtures through this lens before looking at prices, bettors can turn “both teams to score” from a generic fun bet into a structured market choice rooted in how the league actually behaved. When that structure is preserved inside your betting routine and insulated from the emotional pull of other gambling contexts, BTTS becomes a targeted tool rather than an all‑purpose reflex.
