What this team's results have earned: every match in the database is replayed in date order, both sides start at 1500 and the winner takes points from the loser. The rating is the one it held after its last rated match, and the rank counts every club ever rated, sides that no longer play included. A measure of strength, not a forecast of the next result. Computed 3 Nov 2026.
| # | Run | From → To | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 15 | 22 May 2016 → 09 Sep 2016 | ▸ matches |
| 2 | 11 | 17 Aug 2020 → 28 Sep 2020 | ▸ matches |
| 3 | 11 | 20 Apr 2018 → 01 Aug 2018 | ▸ matches |
| 4 | 8 | 01 Jul 2017 → 13 Aug 2017 | ▸ matches |
| 5 | 7 | 20 Sep 2019 → 01 Dec 2019 | ▸ matches |
| 6 | 7 | 25 Oct 2017 → 30 Mar 2018 | ▸ matches |
| 7 | 7 | 30 May 2015 → 08 Jul 2015 | ▸ matches |
| 8 | 7 | 11 Jun 2000 → 12 Nov 2000 | ▸ matches |
| 9 | 6 | 02 Aug 2021 → 18 Oct 2021 | ▸ matches |
| 10 | 6 | 09 May 2021 → 27 Jul 2021 | ▸ matches |
| Competition | P | D | Draw% | N | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Super League | 192 | 53 | 27.6% | 1 | 15 |
| Chinese FA Cup | 59 | 9 | 15.3% | 2 | 7 |
| Year | P | D | Draw% | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 |
| 2021 | 23 | 5 | 21.7% | 6 |
| 2020 | 21 | 4 | 19.1% | 11 |
| 2019 | 32 | 10 | 31.3% | 7 |
| 2018 | 32 | 8 | 25.0% | 11 |
| 2017 | 31 | 9 | 29.0% | 8 |
| 2016 | 31 | 10 | 32.3% | 15 |
| 2015 | 32 | 8 | 25.0% | 7 |
| 2014 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
| 2013 | 2 | 1 | 50.0% | 1 |
| 2012 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
| 2011 | 2 | 1 | 50.0% | 1 |
| 2006 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 0 |
| 2005 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 0 |
| 2004 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 |
| 2003 | 6 | 1 | 16.7% | 3 |
| 2002 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 0 |
| 2001 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 |
| 2000 | 7 | 0 | 0.0% | 7 |
| 1999 | 6 | 0 | 0.0% | 6 |
| 1998 | 4 | 0 | 0.0% | 4 |
| 1997 | 8 | 1 | 12.5% | 6 |
| 1996 | 4 | 1 | 25.0% | 3 |
Over 203 matches (Mar 2015 – Jan 2022), Chongqing Liangjiang Athletic drew 54 where the draw model expected 51.3 from those particular fixtures — about 3 more, or 0.4 standard errors, which is what the model expected, near enough.
A flat league average would have expected 51.0 instead — "more draws than the league" and "more draws than these fixtures deserved" are different claims. These matches were part of the model's own training set, so its chances were fitted already knowing the results.