Match statistics snapshot
- Richards Bay fired more attempts (16 vs 10 shots).
- Amazulu was more accurate in front of goal (30% on target vs 13%).
- Amazulu held more of the ball (58% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Amazulu | Statistic | Richards Bay |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 8 | Shots inside the box | 8 |
| 4 |
| 9Lead |
| 3Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 2 | Shots outside the box | 8Lead |
|---|
| 10 | Total shots | 16Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Amazulu | Statistic | Richards Bay |
|---|---|---|
| 58%Lead | Ball possession | 42% |
| 80%Lead | Pass accuracy | 74% |
| 368Lead | Accurate passes | 232 |
| 460Lead | Total passes | 312 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Amazulu | Statistic | Richards Bay |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 8Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Amazulu | Statistic | Richards Bay |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Blocked shots | 5Lead |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Amazulu | Statistic | Richards Bay |
|---|---|---|
| 18 | Fouls | 11Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |
Statistics is not available yet.