Match statistics snapshot
- Bandırmaspor created the clearer chances on xG (2.03 vs 2.27, Δ 0.24).
- Amed fired more attempts (17 vs 15 shots).
- Bandırmaspor was more accurate in front of goal (53% on target vs 29%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Amed | Statistic | Bandırmaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 2.03 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.27Lead |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 14Lead | Shots inside the box | 9 |
| 11Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 5 | Shots on target | 8Lead |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 6Lead |
|---|
| 17Lead | Total shots | 15 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Amed | Statistic | Bandırmaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 51%Lead | Ball possession | 49% |
| 83% | Pass accuracy | 84%Lead |
| 348Lead | Accurate passes | 338 |
| 421Lead | Total passes | 404 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Amed | Statistic | Bandırmaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 5Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Amed | Statistic | Bandırmaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 2Lead |
| 7Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Amed | Statistic | Bandırmaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | Fouls | 7Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |