Match statistics snapshot
- Amed created the clearer chances on xG (2.29 vs 1.62, Δ 0.67).
- Amed held more of the ball (54% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Amed | Statistic | Sakaryaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 2.29Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.62 |
| 1 | Offsides | 0Lead |
| 14Lead | Shots inside the box | 9 |
| 7 | Shots off target |
| 7 |
| 6Lead | Shots on target | 5 |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 8Lead |
|---|
| 17 | Total shots | 17 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Amed | Statistic | Sakaryaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 54%Lead | Ball possession | 46% |
| 86%Lead | Pass accuracy | 79% |
| 361Lead | Accurate passes | 290 |
| 420Lead | Total passes | 368 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Amed | Statistic | Sakaryaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Amed | Statistic | Sakaryaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Blocked shots | 5Lead |
| 4 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Amed | Statistic | Sakaryaspor |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| 0Lead | Red cards | 1 |
| 2Lead | Yellow cards | 5 |