Match statistics snapshot
- Banfield created the clearer chances on xG (1.62 vs 0.89, Δ 0.73).
- Independ.
- Rivadavia fired more attempts (15 vs 14 shots).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 1.62Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.89 |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 8 | Shots inside the box | 9Lead |
| 5 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 6 | Shots outside the box | 6 |
|---|
| 14 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 41% | Ball possession | 59%Lead |
| 61% | Pass accuracy | 71%Lead |
| 154 | Accurate passes | 260Lead |
| 254 | Total passes | 364Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Blocked shots | 6Lead |
| 4Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
| -1.04 | Goals prevented | -1.04 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 11Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |
Statistics is not available yet.