Match statistics snapshot
- Banfield fired more attempts (10 vs 7 shots).
- Independ.
- Rivadavia was more accurate in front of goal (57% on target vs 30%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 1Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 5Lead |
| 5Lead |
| 2 |
| 3 | Shots on target | 4Lead |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 10Lead | Total shots | 7 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 39% | Ball possession | 61%Lead |
| 70% | Pass accuracy | 76%Lead |
| 174 | Accurate passes | 301Lead |
| 250 | Total passes | 398Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 2Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 3Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Banfield | Statistic | Independ. Rivadavia |
|---|---|---|
| 17 | Fouls | 16Lead |
| 1 | Red cards | 0Lead |
| 5 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.