Match statistics snapshot
- Bodo/Glimt created the clearer chances on xG (2.95 vs 0.70, Δ 2.25).
- Bodo/Glimt fired more attempts (14 vs 5 shots).
- Maccabi Tel Aviv was more accurate in front of goal (60% on target vs 36%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Bodo/glimt | Statistic | Maccabi Tel Aviv |
|---|---|---|
| 2.95Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.70 |
| 3 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 10Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
| 4Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 1 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 4Lead | Shots outside the box | 0 |
|---|
| 14Lead | Total shots | 5 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Bodo/glimt | Statistic | Maccabi Tel Aviv |
|---|---|---|
| 71%Lead | Ball possession | 29% |
| 91%Lead | Pass accuracy | 79% |
| 654Lead | Accurate passes | 234 |
| 715Lead | Total passes | 296 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Bodo/glimt | Statistic | Maccabi Tel Aviv |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Corner kicks | 1 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Bodo/glimt | Statistic | Maccabi Tel Aviv |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| -0.78 | Goals prevented | -0.78 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Bodo/glimt | Statistic | Maccabi Tel Aviv |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Fouls | 6 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |
Statistics is not available yet.