Sportra logo
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
HomeLive ScoresLeaguesNewsAboutSportra IntelligenceContactPrivacyCookiesTermsDMCAAttribution

© 2026 Sportra. All rights reserved.

Built by TwinForge · TwinsLegacy

Burnley vs Mansfield Town Match Statistics & xG

BUBurnleyBurnley
1 — 2FT…
MTMansfield TownMansfield Town
OverviewLineupsStatisticsStandingsEventsPlayersPredictionsOdds (pre)Odds (live)FormInjuriesH2HNews

Burnley vs Mansfield Town match statistics

xG, possession, shots, and full match statistics for Burnley vs Mansfield Town in FA Cup.

Updated 2026-05-10T02:29:26.015782Z

Match statistics snapshot

  • Burnley created the clearer chances on xG (2.82 vs 0.63, Δ 2.19).
  • Burnley fired more attempts (22 vs 8 shots).
  • Mansfield Town was more accurate in front of goal (38% on target vs 18%).
BUBurnleyBurnleyvsMansfield TownMTMansfield Town

Attacking

Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.

BurnleyStatisticMansfield Town
2.82Lead
Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count.
0.63
4
OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines.
0Lead
17Lead
Shots inside the box
4
8Lead
Shots off target
3
4Lead
Shots on target
3
5Lead
Shots outside the box
4
22Lead
Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target.
8

Possession & passing

How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.

BurnleyStatisticMansfield Town
64%Lead
Ball possession
36%
84%Lead
Pass accuracy
71%
464Lead
Accurate passes
211
551Lead
Total passes
297

Set pieces

Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.

BurnleyStatisticMansfield Town
9Lead
Corner kicks
1

Defensive & goalkeeping

Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.

BurnleyStatisticMansfield Town
10Lead
Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced.
2
1
Goalkeeper saves
3Lead
Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average.

Discipline

Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.

BurnleyStatisticMansfield Town
14
Fouls
13Lead
Red cards
4
Yellow cards
2Lead

Tactical insights

Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.

BurnleyMansfield Town
◎

Shooting efficiency

How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.

Burnley leads this block

2Burnley
duels won
1Mansfield Town

Mansfield Town leads shot accuracy (+106% vs Burnley)

  1. 1

    Shot accuracy

    Share of attempts that tested the goalkeeper — accuracy vs volume.

    Burnley18%33% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town38%67% share

    Mansfield Town leads shot accuracy (+106% vs Burnley)

  2. 2

    xG per shot

    Average danger per attempt. Higher means better chances, not just more shots.

    Burnley0.12862% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town0.07938% share

    Burnley leads shot quality (+63% vs Mansfield Town)

  3. 3

    Inside box ratio

    How often attacks reached the penalty area — proxy for box penetration.

    Burnley77%61% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town50%39% share

    Burnley leads box penetration (+55% vs Mansfield Town)

⇄

Tactical identity

Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.

Burnley leads this block

2Burnley
duels won
0Mansfield Town

Burnley leads possession efficiency (+152% vs Mansfield Town)

  1. 1

    xG per possession %

    Chance creation per share of the ball — separates sterile possession from threat.

    Burnley0.04472% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town0.01828% share

    Burnley leads possession efficiency (+152% vs Mansfield Town)

  2. 2

    Passes per shot

    Build-up length before shooting. Higher = more patient circulation; lower = direct vertical play.

    Burnley2540% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town3760% share

    Mansfield Town — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

↑

Pressure & control

Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.

Burnley leads this block

1Burnley
duels won
0Mansfield Town

Burnley leads territorial pressure (+307% vs Mansfield Town)

  1. 1

    Attack pressure score

    Weighted territorial score: in-box shots (×2) + corners + on-target efforts + blocks forced.

    Burnley5780% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town1420% share

    Burnley leads territorial pressure (+307% vs Mansfield Town)

⛨

Defensive

How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.

1Burnley
duels won
1Mansfield Town

Burnley — stronger shot quality allowed

  1. 1

    xGA per shot conceded

    Quality of chances allowed per opponent shot — lower means a compact, limiting defence.

    Burnley0.07938% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town0.12862% share

    Burnley — stronger shot quality allowed

  2. 2

    Save difficulty (xG faced ÷ saves)

    xG faced divided by saves made — higher means the keeper faced tougher stops.

    Burnley0.6340% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town0.9460% share

    Mansfield Town leads keeper workload (+49% vs Burnley)

◈

Gameplay profile

Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.

Burnley leads this block

6Burnley
duels won
0Mansfield Town

Burnley had the edge in 6 of 6 signals in this block.

  1. 1

    Aggression rating

    Fouls and cards combined — physical intensity and risk.

    Burnley22.056% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town17.044% share

    Burnley leads (22.0 vs 17.0).

  2. 2

    Control rating

    Possession blended with pass accuracy — control without chaos.

    Burnley53.868% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town25.632% share

    Burnley leads (53.8 vs 25.6).

  3. 3

    Siege pressure

    Corners plus in-box shots — sustained pressure around the box.

    Burnley26.084% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town5.016% share

    Burnley leads (26.0 vs 5.0).

  4. 4

    Clinical index (xG/shot)

    xG per shot — finishing threat independent of volume.

    Burnley0.12862% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town0.07938% share

    Burnley leads (0.128 vs 0.079).

  5. 5

    Defensive compactness

    Inverse of xGA per shot faced — higher means opponents got worse chances.

    Burnley92.151% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town87.249% share

    Burnley leads (92.1 vs 87.2).

  6. 6

    Chaos factor

    Fouls, cards, and blocks — how stop-start and disruptive the match felt.

    Burnley28.062% share
    vs
    Mansfield Town17.038% share

    Burnley leads (28.0 vs 17.0).