Match statistics snapshot
- Cape Town City fired more attempts (15 vs 9 shots).
- Amazulu was more accurate in front of goal (44% on target vs 33%).
- Cape Town City held more of the ball (59% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Cape Town City | Statistic | Amazulu |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 0Lead | Offsides | 6 |
| 8Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| 7 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 7Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 15Lead | Total shots | 9 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Cape Town City | Statistic | Amazulu |
|---|---|---|
| 59%Lead | Ball possession | 41% |
| 84%Lead | Pass accuracy | 79% |
| 409Lead | Accurate passes | 270 |
| 488Lead | Total passes | 341 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Cape Town City | Statistic | Amazulu |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 4Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Cape Town City | Statistic | Amazulu |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Cape Town City | Statistic | Amazulu |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Fouls | 18 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |