Match statistics snapshot
- Ceramica Cleopatra fired more attempts (17 vs 5 shots).
- Future FC was more accurate in front of goal (60% on target vs 24%).
- Ceramica Cleopatra held more of the ball (60% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Future Fc |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 1Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 11Lead | Shots inside the box | 4 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 4Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 1 |
|---|
| 17Lead | Total shots | 5 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Future Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 60%Lead | Ball possession | 40% |
| 75%Lead | Pass accuracy | 67% |
| 318Lead | Accurate passes | 201 |
| 426Lead | Total passes | 299 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Future Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Future Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Future Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Fouls | 17 |
| 1 | Red cards | 0Lead |
| 3Lead | Yellow cards | 4 |