Match statistics snapshot
- Pharco fired more attempts (15 vs 12 shots).
- Pharco was more accurate in front of goal (53% on target vs 42%).
- Ceramica Cleopatra held more of the ball (57% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Pharco |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 4 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 8 | Shots inside the box | 8 |
| 6Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 5 | Shots on target | 8Lead |
|---|
| 4 | Shots outside the box | 7Lead |
|---|
| 12 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Pharco |
|---|---|---|
| 57%Lead | Ball possession | 43% |
| 79%Lead | Pass accuracy | 70% |
| 319Lead | Accurate passes | 217 |
| 402Lead | Total passes | 309 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Pharco |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Pharco |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 2Lead |
| 8Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 5 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Ceramica Cleopatra | Statistic | Pharco |
|---|---|---|
| 14Lead | Fouls | 15 |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 2 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.