Match statistics snapshot
- Coquimbo Unido created the clearer chances on xG (1.85 vs 2.36, Δ 0.51).
- Cobresal fired more attempts (16 vs 12 shots).
- Coquimbo Unido was more accurate in front of goal (58% on target vs 38%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Cobresal | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 1.85 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.36Lead |
| 3 | Offsides | 2Lead |
| 8Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| 8Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 6 | Shots on target | 7Lead |
|---|
| 8Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 16Lead | Total shots | 12 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Cobresal | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 69%Lead | Ball possession | 31% |
| 86%Lead | Pass accuracy | 67% |
| 359Lead | Accurate passes | 120 |
| 419Lead | Total passes | 180 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Cobresal | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Cobresal | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 2Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 5 | Goalkeeper saves | 5 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Cobresal | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| 1 | Red cards | 1 |
| 4Lead | Yellow cards | 5 |
Statistics is not available yet.