Match statistics snapshot
- Columbus Crew created the clearer chances on xG (1.34 vs 0.72, Δ 0.62).
- Columbus Crew fired more attempts (20 vs 8 shots).
- Inter Miami was more accurate in front of goal (63% on target vs 40%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Columbus Crew | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 1.34Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.72 |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 8Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
| 5Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 8Lead | Shots on target | 5 |
|---|
| 12Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 20Lead | Total shots | 8 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Columbus Crew | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 70%Lead | Ball possession | 30% |
| 89%Lead | Pass accuracy | 72% |
| 597Lead | Accurate passes | 206 |
| 671Lead | Total passes | 287 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Columbus Crew | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Columbus Crew | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 7Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Columbus Crew | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 9Lead | Fouls | 10 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |