Match statistics snapshot
- Como created the clearer chances on xG (1.40 vs 0.44, Δ 0.96).
- Como fired more attempts (14 vs 7 shots).
- Como was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 0%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Como | Statistic | Pisa |
|---|---|---|
| 1.40Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.44 |
| 2Lead | Offsides | 3 |
| 13Lead | Shots inside the box | 4 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 7Lead | Shots on target | 0 |
|---|
| 1 | Shots outside the box | 3Lead |
|---|
| 14Lead | Total shots | 7 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Como | Statistic | Pisa |
|---|---|---|
| 73%Lead | Ball possession | 27% |
| 93%Lead | Pass accuracy | 79% |
| 632Lead | Accurate passes | 197 |
| 679Lead | Total passes | 248 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Como | Statistic | Pisa |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Corner kicks | 1 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Como | Statistic | Pisa |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 4Lead |
| 0 | Goalkeeper saves | 2Lead |
| -2.16 | Goals prevented | -2.16 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Como | Statistic | Pisa |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Fouls | 6 |
| Red cards | ||
| 0Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |
Statistics is not available yet.