Match statistics snapshot
- Everton de Vina created the clearer chances on xG (0.85 vs 1.85, Δ 1.00).
- Coquimbo Unido fired more attempts (17 vs 16 shots).
- Everton de Vina was more accurate in front of goal (38% on target vs 29%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Coquimbo Unido | Statistic | Everton De Vina |
|---|---|---|
| 0.85 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.85Lead |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 9Lead | Shots inside the box | 8 |
| 7 | Shots off target | 7 |
|---|
| 5 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 8 | Shots outside the box | 8 |
|---|
| 17Lead | Total shots | 16 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Coquimbo Unido | Statistic | Everton De Vina |
|---|---|---|
| 52%Lead | Ball possession | 48% |
| 75%Lead | Pass accuracy | 74% |
| 314Lead | Accurate passes | 306 |
| 421Lead | Total passes | 411 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Coquimbo Unido | Statistic | Everton De Vina |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 7 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Coquimbo Unido | Statistic | Everton De Vina |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 4 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Coquimbo Unido | Statistic | Everton De Vina |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2Lead | Yellow cards | 4 |
Statistics is not available yet.