Match statistics snapshot
- Crawley Town created the clearer chances on xG (1.42 vs 1.02, Δ 0.40).
- Crawley Town fired more attempts (21 vs 7 shots).
- Crawley Town was more accurate in front of goal (24% on target vs 14%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Crawley Town | Statistic | Fleetwood Town |
|---|---|---|
1.42Lead | Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | 1.02 |
2 | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 2 |
8Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
10Lead | Shots off target | 2 |
5Lead | Shots on target | 1 |
13Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
21Lead | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 7 |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Crawley Town | Statistic | Fleetwood Town |
|---|---|---|
73%Lead | Ball possession | 27% |
85%Lead | Pass accuracy | 55% |
473Lead | Accurate passes | 109 |
555Lead | Total passes | 200 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Crawley Town | Statistic | Fleetwood Town |
|---|---|---|
11Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Crawley Town | Statistic | Fleetwood Town |
|---|---|---|
6Lead | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 4 |
0 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
| Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Crawley Town | Statistic | Fleetwood Town |
|---|---|---|
6Lead | Fouls | 13 |
0Lead | Red cards | 1 |
2Lead | Yellow cards | 4 |
Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.
How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.
Fleetwood Town leads this block
Crawley Town leads shot accuracy (+67% vs Fleetwood Town)
Crawley Town leads shot accuracy (+67% vs Fleetwood Town)
Fleetwood Town leads shot quality (+115% vs Crawley Town)
Fleetwood Town leads box penetration (+88% vs Crawley Town)
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Fleetwood Town leads possession efficiency (+94% vs Crawley Town)
Fleetwood Town leads possession efficiency (+94% vs Crawley Town)
Fleetwood Town — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.
Crawley Town leads this block
Crawley Town leads territorial pressure (+111% vs Fleetwood Town)
Crawley Town leads territorial pressure (+111% vs Fleetwood Town)
How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.
Fleetwood Town leads this block
Fleetwood Town — stronger shot quality allowed
Fleetwood Town — stronger shot quality allowed
Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.
Fleetwood Town leads this block
Fleetwood Town had the edge in 4 of 6 signals in this block.
Fleetwood Town leads (26.0 vs 10.0).
Crawley Town leads (62.0 vs 14.8).
Crawley Town leads (19.0 vs 8.0).
Fleetwood Town leads (0.146 vs 0.068).
Fleetwood Town leads (93.2 vs 85.4).
Fleetwood Town leads (24.0 vs 14.0).