Match statistics snapshot
- Coquimbo Unido created the clearer chances on xG (0.65 vs 1.62, Δ 0.97).
- Coquimbo Unido was more accurate in front of goal (45% on target vs 18%).
- Everton de Vina held more of the ball (67% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Everton De Vina | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 0.65 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.62Lead |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 7Lead |
| 6Lead | Shots off target | 4 |
|---|
| 2 | Shots on target | 5Lead |
|---|
| 7Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 11 | Total shots | 11 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Everton De Vina | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 67%Lead | Ball possession | 33% |
| 84%Lead | Pass accuracy | 69% |
| 445Lead | Accurate passes | 180 |
| 530Lead | Total passes | 261 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Everton De Vina | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Everton De Vina | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 5Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Everton De Vina | Statistic | Coquimbo Unido |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Fouls | 15 |
| 0Lead | Red cards | 1 |
| 3 | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.