Match statistics snapshot
- FC Cincinnati created the clearer chances on xG (3.62 vs 1.03, Δ 2.59).
- FC Cincinnati fired more attempts (15 vs 9 shots).
- FC Cincinnati was more accurate in front of goal (67% on target vs 44%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 3.62Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.03 |
| 2 | Offsides | 0Lead |
| 14Lead | Shots inside the box | 9 |
| 3 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4Lead |
| 10Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 1Lead | Shots outside the box | 0 |
|---|
| 15Lead | Total shots | 9 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 53%Lead | Ball possession | 47% |
| 88%Lead | Pass accuracy | 87% |
| 490Lead | Accurate passes | 407 |
| 557Lead | Total passes | 470 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 2Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| -0.96 | Goals prevented | -0.96 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 13Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| 0Lead | Red cards | 1 |
| 2Lead | Yellow cards | 5 |