Match statistics snapshot
- FC Cincinnati created the clearer chances on xG (1.33 vs 0.95, Δ 0.38).
- FC Cincinnati fired more attempts (11 vs 10 shots).
- FC Cincinnati was more accurate in front of goal (55% on target vs 20%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 1.33Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.95 |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 6 | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 6Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 11Lead | Total shots | 10 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 44% | Ball possession | 56%Lead |
| 85% | Pass accuracy | 86%Lead |
| 403 | Accurate passes | 509Lead |
| 475 | Total passes | 593Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corner kicks | 4Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Blocked shots | 3Lead |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
| -0.26 | Goals prevented | -0.26 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Fouls | 9 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.