Match statistics snapshot
- Inter Miami created the clearer chances on xG (0.88 vs 2.89, Δ 2.01).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 0.88 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.89Lead |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 12Lead |
| 8Lead | Shots off target |
| 5 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 10Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 14 | Total shots | 14 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 49% | Ball possession | 51%Lead |
| 89%Lead | Pass accuracy | 86% |
| 426 | Accurate passes | 429Lead |
| 480 | Total passes | 500Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 3Lead |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| 0.42 | Goals prevented | 0.42 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Fouls | 11 |
| Red cards | ||
| Yellow cards |
Statistics is not available yet.