Match statistics snapshot
- FC Cincinnati created the clearer chances on xG (1.84 vs 0.54, Δ 1.30).
- FC Cincinnati fired more attempts (22 vs 9 shots).
- FC Cincinnati was more accurate in front of goal (32% on target vs 22%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 1.84Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.54 |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 13Lead | Shots inside the box | 4 |
| 11Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 7Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 9Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 22Lead | Total shots | 9 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 56%Lead | Ball possession | 44% |
| 77%Lead | Pass accuracy | 68% |
| 284Lead | Accurate passes | 189 |
| 367Lead | Total passes | 280 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Corner kicks | 8 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |
Statistics is not available yet.