Match statistics snapshot
- FC Cincinnati fired more attempts (12 vs 6 shots).
- Tigres UANL was more accurate in front of goal (67% on target vs 42%).
- Tigres UANL held more of the ball (54% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 0Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 4Lead | Shots inside the box | 3 |
| 4 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 8Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 12Lead | Total shots | 6 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 46% | Ball possession | 54%Lead |
| 84% | Pass accuracy | 85%Lead |
| 401 | Accurate passes | 463Lead |
| 476 | Total passes | 546Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Fouls | 18 |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.