Match statistics snapshot
- Cavalry FC fired more attempts (10 vs 8 shots).
- Forge was more accurate in front of goal (25% on target vs 10%).
- Forge held more of the ball (55% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Forge | Statistic | Cavalry Fc |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| Offsides | ||
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 9Lead |
| 5 | Shots off target |
| 7Lead |
| 2Lead | Shots on target | 1 |
|---|
| 4Lead | Shots outside the box | 1 |
|---|
| 8 | Total shots | 10Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Forge | Statistic | Cavalry Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 55%Lead | Ball possession | 45% |
| 82%Lead | Pass accuracy | 80% |
| 405Lead | Accurate passes | 322 |
| 494Lead | Total passes | 401 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Forge | Statistic | Cavalry Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 4Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Forge | Statistic | Cavalry Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 2Lead |
| Goalkeeper saves |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Forge | Statistic | Cavalry Fc |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Fouls | 11Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.