Match statistics snapshot
- Accrington ST fired more attempts (20 vs 13 shots).
- Accrington ST was more accurate in front of goal (30% on target vs 15%).
- Accrington ST held more of the ball (63% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Gainsborough Trinity | Statistic | Accrington St |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | ||
1Lead | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 3 |
9 | Shots inside the box | 12Lead |
6 | Shots off target | 7Lead |
2 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
4 | Shots outside the box | 8Lead |
13 | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 20Lead |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Gainsborough Trinity | Statistic | Accrington St |
|---|---|---|
37% | Ball possession | 63%Lead |
57% | Pass accuracy | 74%Lead |
224 | Accurate passes | 488Lead |
394 | Total passes | 663Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Gainsborough Trinity | Statistic | Accrington St |
|---|---|---|
3 | Corner kicks | 8Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Gainsborough Trinity | Statistic | Accrington St |
|---|---|---|
5 | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 7Lead |
3Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Gainsborough Trinity | Statistic | Accrington St |
|---|---|---|
13 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| Red cards | ||
3 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |
Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.
How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.
Accrington St leads shot accuracy (+95% vs Gainsborough Trinity)
Accrington St leads shot accuracy (+95% vs Gainsborough Trinity)
Gainsborough Trinity leads box penetration (+15% vs Accrington St)
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Gainsborough Trinity leads this block
Accrington St — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Accrington St — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.
Accrington St leads this block
Accrington St leads territorial pressure (+61% vs Gainsborough Trinity)
Accrington St leads territorial pressure (+61% vs Gainsborough Trinity)
Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.
Gainsborough Trinity leads (19.0 vs 11.0).
Accrington St leads (46.6 vs 21.1).
Accrington St leads (20.0 vs 12.0).
Gainsborough Trinity leads (21.0 vs 17.0).