Match statistics snapshot
- Barnet created the clearer chances on xG (0.57 vs 2.42, Δ 1.85).
- Barnet fired more attempts (15 vs 11 shots).
- Gillingham was more accurate in front of goal (45% on target vs 27%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Gillingham | Statistic | Barnet |
|---|---|---|
| 0.57 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.42Lead |
| 2 | Offsides | 2 |
| 7 | Shots inside the box | 11Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 8Lead |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 4 | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 11 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Gillingham | Statistic | Barnet |
|---|---|---|
| 48% | Ball possession | 52%Lead |
| 59% | Pass accuracy | 67%Lead |
| 179 | Accurate passes | 203Lead |
| 301 | Total passes | 305Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Gillingham | Statistic | Barnet |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Gillingham | Statistic | Barnet |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Gillingham | Statistic | Barnet |
|---|---|---|
| 18 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 4 | Yellow cards | 3Lead |