Sportra logo
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
HomeLive ScoresLeaguesNewsAboutSportra IntelligenceContactPrivacyCookiesTermsDMCAAttribution

© 2026 Sportra. All rights reserved.

Built by TwinForge · TwinsLegacy

Gillingham vs Salford City Match Statistics & xG

GIGillinghamGillingham
1 — 2FT…
SCSalford CitySalford City
OverviewLineupsStatisticsStandingsEventsPlayersPredictionsOdds (pre)Odds (live)FormInjuriesH2HNews

Gillingham vs Salford City match statistics

xG, possession, shots, and full match statistics for Gillingham vs Salford City in League Two.

Updated 2026-06-09T01:19:21.617328Z

Match statistics snapshot

  • Gillingham fired more attempts (14 vs 13 shots).
  • Gillingham was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 15%).
GIGillinghamGillinghamvsSalford CitySCSalford City

Attacking

Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.

GillinghamStatisticSalford City
Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count.
2
OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines.
0Lead
12Lead
Shots inside the box
9
4
Shots off target
7Lead
7Lead
Shots on target
2
2
Shots outside the box
4Lead
14Lead
Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target.
13

Possession & passing

How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.

GillinghamStatisticSalford City
48%
Ball possession
52%Lead
51%
Pass accuracy
62%Lead
127
Accurate passes
170Lead
247
Total passes
273Lead

Set pieces

Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.

GillinghamStatisticSalford City
5
Corner kicks
5

Defensive & goalkeeping

Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.

GillinghamStatisticSalford City
3
Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced.
4Lead
1
Goalkeeper saves
5Lead
Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average.

Discipline

Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.

GillinghamStatisticSalford City
17
Fouls
16Lead
Red cards
2Lead
Yellow cards
5

Tactical insights

Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.

GillinghamSalford City
◎

Shooting efficiency

How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.

Gillingham leads this block

2Gillingham
duels won
0Salford City

Gillingham leads shot accuracy (+225% vs Salford City)

  1. 1

    Shot accuracy

    Share of attempts that tested the goalkeeper — accuracy vs volume.

    Gillingham50%76% share
    vs
    Salford City15%24% share

    Gillingham leads shot accuracy (+225% vs Salford City)

  2. 2

    Inside box ratio

    How often attacks reached the penalty area — proxy for box penetration.

    Gillingham86%55% share
    vs
    Salford City69%45% share

    Gillingham leads box penetration (+24% vs Salford City)

⇄

Tactical identity

Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.

Gillingham leads this block

1Gillingham
duels won
0Salford City

Salford City — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

  1. 1

    Passes per shot

    Build-up length before shooting. Higher = more patient circulation; lower = direct vertical play.

    Gillingham1846% share
    vs
    Salford City2154% share

    Salford City — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

↑

Pressure & control

Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.

Gillingham leads this block

1Gillingham
duels won
0Salford City

Gillingham leads territorial pressure (+34% vs Salford City)

  1. 1

    Attack pressure score

    Weighted territorial score: in-box shots (×2) + corners + on-target efforts + blocks forced.

    Gillingham3957% share
    vs
    Salford City2943% share

    Gillingham leads territorial pressure (+34% vs Salford City)

◈

Gameplay profile

Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.

Salford City leads this block

1Gillingham
duels won
3Salford City

Salford City had the edge in 3 of 4 signals in this block.

  1. 1

    Aggression rating

    Fouls and cards combined — physical intensity and risk.

    Gillingham21.045% share
    vs
    Salford City26.055% share

    Salford City leads (26.0 vs 21.0).

  2. 2

    Control rating

    Possession blended with pass accuracy — control without chaos.

    Gillingham24.543% share
    vs
    Salford City32.257% share

    Salford City leads (32.2 vs 24.5).

  3. 3

    Siege pressure

    Corners plus in-box shots — sustained pressure around the box.

    Gillingham17.055% share
    vs
    Salford City14.045% share

    Gillingham leads (17.0 vs 14.0).

  4. 4

    Chaos factor

    Fouls, cards, and blocks — how stop-start and disruptive the match felt.

    Gillingham22.047% share
    vs
    Salford City25.053% share

    Salford City leads (25.0 vs 22.0).