Sportra logo
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
HomeLive ScoresLeaguesNewsAboutSportra IntelligenceContactPrivacyCookiesTermsDMCAAttribution

© 2026 Sportra. All rights reserved.

Built by TwinForge · TwinsLegacy

Grimsby vs Accrington ST Match Statistics & xG

GRGrimsbyGrimsby
1 — 0FT…
ASAccrington STAccrington ST
OverviewLineupsStatisticsStandingsEventsPlayersPredictionsOdds (pre)Odds (live)FormInjuriesH2HNews

Grimsby vs Accrington ST match statistics

xG, possession, shots, and full match statistics for Grimsby vs Accrington ST in League Two.

Updated 2026-06-09T01:06:11.699435Z

Match statistics snapshot

  • Grimsby fired more attempts (27 vs 9 shots).
  • Accrington ST was more accurate in front of goal (44% on target vs 26%).
GRGrimsbyGrimsbyvsAccrington STASAccrington ST

Attacking

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

GrimsbyStatisticAccrington St
Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count.
0Lead
OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines.
1
22Lead
Shots inside the box
3
14Lead
Shots off target
1
7Lead
Shots on target
4
5
Shots outside the box
6Lead
27Lead
Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target.
9

Possession & passing

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

GrimsbyStatisticAccrington St
49%
Ball possession
51%Lead
65%Lead
Pass accuracy
59%
228Lead
Accurate passes
215
350
Total passes
366Lead

Set pieces

Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.

GrimsbyStatisticAccrington St
8Lead
Corner kicks
4

Defensive & goalkeeping

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

GrimsbyStatisticAccrington St
6Lead
Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced.
4
4
Goalkeeper saves
6Lead
Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average.

Discipline

Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.

GrimsbyStatisticAccrington St
2Lead
Fouls
13
0Lead
Red cards
1
1Lead
Yellow cards
2

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.

GrimsbyAccrington St
◎

Shooting efficiency

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

1Grimsby
duels won
1Accrington St

Accrington St leads shot accuracy (+71% vs Grimsby)

  1. 1

    Shot accuracy

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

    Grimsby26%37% share
    vs
    Accrington St44%63% share

    Accrington St leads shot accuracy (+71% vs Grimsby)

  2. 2

    Inside box ratio

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

    Grimsby81%71% share
    vs
    Accrington St33%29% share

    Grimsby leads box penetration (+144% vs Accrington St)

⇄

Tactical identity

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

Grimsby leads this block

1Grimsby
duels won
0Accrington St

Accrington St — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

  1. 1

    Passes per shot

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

    Grimsby1324% share
    vs
    Accrington St4176% share

    Accrington St — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

↑

Pressure & control

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

Grimsby leads this block

1Grimsby
duels won
0Accrington St

Grimsby leads territorial pressure (+261% vs Accrington St)

  1. 1

    Attack pressure score

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

    Grimsby6578% share
    vs
    Accrington St1822% share

    Grimsby leads territorial pressure (+261% vs Accrington St)

◈

Gameplay profile

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

2Grimsby
duels won
2Accrington St
  1. 1

    Aggression rating

    Fouls and cards combined — physical intensity and risk.

    Grimsby4.015% share
    vs
    Accrington St22.085% share

    Accrington St leads (22.0 vs 4.0).

  2. 2

    Control rating

    Possession blended with pass accuracy — control without chaos.

    Grimsby31.951% share
    vs
    Accrington St30.149% share

    Grimsby leads (31.9 vs 30.1).

  3. 3

    Siege pressure

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

    Grimsby30.081% share
    vs
    Accrington St7.019% share

    Grimsby leads (30.0 vs 7.0).

  4. 4

    Chaos factor

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

    Grimsby9.029% share
    vs
    Accrington St22.071% share

    Accrington St leads (22.0 vs 9.0).