Match statistics snapshot
- Banfield was more accurate in front of goal (38% on target vs 15%).
- Independ.
- Rivadavia held more of the ball (56% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Independ. Rivadavia | Statistic | Banfield |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 0Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 7 | Shots inside the box | 8Lead |
| 6 |
| 6 |
| 2 | Shots on target | 5Lead |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 13 | Total shots | 13 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Independ. Rivadavia | Statistic | Banfield |
|---|---|---|
| 56%Lead | Ball possession | 44% |
| 79%Lead | Pass accuracy | 67% |
| 292Lead | Accurate passes | 194 |
| 371Lead | Total passes | 289 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Independ. Rivadavia | Statistic | Banfield |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Independ. Rivadavia | Statistic | Banfield |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 3Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Independ. Rivadavia | Statistic | Banfield |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | Fouls | 11 |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.