Match statistics snapshot
- FC Cincinnati created the clearer chances on xG (0.87 vs 1.84, Δ 0.97).
- Inter Miami fired more attempts (16 vs 13 shots).
- FC Cincinnati was more accurate in front of goal (46% on target vs 13%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 0.87 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.84Lead |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 3 |
| 3 | Shots inside the box | 8Lead |
| 11Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 2 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 13Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 16Lead | Total shots | 13 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 62%Lead | Ball possession | 38% |
| 85%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 461Lead | Accurate passes | 258 |
| 540Lead | Total passes | 333 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 5Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| Red cards | ||
| 0Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |
Statistics is not available yet.