Match statistics snapshot
- Amed created the clearer chances on xG (0.53 vs 2.16, Δ 1.63).
- Amed was more accurate in front of goal (46% on target vs 31%).
- İstanbulspor held more of the ball (53% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| İstanbulspor | Statistic | Amed |
|---|---|---|
| 0.53 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.16Lead |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 7 | Shots inside the box | 9Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 4 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 13 | Total shots | 13 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| İstanbulspor | Statistic | Amed |
|---|---|---|
| 53%Lead | Ball possession | 47% |
| 81%Lead | Pass accuracy | 78% |
| 342Lead | Accurate passes | 295 |
| 423Lead | Total passes | 379 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| İstanbulspor | Statistic | Amed |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| İstanbulspor | Statistic | Amed |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| İstanbulspor | Statistic | Amed |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |