Match statistics snapshot
- LNZ Cherkasy created the clearer chances on xG (1.97 vs 1.44, Δ 0.53).
- Inhulets fired more attempts (9 vs 8 shots).
- LNZ Cherkasy was more accurate in front of goal (63% on target vs 44%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Lnz Cherkasy | Statistic | Inhulets |
|---|---|---|
| 1.97Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.44 |
| 5 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 6Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3Lead |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 4Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 8 | Total shots | 9Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Lnz Cherkasy | Statistic | Inhulets |
|---|---|---|
| 56%Lead | Ball possession | 44% |
| 80%Lead | Pass accuracy | 75% |
| 310Lead | Accurate passes | 251 |
| 388Lead | Total passes | 335 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Lnz Cherkasy | Statistic | Inhulets |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Lnz Cherkasy | Statistic | Inhulets |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 2Lead |
| 4Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Lnz Cherkasy | Statistic | Inhulets |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Fouls | 11 |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 3 | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.