Sportra logo
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
HomeLive ScoresLeaguesNewsAboutSportra IntelligenceContactPrivacyCookiesTermsDMCAAttribution

© 2026 Sportra. All rights reserved.

Built by TwinForge · TwinsLegacy

Luton vs Forest Green Match Statistics & xG

LULutonLuton
4 — 3FT…
FGForest GreenForest Green
OverviewLineupsStatisticsStandingsEventsPlayersPredictionsOdds (pre)Odds (live)FormInjuriesH2HNews

Luton vs Forest Green match statistics

xG, possession, shots, and full match statistics for Luton vs Forest Green in FA Cup.

Updated 2026-06-10T12:00:35.885493Z

Match statistics snapshot

  • Forest Green fired more attempts (16 vs 9 shots).
  • Luton was more accurate in front of goal (56% on target vs 31%).
  • Luton held more of the ball (53% possession).
LULutonLutonvsForest GreenFGForest Green

Attacking

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

LutonStatisticForest Green
Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count.
3
OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines.
1Lead
7
Shots inside the box
14Lead
4
Shots off target
7Lead
5
Shots on target
5
2
Shots outside the box
2
9
Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target.
16Lead

Possession & passing

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

LutonStatisticForest Green
53%Lead
Ball possession
47%
72%Lead
Pass accuracy
66%
275Lead
Accurate passes
213
383Lead
Total passes
325

Set pieces

Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.

LutonStatisticForest Green
2
Corner kicks
6Lead

Defensive & goalkeeping

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

LutonStatisticForest Green
0
Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced.
4Lead
1
Goalkeeper saves
1
Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average.

Discipline

Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.

LutonStatisticForest Green
7Lead
Fouls
10
Red cards
2
Yellow cards
1Lead

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.

LutonForest Green
◎

Shooting efficiency

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

1Luton
duels won
1Forest Green

Luton leads shot accuracy (+78% vs Forest Green)

  1. 1

    Shot accuracy

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

    Luton56%64% share
    vs
    Forest Green31%36% share

    Luton leads shot accuracy (+78% vs Forest Green)

  2. 2

    Inside box ratio

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

    Luton78%47% share
    vs
    Forest Green88%53% share

    Forest Green leads (88% vs 78%).

⇄

Tactical identity

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

Forest Green leads this block

0Luton
duels won
1Forest Green

Luton — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

  1. 1

    Passes per shot

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

    Luton4368% share
    vs
    Forest Green2032% share

    Luton — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

↑

Pressure & control

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

Forest Green leads this block

0Luton
duels won
1Forest Green

Forest Green leads territorial pressure (+105% vs Luton)

  1. 1

    Attack pressure score

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

    Luton2133% share
    vs
    Forest Green4367% share

    Forest Green leads territorial pressure (+105% vs Luton)

◈

Gameplay profile

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

Forest Green leads this block

1Luton
duels won
3Forest Green

Forest Green had the edge in 3 of 4 signals in this block.

  1. 1

    Aggression rating

    Fouls and cards combined — physical intensity and risk.

    Luton11.048% share
    vs
    Forest Green12.052% share

    Forest Green leads (12.0 vs 11.0).

  2. 2

    Control rating

    Possession blended with pass accuracy — control without chaos.

    Luton38.255% share
    vs
    Forest Green31.045% share

    Luton leads (38.2 vs 31.0).

  3. 3

    Siege pressure

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

    Luton9.031% share
    vs
    Forest Green20.069% share

    Forest Green leads (20.0 vs 9.0).

  4. 4

    Chaos factor

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

    Luton9.038% share
    vs
    Forest Green15.063% share

    Forest Green leads (15.0 vs 9.0).