Match statistics snapshot
- Mito Hollyhock created the clearer chances on xG (1.34 vs 1.76, Δ 0.42).
- Mito Hollyhock fired more attempts (15 vs 9 shots).
- Mito Hollyhock was more accurate in front of goal (53% on target vs 33%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Machida Zelvia | Statistic | Mito Hollyhock |
|---|---|---|
| 1.34 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.76Lead |
| 2 | Offsides | 2 |
| 5 | Shots inside the box | 10Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3Lead |
| 3 | Shots on target | 8Lead |
|---|
| 4 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 9 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Machida Zelvia | Statistic | Mito Hollyhock |
|---|---|---|
| 56%Lead | Ball possession | 44% |
| 79%Lead | Pass accuracy | 71% |
| 352Lead | Accurate passes | 260 |
| 448Lead | Total passes | 364 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Machida Zelvia | Statistic | Mito Hollyhock |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 4Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Machida Zelvia | Statistic | Mito Hollyhock |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Blocked shots | 4 |
| 5Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Machida Zelvia | Statistic | Mito Hollyhock |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| Red cards | ||
| Yellow cards |
Statistics is not available yet.