Match statistics snapshot
- Manchester City created the clearer chances on xG (0.90 vs 0.18, Δ 0.72).
- Manchester City fired more attempts (15 vs 3 shots).
- Brentford was more accurate in front of goal (100% on target vs 47%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Manchester City | Statistic | Brentford |
|---|---|---|
0.90Lead | Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | 0.18 |
0Lead | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 7 |
6Lead | Shots inside the box | 1 |
5Lead | Shots off target | 0 |
7Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
9Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
15Lead | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 3 |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Manchester City | Statistic | Brentford |
|---|---|---|
60%Lead | Ball possession | 40% |
90%Lead | Pass accuracy | 84% |
565Lead | Accurate passes | 345 |
631Lead | Total passes | 413 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Manchester City | Statistic | Brentford |
|---|---|---|
5Lead | Corner kicks | 1 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Manchester City | Statistic | Brentford |
|---|---|---|
3Lead | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 0 |
3 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Manchester City | Statistic | Brentford |
|---|---|---|
8 | Fouls | 5Lead |
| Red cards | ||
2 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |
Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.
How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.
Manchester City leads this block
Brentford leads shot accuracy (+114% vs Manchester City)
Brentford leads shot accuracy (+114% vs Manchester City)
Manchester City leads (0.060 vs 0.060).
Manchester City leads box penetration (+20% vs Brentford)
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Manchester City leads this block
Manchester City leads possession efficiency (+233% vs Brentford)
Manchester City leads possession efficiency (+233% vs Brentford)
Brentford — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.
Manchester City leads this block
Manchester City leads territorial pressure (+350% vs Brentford)
Manchester City leads territorial pressure (+350% vs Brentford)
How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.
Manchester City — stronger shot quality allowed
Manchester City — stronger shot quality allowed
Brentford leads keeper workload (+200% vs Manchester City)
Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.
Manchester City leads this block
Manchester City had the edge in 5 of 6 signals in this block.
Manchester City leads (12.0 vs 5.0).
Manchester City leads (54.0 vs 33.6).
Manchester City leads (11.0 vs 2.0).
Manchester City leads (0.060 vs 0.060).
Even on this measure.
Manchester City leads (13.0 vs 5.0).