Match statistics snapshot
- Manchester City created the clearer chances on xG (2.10 vs 0.98, Δ 1.12).
- Manchester City fired more attempts (17 vs 7 shots).
- Manchester City held more of the ball (66% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Manchester City | Statistic | West Ham |
|---|---|---|
2.10Lead | Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | 0.98 |
1Lead | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 2 |
14Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
7Lead | Shots off target | 4 |
8Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
3Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
17Lead | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 7 |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Manchester City | Statistic | West Ham |
|---|---|---|
66%Lead | Ball possession | 34% |
92%Lead | Pass accuracy | 80% |
693Lead | Accurate passes | 314 |
750Lead | Total passes | 391 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Manchester City | Statistic | West Ham |
|---|---|---|
6Lead | Corner kicks | 0 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Manchester City | Statistic | West Ham |
|---|---|---|
2Lead | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 0 |
4 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
-0.19 | Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. | -0.19 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Manchester City | Statistic | West Ham |
|---|---|---|
16 | Fouls | 10Lead |
| Red cards | ||
1 | Yellow cards | 1 |
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
Manchester City leads box penetration (+15% vs West Ham)
Manchester City leads (47% vs 43%).
West Ham leads (0.140 vs 0.124).
Manchester City leads box penetration (+15% vs West Ham)
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Manchester City leads this block
West Ham — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Manchester City leads (0.032 vs 0.029).
West Ham — 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 (+238% vs West Ham)
Manchester City leads territorial pressure (+238% vs West Ham)
How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.
West Ham leads this block
West Ham — stronger shot quality allowed
West Ham — stronger shot quality allowed
West Ham leads keeper workload (+71% 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 4 of 6 signals in this block.
Manchester City leads (18.0 vs 12.0).
Manchester City leads (60.7 vs 27.2).
Manchester City leads (20.0 vs 5.0).
West Ham leads (0.140 vs 0.124).
West Ham leads (87.6 vs 86.0).
Manchester City leads (19.0 vs 11.0).