Match statistics snapshot
- Tigres UANL created the clearer chances on xG (0.44 vs 1.13, Δ 0.69).
- Tigres UANL fired more attempts (13 vs 9 shots).
- Tigres UANL was more accurate in front of goal (54% on target vs 22%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Nashville Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 0.44 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.13Lead |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 3 | Shots inside the box | 8Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 2 | Shots on target | 7Lead |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 9 | Total shots | 13Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Nashville Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 58%Lead | Ball possession | 42% |
| 88%Lead | Pass accuracy | 82% |
| 458Lead | Accurate passes | 324 |
| 523Lead | Total passes | 397 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Nashville Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Nashville Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 6Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Nashville Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Fouls | 12Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.