Match statistics snapshot
- Heerenveen created the clearer chances on xG (0.72 vs 0.78, Δ 0.06).
- NEC Nijmegen was more accurate in front of goal (42% on target vs 0%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Nec Nijmegen | Statistic | Heerenveen |
|---|---|---|
| 0.72 | Expected goals (xG) | 0.78Lead |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 9Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 0 |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 12 | Total shots | 12 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Nec Nijmegen | Statistic | Heerenveen |
|---|---|---|
| 49% | Ball possession | 51%Lead |
| 84% | Pass accuracy | 85%Lead |
| 400 | Accurate passes | 424Lead |
| 477 | Total passes | 501Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Nec Nijmegen | Statistic | Heerenveen |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 6 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Nec Nijmegen | Statistic | Heerenveen |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 6Lead |
| 0 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Nec Nijmegen | Statistic | Heerenveen |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| Yellow cards |