Match statistics snapshot
- Tigres UANL fired more attempts (15 vs 12 shots).
- Tigres UANL was more accurate in front of goal (53% on target vs 42%).
- Orlando City SC held more of the ball (54% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Orlando City Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 10Lead | Shots inside the box | 8 |
| 4 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 5 | Shots on target | 8Lead |
|---|
| 2 | Shots outside the box | 7Lead |
|---|
| 12 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Orlando City Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 54%Lead | Ball possession | 46% |
| 84%Lead | Pass accuracy | 81% |
| 406Lead | Accurate passes | 331 |
| 481Lead | Total passes | 408 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Orlando City Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Orlando City Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 7Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Orlando City Sc | Statistic | Tigres Uanl |
|---|---|---|
| 17Lead | Fouls | 28 |
| 0Lead | Red cards | 1 |
| 3Lead | Yellow cards | 5 |