Match statistics snapshot
- 1.
- FC Heidenheim created the clearer chances on xG (0.87 vs 1.10, Δ 0.23).
- Pafos fired more attempts (15 vs 9 shots).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Pafos | Statistic | 1. Fc Heidenheim |
|---|---|---|
| 0.87 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.10Lead |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 10Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| 7Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 3 | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 15Lead | Total shots | 9 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Pafos | Statistic | 1. Fc Heidenheim |
|---|---|---|
| 62%Lead | Ball possession | 38% |
| 86%Lead | Pass accuracy | 71% |
| 428Lead | Accurate passes | 217 |
| 499Lead | Total passes | 304 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Pafos | Statistic | 1. Fc Heidenheim |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Pafos | Statistic | 1. Fc Heidenheim |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
| 0.11 | Goals prevented | 0.11 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Pafos | Statistic | 1. Fc Heidenheim |
|---|---|---|
| 15 | Fouls | 13Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |