Match statistics snapshot
- Reading created the clearer chances on xG (1.63 vs 0.39, Δ 1.24).
- Reading fired more attempts (19 vs 6 shots).
- Burton Albion was more accurate in front of goal (33% on target vs 21%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Reading | Statistic | Burton Albion |
|---|---|---|
| 1.63Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.39 |
| 2Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 14Lead | Shots inside the box | 3 |
| 7Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 4Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 19Lead | Total shots | 6 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Reading | Statistic | Burton Albion |
|---|---|---|
| 52%Lead | Ball possession | 48% |
| 79%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 355Lead | Accurate passes | 316 |
| 449Lead | Total passes | 410 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Reading | Statistic | Burton Albion |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Reading | Statistic | Burton Albion |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Reading | Statistic | Burton Albion |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Fouls | 10Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| Yellow cards |
Statistics is not available yet.