Match statistics snapshot
- Reading created the clearer chances on xG (2.36 vs 1.35, Δ 1.01).
- Cardiff was more accurate in front of goal (60% on target vs 47%).
- Cardiff held more of the ball (63% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Reading | Statistic | Cardiff |
|---|---|---|
| 2.36Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.35 |
| 2 | Offsides | 2 |
| 11Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 7 | Shots on target | 9Lead |
|---|
| 4 | Shots outside the box | 8Lead |
|---|
| 15 | Total shots | 15 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Reading | Statistic | Cardiff |
|---|---|---|
| 37% | Ball possession | 63%Lead |
| 67% | Pass accuracy | 83%Lead |
| 174 | Accurate passes | 368Lead |
| 258 | Total passes | 441Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Reading | Statistic | Cardiff |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Corner kicks | 9Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Reading | Statistic | Cardiff |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 6Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 5 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Reading | Statistic | Cardiff |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Fouls | 11 |
| Red cards | ||
| 3Lead | Yellow cards | 4 |