Match statistics snapshot
- Exeter City created the clearer chances on xG (0.83 vs 0.84, Δ 0.01).
- Exeter City fired more attempts (10 vs 9 shots).
- Reading was more accurate in front of goal (56% on target vs 20%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Reading | Statistic | Exeter City |
|---|---|---|
| 0.83 | Expected goals (xG) | 0.84Lead |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
| 1 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 2 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 9 | Total shots | 10Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Reading | Statistic | Exeter City |
|---|---|---|
| 57%Lead | Ball possession | 43% |
| 81%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 419Lead | Accurate passes | 300 |
| 515Lead | Total passes | 391 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Reading | Statistic | Exeter City |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Reading | Statistic | Exeter City |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 0 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Reading | Statistic | Exeter City |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Fouls | 15 |
| Red cards | ||
| 4 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |