Match statistics snapshot
- Reading created the clearer chances on xG (1.74 vs 1.21, Δ 0.53).
- Reading fired more attempts (16 vs 8 shots).
- Peterborough was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 25%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Reading | Statistic | Peterborough |
|---|---|---|
| 1.74Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.21 |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 11Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
| 8Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 4 | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 16Lead | Total shots | 8 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Reading | Statistic | Peterborough |
|---|---|---|
| 47% | Ball possession | 53%Lead |
| 71% | Pass accuracy | 76%Lead |
| 287 | Accurate passes | 340Lead |
| 402 | Total passes | 449Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Reading | Statistic | Peterborough |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Reading | Statistic | Peterborough |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Reading | Statistic | Peterborough |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Fouls | 12Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |