Match statistics snapshot
- Port Vale fired more attempts (14 vs 11 shots).
- Reading was more accurate in front of goal (45% on target vs 21%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Reading | Statistic | Port Vale |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 1Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 6 | Shots inside the box | 11Lead |
| 4 | Shots off target |
| 6Lead |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 11 | Total shots | 14Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Reading | Statistic | Port Vale |
|---|---|---|
| 48% | Ball possession | 52%Lead |
| 78%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 304 | Accurate passes | 305Lead |
| 388 | Total passes | 395Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Reading | Statistic | Port Vale |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 6Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Reading | Statistic | Port Vale |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 5Lead |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Reading | Statistic | Port Vale |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 2 |