Match statistics snapshot
- Reading created the clearer chances on xG (1.01 vs 0.84, Δ 0.17).
- Reading fired more attempts (11 vs 8 shots).
- Reading was more accurate in front of goal (55% on target vs 13%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Reading | Statistic | Rotherham |
|---|---|---|
| 1.01Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.84 |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 7Lead | Shots inside the box | 4 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 6Lead | Shots on target | 1 |
|---|
| 4 | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 11Lead | Total shots | 8 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Reading | Statistic | Rotherham |
|---|---|---|
| 67%Lead | Ball possession | 33% |
| 85%Lead | Pass accuracy | 66% |
| 465Lead | Accurate passes | 174 |
| 545Lead | Total passes | 265 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Reading | Statistic | Rotherham |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Reading | Statistic | Rotherham |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 4Lead |
| 0 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Reading | Statistic | Rotherham |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Fouls | 9 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.