Match statistics snapshot
- Fluminense created the clearer chances on xG (0.68 vs 1.60, Δ 0.92).
- Fluminense fired more attempts (15 vs 10 shots).
- Fluminense was more accurate in front of goal (47% on target vs 30%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Remo | Statistic | Fluminense |
|---|---|---|
| 0.68 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.60Lead |
| 2Lead | Offsides | 5 |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 9Lead |
| 4 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 3 | Shots on target | 7Lead |
|---|
| 6 | Shots outside the box | 6 |
|---|
| 10 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Remo | Statistic | Fluminense |
|---|---|---|
| 33% | Ball possession | 67%Lead |
| 81% | Pass accuracy | 89%Lead |
| 245 | Accurate passes | 589Lead |
| 304 | Total passes | 659Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Remo | Statistic | Fluminense |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Remo | Statistic | Fluminense |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 5Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
| 0.77 | Goals prevented | 0.77 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Remo | Statistic | Fluminense |
|---|---|---|
| 11Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |