Match statistics snapshot
- Birmingham created the clearer chances on xG (0.35 vs 0.42, Δ 0.07).
- Rotherham fired more attempts (11 vs 6 shots).
- Birmingham held more of the ball (53% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Birmingham |
|---|---|---|
| 0.35 | Expected goals (xG) | 0.42Lead |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 5Lead | Shots inside the box | 3 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 1 |
| 4Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 11Lead | Total shots | 6 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Birmingham |
|---|---|---|
| 47% | Ball possession | 53%Lead |
| 71% | Pass accuracy | 72%Lead |
| 226 | Accurate passes | 263Lead |
| 318 | Total passes | 365Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Birmingham |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Corner kicks | 6 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Birmingham |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Birmingham |
|---|---|---|
| 16 | Fouls | 11Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 4 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |