Match statistics snapshot
- Rotherham created the clearer chances on xG (1.56 vs 0.89, Δ 0.67).
- Rotherham fired more attempts (15 vs 6 shots).
- Reading was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 20%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| 1.56Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.89 |
| 2Lead | Offsides | 5 |
| 6 | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 3 | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 9Lead | Shots outside the box | 0 |
|---|
| 15Lead | Total shots | 6 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| 44% | Ball possession | 56%Lead |
| 69% | Pass accuracy | 75%Lead |
| 177 | Accurate passes | 256Lead |
| 258 | Total passes | 343Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Rotherham | Statistic | Reading |
|---|---|---|
| 17 | Fouls | 15Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |