Match statistics snapshot
- Shelbourne created the clearer chances on xG (2.81 vs 0.27, Δ 2.54).
- Shelbourne fired more attempts (19 vs 7 shots).
- Shelbourne was more accurate in front of goal (37% on target vs 29%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Shelbourne | Statistic | Waterford |
|---|---|---|
| 2.81Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.27 |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 3 |
| 14Lead | Shots inside the box | 3 |
| 6Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 7Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 19Lead | Total shots | 7 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Shelbourne | Statistic | Waterford |
|---|---|---|
| 69%Lead | Ball possession | 31% |
| 81%Lead | Pass accuracy | 55% |
| 418Lead | Accurate passes | 128 |
| 519Lead | Total passes | 233 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Shelbourne | Statistic | Waterford |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Shelbourne | Statistic | Waterford |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| -0.27 | Goals prevented | -0.27 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Shelbourne | Statistic | Waterford |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Fouls | 15 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.