Match statistics snapshot
- Gillingham created the clearer chances on xG (1.26 vs 1.94, Δ 0.68).
- Shrewsbury fired more attempts (17 vs 16 shots).
- Shrewsbury was more accurate in front of goal (29% on target vs 19%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Shrewsbury | Statistic | Gillingham |
|---|---|---|
| 1.26 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.94Lead |
| 2Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 12 | Shots inside the box | 13Lead |
| 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 9Lead |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 17Lead | Total shots | 16 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Shrewsbury | Statistic | Gillingham |
|---|---|---|
| 32% | Ball possession | 68%Lead |
| 42% | Pass accuracy | 72%Lead |
| 79 | Accurate passes | 281Lead |
| 188 | Total passes | 390Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Shrewsbury | Statistic | Gillingham |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corner kicks | 9Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Shrewsbury | Statistic | Gillingham |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Blocked shots | 4 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 2Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Shrewsbury | Statistic | Gillingham |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Fouls | 11 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 2 |