Match statistics snapshot
- Shelbourne fired more attempts (13 vs 7 shots).
- Sligo Rovers was more accurate in front of goal (71% on target vs 31%).
- Shelbourne held more of the ball (64% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Sligo Rovers | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 1 | Offsides | 0Lead |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 8Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 7 | Total shots | 13Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Sligo Rovers | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 36% | Ball possession | 64%Lead |
| 64% | Pass accuracy | 81%Lead |
| 194 | Accurate passes | 424Lead |
| 301 | Total passes | 521Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Sligo Rovers | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Sligo Rovers | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Blocked shots | 4Lead |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Sligo Rovers | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |