Sportra logo
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
LiveLeaguesNewsGameplayProfile
HomeLive ScoresLeaguesNewsAboutSportra IntelligenceContactPrivacyCookiesTermsDMCAAttribution

© 2026 Sportra. All rights reserved.

Built by TwinForge · TwinsLegacy

Southampton vs Leicester Match Statistics & xG

SOSouthamptonSouthampton
2 — 1AET…
LELeicesterLeicester
OverviewLineupsStatisticsStandingsEventsPlayersPredictionsOdds (pre)Odds (live)FormInjuriesH2HNews

Southampton vs Leicester match statistics

xG, possession, shots, and full match statistics for Southampton vs Leicester in FA Cup.

Updated 2026-06-10T11:35:04.285283Z

Match statistics snapshot

  • Southampton created the clearer chances on xG (1.22 vs 1.11, Δ 0.11).
  • Leicester fired more attempts (17 vs 13 shots).
  • Leicester held more of the ball (55% possession).
SOSouthamptonSouthamptonvsLeicesterLELeicester

Attacking

Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.

SouthamptonStatisticLeicester
1.22Lead
Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count.
1.11
4
OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines.
2Lead
7
Shots inside the box
11Lead
2
Shots off target
4Lead
4
Shots on target
4
6
Shots outside the box
6
13
Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target.
17Lead

Possession & passing

How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.

SouthamptonStatisticLeicester
45%
Ball possession
55%Lead
82%
Pass accuracy
84%Lead
435
Accurate passes
539Lead
529
Total passes
642Lead

Set pieces

Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.

SouthamptonStatisticLeicester
6
Corner kicks
7Lead

Defensive & goalkeeping

Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.

SouthamptonStatisticLeicester
7
Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced.
9Lead
3Lead
Goalkeeper saves
2
Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average.

Discipline

Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.

SouthamptonStatisticLeicester
16Lead
Fouls
21
Red cards
2Lead
Yellow cards
4

Tactical insights

Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.

SouthamptonLeicester
◎

Shooting efficiency

How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.

Southampton leads this block

2Southampton
duels won
1Leicester

Southampton leads shot accuracy (+31% vs Leicester)

  1. 1

    Shot accuracy

    Share of attempts that tested the goalkeeper — accuracy vs volume.

    Southampton31%57% share
    vs
    Leicester24%43% share

    Southampton leads shot accuracy (+31% vs Leicester)

  2. 2

    xG per shot

    Average danger per attempt. Higher means better chances, not just more shots.

    Southampton0.09459% share
    vs
    Leicester0.06541% share

    Southampton leads shot quality (+44% vs Leicester)

  3. 3

    Inside box ratio

    How often attacks reached the penalty area — proxy for box penetration.

    Southampton54%45% share
    vs
    Leicester65%55% share

    Leicester leads box penetration (+20% vs Southampton)

⇄

Tactical identity

Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.

1Southampton
duels won
1Leicester

Southampton leads possession efficiency (+34% vs Leicester)

  1. 1

    xG per possession %

    Chance creation per share of the ball — separates sterile possession from threat.

    Southampton0.02757% share
    vs
    Leicester0.02043% share

    Southampton leads possession efficiency (+34% vs Leicester)

  2. 2

    Passes per shot

    Build-up length before shooting. Higher = more patient circulation; lower = direct vertical play.

    Southampton4152% share
    vs
    Leicester3848% share

    Southampton — slower buildup (more passes per shot)

↑

Pressure & control

Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.

Leicester leads this block

0Southampton
duels won
1Leicester

Leicester leads territorial pressure (+35% vs Southampton)

  1. 1

    Attack pressure score

    Weighted territorial score: in-box shots (×2) + corners + on-target efforts + blocks forced.

    Southampton3142% share
    vs
    Leicester4258% share

    Leicester leads territorial pressure (+35% vs Southampton)

⛨

Defensive

How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.

1Southampton
duels won
1Leicester

Southampton — stronger shot quality allowed

  1. 1

    xGA per shot conceded

    Quality of chances allowed per opponent shot — lower means a compact, limiting defence.

    Southampton0.06541% share
    vs
    Leicester0.09459% share

    Southampton — stronger shot quality allowed

  2. 2

    Save difficulty (xG faced ÷ saves)

    xG faced divided by saves made — higher means the keeper faced tougher stops.

    Southampton0.3738% share
    vs
    Leicester0.6162% share

    Leicester leads keeper workload (+65% vs Southampton)

◈

Gameplay profile

Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.

Leicester leads this block

2Southampton
duels won
4Leicester

Leicester had the edge in 4 of 6 signals in this block.

  1. 1

    Aggression rating

    Fouls and cards combined — physical intensity and risk.

    Southampton20.041% share
    vs
    Leicester29.059% share

    Leicester leads (29.0 vs 20.0).

  2. 2

    Control rating

    Possession blended with pass accuracy — control without chaos.

    Southampton36.944% share
    vs
    Leicester46.256% share

    Leicester leads (46.2 vs 36.9).

  3. 3

    Siege pressure

    Corners plus in-box shots — sustained pressure around the box.

    Southampton13.042% share
    vs
    Leicester18.058% share

    Leicester leads (18.0 vs 13.0).

  4. 4

    Clinical index (xG/shot)

    xG per shot — finishing threat independent of volume.

    Southampton0.09459% share
    vs
    Leicester0.06541% share

    Southampton leads (0.094 vs 0.065).

  5. 5

    Defensive compactness

    Inverse of xGA per shot faced — higher means opponents got worse chances.

    Southampton93.551% share
    vs
    Leicester90.649% share

    Southampton leads (93.5 vs 90.6).

  6. 6

    Chaos factor

    Fouls, cards, and blocks — how stop-start and disruptive the match felt.

    Southampton25.042% share
    vs
    Leicester34.058% share

    Leicester leads (34.0 vs 25.0).