Match statistics snapshot
- Spartak Trnava created the clearer chances on xG (1.48 vs 0.56, Δ 0.92).
- Spartak Trnava fired more attempts (19 vs 10 shots).
- Žilina was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 16%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Spartak Trnava | Statistic | Žilina |
|---|---|---|
1.48Lead | Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | 0.56 |
2 | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 2 |
10Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
11Lead | Shots off target | 0 |
3 | Shots on target | 5Lead |
9Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
19Lead | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 10 |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Spartak Trnava | Statistic | Žilina |
|---|---|---|
51%Lead | Ball possession | 49% |
78% | Pass accuracy | 78% |
311Lead | Accurate passes | 293 |
399Lead | Total passes | 377 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Spartak Trnava | Statistic | Žilina |
|---|---|---|
6 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Spartak Trnava | Statistic | Žilina |
|---|---|---|
5 | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 5 |
5Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
| Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Spartak Trnava | Statistic | Žilina |
|---|---|---|
14Lead | Fouls | 15 |
| Red cards | ||
| Yellow cards |
Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.
How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.
Žilina leads this block
Žilina leads shot accuracy (+217% vs Spartak Trnava)
Žilina leads shot accuracy (+217% vs Spartak Trnava)
Spartak Trnava leads shot quality (+39% vs Žilina)
Žilina leads (60% vs 53%).
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Spartak Trnava leads this block
Spartak Trnava leads possession efficiency (+154% vs Žilina)
Spartak Trnava leads possession efficiency (+154% vs Žilina)
Žilina — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.
Spartak Trnava leads this block
Spartak Trnava leads territorial pressure (+17% vs Žilina)
Spartak Trnava leads territorial pressure (+17% vs Žilina)
How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.
Spartak Trnava — stronger shot quality allowed
Spartak Trnava — stronger shot quality allowed
Žilina leads keeper workload (+340% vs Spartak Trnava)
Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.
Spartak Trnava leads this block
Spartak Trnava had the edge in 4 of 6 signals in this block.
Žilina leads (15.0 vs 14.0).
Spartak Trnava leads (39.8 vs 38.2).
Spartak Trnava leads (16.0 vs 13.0).
Spartak Trnava leads (0.078 vs 0.056).
Spartak Trnava leads (94.4 vs 92.2).
Žilina leads (20.0 vs 19.0).