Match statistics snapshot
- Tigres UANL created the clearer chances on xG (1.81 vs 0.79, Δ 1.02).
- Tigres UANL fired more attempts (19 vs 9 shots).
- Tigres UANL was more accurate in front of goal (47% on target vs 11%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Tigres Uanl | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 1.81Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.79 |
| 4 | Offsides | 0Lead |
| 10Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
| 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6 |
| 9Lead | Shots on target | 1 |
|---|
| 9Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 19Lead | Total shots | 9 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Tigres Uanl | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 57%Lead | Ball possession | 43% |
| 78%Lead | Pass accuracy | 73% |
| 322Lead | Accurate passes | 236 |
| 415Lead | Total passes | 322 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Tigres Uanl | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Tigres Uanl | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 0 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Tigres Uanl | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Fouls | 12Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 6 | Yellow cards | 4Lead |