Match statistics snapshot
- Columbus Crew created the clearer chances on xG (1.02 vs 1.47, Δ 0.45).
- Columbus Crew fired more attempts (12 vs 7 shots).
- Columbus Crew was more accurate in front of goal (58% on target vs 43%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 1.02 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.47Lead |
| 2Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 5 | Shots inside the box | 10Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3Lead |
| 3 | Shots on target | 7Lead |
|---|
| 2 | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 7 | Total shots | 12Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 44% | Ball possession | 56%Lead |
| 83% | Pass accuracy | 88%Lead |
| 339 | Accurate passes | 468Lead |
| 409 | Total passes | 534Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 6Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| -0.18 | Goals prevented | -0.18 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 13Lead | Fouls | 15 |
| Red cards | ||
| 0Lead | Yellow cards | 1 |
Statistics is not available yet.