Match statistics snapshot
- Toronto FC created the clearer chances on xG (0.91 vs 0.68, Δ 0.23).
- Toronto FC fired more attempts (12 vs 8 shots).
- Toronto FC was more accurate in front of goal (58% on target vs 50%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 0.91Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.68 |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 8Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| 5Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 7Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 4Lead | Shots outside the box | 1 |
|---|
| 12Lead | Total shots | 8 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 44% | Ball possession | 56%Lead |
| 77% | Pass accuracy | 83%Lead |
| 287 | Accurate passes | 398Lead |
| 371 | Total passes | 477Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Corner kicks | 7 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Blocked shots | 1Lead |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| -0.24 | Goals prevented | -0.24 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 9Lead | Fouls | 20 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.