Match statistics snapshot
- Shelbourne fired more attempts (21 vs 6 shots).
- Waterford was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 29%).
- Shelbourne held more of the ball (59% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| Expected goals (xG) | ||
| 0Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 6 | Shots inside the box | 16Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 3 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 0 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 6 | Total shots | 21Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 41% | Ball possession | 59%Lead |
| 69% | Pass accuracy | 80%Lead |
| 234 | Accurate passes | 382Lead |
| 339 | Total passes | 479Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 9Lead |
| 4Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Fouls | 10Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.