Match statistics snapshot
- Shelbourne created the clearer chances on xG (0.86 vs 2.38, Δ 1.52).
- Shelbourne fired more attempts (24 vs 6 shots).
- Waterford was more accurate in front of goal (33% on target vs 21%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 0.86 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.38Lead |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 3 | Shots inside the box | 18Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 13Lead |
| 2 | Shots on target | 5Lead |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 6Lead |
|---|
| 6 | Total shots | 24Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 33% | Ball possession | 67%Lead |
| 63% | Pass accuracy | 81%Lead |
| 141 | Accurate passes | 368Lead |
| 225 | Total passes | 457Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 8Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 6Lead |
| 4Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | Fouls | 10 |
| Red cards | ||
| 5 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.