Match statistics snapshot
- Waterford created the clearer chances on xG (1.61 vs 1.34, Δ 0.27).
- Shelbourne fired more attempts (15 vs 14 shots).
- Waterford was more accurate in front of goal (36% on target vs 7%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 1.61Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.34 |
| 3 | Offsides | 2Lead |
| 10 | Shots inside the box | 12Lead |
| 7Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 1 |
|---|
| 4Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 14 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Ball possession | 65%Lead |
| 56% | Pass accuracy | 79%Lead |
| 131 | Accurate passes | 353Lead |
| 234 | Total passes | 448Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 6 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 8Lead |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| 0.16 | Goals prevented | 0.16 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Waterford | Statistic | Shelbourne |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |
Statistics is not available yet.