Match statistics snapshot
- Liverpool created the clearer chances on xG (0.67 vs 1.92, Δ 1.25).
- Liverpool fired more attempts (20 vs 4 shots).
- Wolves was more accurate in front of goal (75% on target vs 45%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Wolves | Statistic | Liverpool |
|---|---|---|
0.67 | Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | 1.92Lead |
0Lead | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 3 |
2 | Shots inside the box | 9Lead |
1 | Shots off target | 5Lead |
3 | Shots on target | 9Lead |
2 | Shots outside the box | 11Lead |
4 | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 20Lead |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Wolves | Statistic | Liverpool |
|---|---|---|
33% | Ball possession | 67%Lead |
81% | Pass accuracy | 92%Lead |
251 | Accurate passes | 575Lead |
310 | Total passes | 628Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Wolves | Statistic | Liverpool |
|---|---|---|
0 | Corner kicks | 11Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Wolves | Statistic | Liverpool |
|---|---|---|
0 | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 6Lead |
6Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Wolves | Statistic | Liverpool |
|---|---|---|
13 | Fouls | 7Lead |
| Red cards | ||
2 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |
Scouting-style duels — each row compares both teams, shows share of the pie, and who had the edge. Categories summarize who won more signals.
How clinical and dangerous each attack was — not just how often they shot, but where and how good those chances were.
Wolves leads this block
Wolves leads shot accuracy (+67% vs Liverpool)
Wolves leads shot accuracy (+67% vs Liverpool)
Wolves leads shot quality (+74% vs Liverpool)
Wolves leads (50% vs 45%).
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Liverpool leads this block
Liverpool leads possession efficiency (+41% vs Wolves)
Liverpool leads possession efficiency (+41% vs Wolves)
Wolves — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.
Liverpool leads this block
Liverpool leads territorial pressure (+529% vs Wolves)
Liverpool leads territorial pressure (+529% vs Wolves)
How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.
Wolves — stronger shot quality allowed
Wolves — stronger shot quality allowed
Liverpool leads (0.34 vs 0.32).
Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.
Wolves leads this block
Wolves had the edge in 4 of 6 signals in this block.
Wolves leads (17.0 vs 9.0).
Liverpool leads (61.6 vs 26.7).
Liverpool leads (20.0 vs 2.0).
Wolves leads (0.168 vs 0.096).
Wolves leads (90.4 vs 83.3).
Wolves leads (15.0 vs 14.0).