Match statistics snapshot
- Žilina created the clearer chances on xG (1.18 vs 0.64, Δ 0.54).
- Žilina fired more attempts (16 vs 9 shots).
- Spartak Trnava was more accurate in front of goal (33% on target vs 13%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Žilina | Statistic | Spartak Trnava |
|---|---|---|
1.18Lead | Expected goals (xG)Quality of chances created — not just shot count. | 0.64 |
2 | OffsidesTiming of runs — high counts can mean aggressive lines. | 0Lead |
11Lead | Shots inside the box | 4 |
10Lead | Shots off target | 2 |
2 | Shots on target | 3Lead |
5 | Shots outside the box | 5 |
16Lead | Total shotsAll attempts including blocked and off-target. | 9 |
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Žilina | Statistic | Spartak Trnava |
|---|---|---|
63%Lead | Ball possession | 37% |
81%Lead | Pass accuracy | 65% |
384Lead | Accurate passes | 181 |
476Lead | Total passes | 277 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Žilina | Statistic | Spartak Trnava |
|---|---|---|
6Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Žilina | Statistic | Spartak Trnava |
|---|---|---|
4 | Blocked shotsDefensive actions — also counts as part of attacking pressure faced. | 4 |
2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals preventedKeeper performance vs expected — positive is above average. |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Žilina | Statistic | Spartak Trnava |
|---|---|---|
10Lead | Fouls | 16 |
| Red cards | ||
0Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |
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.
Žilina leads this block
Spartak Trnava leads shot accuracy (+167% vs Žilina)
Spartak Trnava leads shot accuracy (+167% vs Žilina)
Žilina leads (0.074 vs 0.071).
Žilina leads box penetration (+55% vs Spartak Trnava)
Playing style signals: whether chances came from patient possession or direct vertical play.
Žilina leads this block
Spartak Trnava — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Žilina leads (0.019 vs 0.017).
Spartak Trnava — slower buildup (more passes per shot)
Territorial dominance built from box presence, set pieces, and sustained threat.
Žilina leads this block
Žilina leads territorial pressure (+70% vs Spartak Trnava)
Žilina leads territorial pressure (+70% vs Spartak Trnava)
How well each side limited chance quality and how demanding the keepers’ workload was.
Žilina — stronger shot quality allowed
Žilina — stronger shot quality allowed
Spartak Trnava leads keeper workload (+84% vs Žilina)
Archetype ratings you can map to card modifiers, AI behaviour, or match narratives.
Žilina leads this block
Žilina had the edge in 4 of 6 signals in this block.
Spartak Trnava leads (20.0 vs 10.0).
Žilina leads (51.0 vs 24.1).
Žilina leads (17.0 vs 9.0).
Žilina leads (0.074 vs 0.071).
Žilina leads (92.9 vs 92.6).
Spartak Trnava leads (22.0 vs 14.0).