Chord City 3 - 4 Mable County

Key Events:

• 9' Chord City Xinping Boon scores
• 10' Yellow card to Chord City Bruno Rossi
• 12' Yellow card to Mable County Weijie Hong
• 14' Mable County Weijie Hong scores, assisted by Lindomar Da Silva
• 20' Yellow card to Mable County Friedrich Unger
• 55' Mable County Luis Pinto scores, assisted by Weijie Hong
• 61' Chord City Avelino Varela scores, assisted by Bruno Rossi
• 66' Mable County Vladimir štimac scores, assisted by Friedrich Unger
• 80' Chord City Luis Pinto scores, assisted by Xinping Boon
• 81' Yellow card to Chord City Seungjae Sim
• 85' Yellow card to Mable County Lindomar Da Silva
• 89' Mable County Friedrich Unger scores, assisted by Saliou Sow

Expected Goals (xG) Analysis: Chord City recorded 4.43 xG and scored three, underperforming the chance-quality estimate by 1.43 goals. With 16 of their 20 attempts on target, the hosts created a substantial volume of dangerous opportunities, but the finishing did not fully cash in on that work. Mable County, by contrast, scored four from 2.25 xG, exceeding its estimate by 1.75. Their ten shots and eight on target suggest a more selective attack, and the return was strikingly efficient. The figures describe a match in which Chord City generated more and Mable County made more of what it had; the visitors’ late goal ensured that efficiency mattered more than volume.

• Chord City
• Xinping Boon (7.3) - Scored the opener and assisted Luis Pinto for Chord City’s third, giving the hosts a productive attacking contribution despite the defeat.
• Mable County
• Weijie Hong (7.0) - Scored Mable County’s first goal and assisted Luis Pinto after receiving an early yellow card.
• Friedrich Unger (7.0) - Assisted Vladimir štimac and scored the 89th-minute winner, while also collecting a yellow card.

The final 3-4 score leaves Chord City with the more generous xG total and Mable County with the result, a distinction that tends to be more useful in the table than in post-match arithmetic. Chord City had possession by a narrow margin, matched the visitors’ pass accuracy, and put twice as many shots on target; the hosts’ two corners, compared with five for Mable County, were one small exception to their broader attacking advantage. Mable County made 12 tackles to Chord City’s six, and its defence had to work through sustained pressure before the winning goal arrived. The visitors’ four goals came from four different spells of the match, while Chord City twice responded on the scoreboard. In a contest this open, the difference was not access to chances but the visitors’ ability to finish enough of theirs—and to leave the last word until the 89th minute.