Asham Wanderers 1 - 7 Romwor Marl Wes

Key Events:

• 3' Romwor Marl Wes Xinping Boon scores
• 17' Yellow card to Asham Wanderers Phillip Lewis
• 25' Romwor Marl Wes Manuel Seixas scores
• 30' Romwor Marl Wes Ryo Shiraishi scores, assisted by Fernando Gouveia
• 37' Romwor Marl Wes Xinping Boon scores, assisted by Ryo Shiraishi
• 41' Yellow card to Romwor Marl Wes Fernando Gouveia
• 47' Romwor Marl Wes Fernando Gouveia scores, assisted by Ryo Shiraishi
• 53' Romwor Marl Wes Ryo Shiraishi scores, assisted by Ruben Queiroz
• 67' Asham Wanderers Jorge Alvez scores
• 76' Yellow card to Romwor Marl Wes Manuel Seixas
• 84' Yellow card to Asham Wanderers Zdravko Ivanišević
• 90' Romwor Marl Wes Manuel Seixas scores, assisted by Sean Hansen

Expected Goals (xG) Analysis: Romwor Marl Wes scored seven from an xG of 4.89, an overperformance of 2.11 goals; Asham Wanderers scored once from 0.36 xG, exceeding that estimate by 0.64. Those margins show finishing ran hot at both ends, but they do not make the result mysterious: 23 shots and 17 on target for Romwor Marl Wes against one shot, on target, for Asham Wanderers is a substantial account of the match. Possession was close at 51% to 49%, a reminder that having the ball for a similar share of the afternoon is not the same as making it dangerous. Romwor Marl Wes repeatedly turned its attacks into attempts, while Asham Wanderers had little attacking volume to build on.

• Asham Wanderers: No standout performers rated 7.0 or higher.
• Romwor Marl Wes:
• Ryo Shiraishi (8.6) - Scored twice and assisted twice, contributing directly to four goals.
• Xinping Boon (7.6) - Scored twice, including the opening goal.
• Manuel Seixas (7.3) - Scored twice and was booked.
• Fernando Gouveia (7.0) - Scored and assisted, with a yellow card also on his record.

The late goal from Jorge Alvez gave Asham Wanderers a moment on the scoresheet, but it did not alter the match’s basic shape. Romwor Marl Wes had already scored six times and added a seventh in the 90th minute, completing a decisive win rather than merely edging a lopsided contest. The equal dribble count and near-identical possession suggest neither side monopolised every measure; the defining difference was that one side produced chances in quantity, while the other managed only one shot.