Fillshate 2 - 6 Uxby-insfiel

Key Events:

• 21' Yellow card to Uxby-insfiel Sead Mujkić
• 28' Fillshate Jemal Kapanadze scores, assisted by Manoel De Carvalho
• 41' Uxby-insfiel Donald Little scores, assisted by Sead Mujkić
• 45' Uxby-insfiel Mamadou Diallo scores, assisted by Amilcar Barbosa Vicente
• 61' Uxby-insfiel Donald Little scores, assisted by Sead Mujkić
• 64' Fillshate Jason Ellis scores, assisted by Alberto Blanco
• 65' Uxby-insfiel Sead Mujkić scores, assisted by Erwin Eckert
• 73' Uxby-insfiel Giorgi Mzhavanadze scores
• 85' Uxby-insfiel Sead Mujkić scores, assisted by Donald Little
• 87' Yellow card to Uxby-insfiel Donald Little

Expected Goals (xG) Analysis: Fillshate scored twice from 1.34 xG, finishing 0.66 goals above the chance-quality estimate; Uxby-insfiel scored six from 5.44 xG, 0.56 above its estimate. Both sides therefore finished slightly ahead of the chances recorded, but the difference in opportunity volume was the real dividing line. Uxby-insfiel produced 24 shots and 20 on target, against seven and four for Fillshate. Nine corners gave the hosts a conspicuous edge in that one category, yet the visitors’ far greater volume of attempts suggests they were much more effective at turning possession into dangerous attacks. The xG figures fit the score: Uxby-insfiel created enough to justify a commanding win, rather than relying on an unlikely burst of finishing.

The match had an unusually neat contrast in its numbers: Fillshate took more corners and attempted more dribbles, while Uxby-insfiel had the majority of possession and a decisive advantage in shots and shots on target. The hosts did find the net twice, first through Jemal Kapanadze and then Jason Ellis, but each response was followed by another away goal. That sequence left little room for the corner count to become a serious counterargument.

For Uxby-insfiel, six goals and a 5.44 xG return make this a performance with both volume and finish behind it. Fillshate were not entirely without threat, and their 1.34 xG reflects two goals from a smaller set of chances, but the visitors repeatedly found routes to goal and kept doing so after the hosts scored. The final 6-2 was emphatic; the underlying shot figures suggest it was emphatic for reasons beyond a scoreline that simply got carried away.