Sporting Lisboa vs Man City Stats Revealed: Key Numbers You Must See
So this morning I just realized I never actually dug into the Sporting vs City match stats properly. You know how it is – the game finishes, life happens, and suddenly it’s been weeks. But those numbers started nagging at me. Felt like unfinished business.
First, Finding the Raw Stuff
Cracked open the laptop right after breakfast, still in PJs. Didn’t even brush my teeth first. Grabbed my notebook – the paper one, scratched up cover, coffee stains all over it. Headed straight to a couple of my usual data sites. Took longer than I thought, honestly. One site was doing maintenance, another had the numbers kinda buried deep. Finally found a decent page listing out all the key stats.
Just copied everything messy into the notebook first:
- Possession percentage, City way up obviously
- Total shots count for both sides
- Shots actually on target? Huge difference there
- Pass accuracy rates, almost painful to see for Sporting
- Fouls called
- Corners, pretty lopsided too
Getting My Hands Dirty with the Numbers
Okay, raw numbers dumped in the notebook. Felt useless just sitting there. Needed to make sense of them. Pushed my notebook aside, pulled up a spreadsheet instead on the big screen. Manually typed each stat in. Hit “save” like three times – learned that lesson the hard way before when power went out.
Stared at the screen. City’s possession was insane. But… Sporting actually had more shots than I remembered! Wild. Started doing some quick math in my head. Like, okay, City had way more passes, but their passing accuracy? Still crazy high. Sporting’s accuracy though… ouch. Typed that % out: felt brutal seeing it big on the spreadsheet.
That corner stat got me thinking. Tried to remember specific chances. Could only recall one good Sporting set piece, the rest kinda floated into the keeper’s hands or something. Made a note right there in the spreadsheet: “Corners didn’t hurt City at all.”
Fouls? Honestly higher for Sporting. Makes sense though, chasing shadows all night. Just scribbled “pressure forced errors, fouls result.”
What Clicked? What Was Lies?
Here’s the thing the raw numbers hid: context matters. Yeah, Sporting had shots. But where were they coming from? Desperate long-range efforts mostly. City’s shots? Closer, smarter. Their passing dominance wasn’t just empty; it was carving Sporting open again and again. That low shot-on-target number for Sporting suddenly felt less surprising.
The possession stat told one story: City controlled the game. But the passing accuracy? That told the real story: City didn’t just have the ball, they used it incredibly precisely under pressure. Sporting couldn’t get close enough to disrupt that rhythm for long. That stat combo – huge possession + sky-high accuracy – was the killer detail for me. Explained why the scoreline looked the way it did.
Biggest surprise for me? Honestly, how many shots Sporting actually took. On paper, it looks kinda respectable. Watching the game felt like they barely had a sniff. Shows how stats without the eye-test or context lie sometimes. Most of those shots were hopeful bounces or wild swings. Only two or three truly made Ederson work.
Wrapping This Mess Up
Finished plugging my thoughts into the spreadsheet. Saved it one last time. My notebook looked like a toddler attacked it with a pen. Spilled my cold coffee reaching for the notebook. Classic.
The key numbers? Possession differential tells you about control, but passing accuracy under pressure and quality of chances created (shots ON TARGET) screamed louder about the actual difference in quality and execution. Those low accuracy numbers for Sporting, coupled with so few shots actually troubling the keeper? That’s the stat story that really lands. Explains exactly why the result wasn’t just predictable, it was almost inevitable.
Looking back now, makes the tactical plan Pep had seem even smarter. Grinds you down with the ball, forces mistakes, and when they do shoot? From way out or tight angles. Whole thing feels depressing for anyone not City, honestly.