Al-Fayha vs Al Riyadh — Saudi Pro League

**Al-Fayha 4-2 Al Riyadh**

**Playing Style:** Al-Fayha played a more direct and counter-attacking style, evidenced by their higher number of shots inside the box (92% vs 64%) and their ability to win aerial duels (55% vs 45%). They also had more successful long balls (26 vs 22) and corners (9 vs 6), suggesting they relied on set pieces and long-range play to create opportunities. Al Riyadh, on the other hand, dominated possession (57% vs 43%) and had a higher number of passes (395 vs 305), indicating a more structured and possession-based approach. They also had more successful crosses (12 vs 5) and were more effective in converting box entries into shots (68% vs 54%).

**Strengths and Weaknesses:** Al-Fayha’s strengths included their efficiency in converting big chances (75% vs 50%), their high shot accuracy inside the box (62% vs 28%), and their defensive actions (57 vs 45). They also had more clearances (32 vs 10) and blocks (7 vs 2), showing a strong defensive presence. However, they struggled with possession and had fewer passes in the opponent’s half (84 vs 190), which limited their ability to control the game.

Al Riyadh’s strengths were their dominance in possession, passing accuracy (86% vs 82%), and their ability to win ground duels (61% vs 39%). They also had more successful tackles (21 vs 10) and interceptions (12 vs 8), showing a strong midfield presence. However, they were less effective in converting big chances (50% vs 75%) and had more shots blocked by the opponent (28% vs 15%), indicating that their chances were less dangerous despite their volume.

**Conclusion:** Al-Fayha’s higher conversion rate of big chances (75% vs 50%) and their ability to create more dangerous shots inside the box (92% vs 64%) were key to their 4-2 victory. Despite Al Riyadh’s dominance in possession and passing, their lower efficiency in converting opportunities and their higher number of shots blocked by the opponent limited their impact. Al-Fayha’s clinical finishing on fewer but higher-quality chances was the decisive factor in the match.