Manchester City had a lot of trouble dealing with Inter Milan in the Champions League final. Rodri scored the only goal of the game but it was barely a classic City goal.
And at the other end of the pitch, Inter had a bunch of solid moments, most notably through Lautaro Martinez and Romelu Lukaku. They failed to convert any but with better finishing, Inter could've at least scored.
According to every stat source out there that measures xG (expected goals), Inter outperformed City. As per xG Philosophy, the difference was massive: 0.95 Man City vs 2.07 Inter.
In simpler terms, Inter created enough chances for two goals while Man City barely had enough for one. And yet, Pep Guardiola's team triumphed.
Inter also had more shots (14 vs 6) and shots on target (6 vs 4) while Ederson seems to have been the busier goalkeeper.
It might look silly to speculate on all the couldve-wouldve-shouldve after the game but all metrics indicate that Inter at least deserved a goal in the game and did enough to take the game to extra times.
Football is not maths though and City still had nice chances. Then there's fantastic Ederson who denied Inter two crucial chances at the end of the game.
So, it would've been fair if the game had at least ended 1-1 in normal time as Inter deserved more from it.
