Match statistics snapshot
- Malmo FF created the clearer chances on xG (0.20 vs 2.02, Δ 1.82).
- Malmo FF fired more attempts (19 vs 7 shots).
- Degerfors IF was more accurate in front of goal (43% on target vs 32%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Malmo Ff |
|---|---|---|
| 0.20 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.02Lead |
| 4 | Offsides | 2Lead |
| 2 | Shots inside the box | 12Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 3 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 5 | Shots outside the box | 7Lead |
|---|
| 7 | Total shots | 19Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Malmo Ff |
|---|---|---|
| 40% | Ball possession | 60%Lead |
| 78% | Pass accuracy | 85%Lead |
| 254 | Accurate passes | 421Lead |
| 325 | Total passes | 493Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Malmo Ff |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Corner kicks | 9Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Malmo Ff |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 7Lead |
| 4Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Malmo Ff |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Fouls | 13 |
| Red cards | ||
| 0Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |