Match statistics snapshot
- Mjallby AIF created the clearer chances on xG (1.36 vs 1.82, Δ 0.46).
- Degerfors IF fired more attempts (17 vs 10 shots).
- Mjallby AIF was more accurate in front of goal (60% on target vs 18%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Mjallby Aif |
|---|---|---|
| 1.36 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.82Lead |
| 3 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| 5Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 3 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 10Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 17Lead | Total shots | 10 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Mjallby Aif |
|---|---|---|
| 42% | Ball possession | 58%Lead |
| 78% | Pass accuracy | 83%Lead |
| 315 | Accurate passes | 475Lead |
| 405 | Total passes | 574Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Mjallby Aif |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 5Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Mjallby Aif |
|---|---|---|
| 9Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Degerfors If | Statistic | Mjallby Aif |
|---|---|---|
| 16 | Fouls | 12Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |