Match statistics snapshot
- Hammarby created the clearer chances on xG (0.49 vs 1.70, Δ 1.21).
- Hammarby was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 17%).
- Hammarby held more of the ball (72% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Eskilstuna United | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 0.49 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.70Lead |
| 0 | Offsides | 0 |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 5Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 1 | Shots on target | 3Lead |
|---|
| 2Lead | Shots outside the box | 1 |
|---|
| 6 | Total shots | 6 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Eskilstuna United | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 28% | Ball possession | 72%Lead |
| 61% | Pass accuracy | 82%Lead |
| 154 | Accurate passes | 583Lead |
| 254 | Total passes | 714Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Eskilstuna United | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Eskilstuna United | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 2Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 3Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Eskilstuna United | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Fouls | 8 |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 0 | Yellow cards | 0 |
Statistics is not available yet.