Match statistics snapshot
- Ham-Kam created the clearer chances on xG (0.98 vs 0.99, Δ 0.01).
- Ham-Kam fired more attempts (11 vs 9 shots).
- Ham-Kam held more of the ball (59% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Fredrikstad | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 0.98 | Expected goals (xG) | 0.99Lead |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 5 | Shots inside the box | 9Lead |
| 5 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 4 | Shots on target | 5Lead |
|---|
| 4Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 9 | Total shots | 11Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Fredrikstad | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 41% | Ball possession | 59%Lead |
| 84% | Pass accuracy | 86%Lead |
| 326 | Accurate passes | 494Lead |
| 388 | Total passes | 574Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Fredrikstad | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Fredrikstad | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 3Lead |
| 7Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| -0.91 | Goals prevented | -0.91 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Fredrikstad | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |