Match statistics snapshot
- Ham-Kam created the clearer chances on xG (1.16 vs 0.91, Δ 0.25).
- Fredrikstad fired more attempts (11 vs 9 shots).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Fredrikstad |
|---|---|---|
| 1.16Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.91 |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 8Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| 4 |
| 5Lead |
| 3 | Shots on target | 4Lead |
|---|
| 1 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 9 | Total shots | 11Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Fredrikstad |
|---|---|---|
| 48% | Ball possession | 52%Lead |
| 73% | Pass accuracy | 76%Lead |
| 301 | Accurate passes | 341Lead |
| 410 | Total passes | 450Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Fredrikstad |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Fredrikstad |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 3Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Fredrikstad |
|---|---|---|
| 6 | Fouls | 6 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |