Match statistics snapshot
- KFUM Oslo created the clearer chances on xG (0.56 vs 1.06, Δ 0.50).
- KFUM Oslo fired more attempts (13 vs 11 shots).
- Ham-Kam was more accurate in front of goal (36% on target vs 15%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Kfum Oslo |
|---|---|---|
| 0.56 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.06Lead |
| 2 | Offsides | 0Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 4Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 4 | Shots outside the box | 7Lead |
|---|
| 11 | Total shots | 13Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Kfum Oslo |
|---|---|---|
| 35% | Ball possession | 65%Lead |
| 74% | Pass accuracy | 88%Lead |
| 244 | Accurate passes | 534Lead |
| 329 | Total passes | 609Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Kfum Oslo |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Kfum Oslo |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 5Lead |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Ham-kam | Statistic | Kfum Oslo |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 2 |
Statistics is not available yet.