Match statistics snapshot
- Hammarby created the clearer chances on xG (2.06 vs 1.07, Δ 0.99).
- Hammarby fired more attempts (18 vs 11 shots).
- Hammarby was more accurate in front of goal (28% on target vs 18%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Piteå W |
|---|---|---|
| 2.06Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.07 |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 9Lead | Shots inside the box | 8 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 9Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 18Lead | Total shots | 11 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Piteå W |
|---|---|---|
| 60%Lead | Ball possession | 40% |
| 83%Lead | Pass accuracy | 72% |
| 396Lead | Accurate passes | 212 |
| 478Lead | Total passes | 294 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Piteå W |
|---|---|---|
| 7 | Corner kicks | 12Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Piteå W |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Piteå W |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Fouls | 14 |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |