Match statistics snapshot
- Hammarby created the clearer chances on xG (0.92 vs 0.70, Δ 0.22).
- Rosengård W fired more attempts (9 vs 7 shots).
- Rosengård W was more accurate in front of goal (67% on target vs 29%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 0.92Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.70 |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 5Lead |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3Lead |
| 2 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 4Lead |
|---|
| 7 | Total shots | 9Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 50% | Ball possession | 50% |
| 77%Lead | Pass accuracy | 76% |
| 355Lead | Accurate passes | 314 |
| 462Lead | Total passes | 411 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 2Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 5Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | Fouls | 7Lead |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 0 | Yellow cards | 0 |
Statistics is not available yet.