Match statistics snapshot
- Hammarby created the clearer chances on xG (2.60 vs 1.11, Δ 1.49).
- Hammarby fired more attempts (17 vs 9 shots).
- Hammarby was more accurate in front of goal (53% on target vs 33%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 2.60Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.11 |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 12Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 9Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 17Lead | Total shots | 9 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 54%Lead | Ball possession | 46% |
| 84%Lead | Pass accuracy | 78% |
| 389Lead | Accurate passes | 251 |
| 464Lead | Total passes | 322 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Rosengård W |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Fouls | 8Lead |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 2 | Yellow cards | 2 |