Match statistics snapshot
- Hammarby created the clearer chances on xG (3.85 vs 0.26, Δ 3.59).
- Hammarby fired more attempts (28 vs 4 shots).
- Hammarby was more accurate in front of goal (46% on target vs 0%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Vittsjö |
|---|---|---|
| 3.85Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.26 |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 17Lead | Shots inside the box | 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 13Lead | Shots on target | 0 |
|---|
| 11Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 28Lead | Total shots | 4 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Vittsjö |
|---|---|---|
| 63%Lead | Ball possession | 37% |
| 86%Lead | Pass accuracy | 82% |
| 504Lead | Accurate passes | 298 |
| 588Lead | Total passes | 365 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Vittsjö |
|---|---|---|
| 12Lead | Corner kicks | 1 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Vittsjö |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 7Lead |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Hammarby | Statistic | Vittsjö |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | Fouls | 6Lead |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 0Lead | Yellow cards | 1 |