Match statistics snapshot
- KFUM Oslo created the clearer chances on xG (1.01 vs 0.46, Δ 0.55).
- KFUM Oslo fired more attempts (12 vs 5 shots).
- Ham-Kam was more accurate in front of goal (80% on target vs 33%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 1.01Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.46 |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 7Lead | Shots inside the box | 3 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 1 |
| 4 | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 12Lead | Total shots | 5 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 59%Lead | Ball possession | 41% |
| 86%Lead | Pass accuracy | 82% |
| 499Lead | Accurate passes | 339 |
| 578Lead | Total passes | 412 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 2Lead | Corner kicks | 1 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 2Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Ham-kam |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Fouls | 10 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |