Match statistics snapshot
- KFUM Oslo created the clearer chances on xG (2.19 vs 1.28, Δ 0.91).
- KFUM Oslo fired more attempts (12 vs 4 shots).
- Rosenborg was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 42%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Rosenborg |
|---|---|---|
| 2.19Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.28 |
| Offsides | ||
| 8Lead | Shots inside the box | 3 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 4Lead | Shots outside the box | 1 |
|---|
| 12Lead | Total shots | 4 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Rosenborg |
|---|---|---|
| 58%Lead | Ball possession | 42% |
| 87%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 424Lead | Accurate passes | 276 |
| 489Lead | Total passes | 358 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Rosenborg |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Rosenborg |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Kfum Oslo | Statistic | Rosenborg |
|---|---|---|
| 15 | Fouls | 10Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |