Match statistics snapshot
- Mjallby AIF created the clearer chances on xG (1.37 vs 0.90, Δ 0.47).
- Degerfors IF fired more attempts (10 vs 7 shots).
- Mjallby AIF was more accurate in front of goal (71% on target vs 30%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Mjallby Aif | Statistic | Degerfors If |
|---|---|---|
| 1.37Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.90 |
| 3 | Offsides | 2Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| 1 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 0 | Shots outside the box | 4Lead |
|---|
| 7 | Total shots | 10Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Mjallby Aif | Statistic | Degerfors If |
|---|---|---|
| 58%Lead | Ball possession | 42% |
| 84%Lead | Pass accuracy | 80% |
| 495Lead | Accurate passes | 327 |
| 588Lead | Total passes | 408 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Mjallby Aif | Statistic | Degerfors If |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Corner kicks | 1 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Mjallby Aif | Statistic | Degerfors If |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Mjallby Aif | Statistic | Degerfors If |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 2Lead |