Match statistics snapshot
- Hammarby created the clearer chances on xG (0.41 vs 1.67, Δ 1.26).
- Hammarby fired more attempts (13 vs 7 shots).
- Piteå W was more accurate in front of goal (71% on target vs 46%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Piteå W | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 0.41 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.67Lead |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 5 | Shots inside the box | 8Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 5 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 2 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 7 | Total shots | 13Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Piteå W | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 32% | Ball possession | 68%Lead |
| 73% | Pass accuracy | 81%Lead |
| 204 | Accurate passes | 502Lead |
| 281 | Total passes | 617Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Piteå W | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 5Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Piteå W | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Blocked shots | 2Lead |
| 5 | Goalkeeper saves | 5 |
| Goals prevented |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Piteå W | Statistic | Hammarby |
|---|---|---|
| 13 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| 0 | Red cards | 0 |
| 1 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |