1. Division·
Regular Season - 1·06/07/2026·11:00
Ranheim
Ranheim
WLWLD
2-2
Finished
HT1-1
Strommen
Strommen
LLLLL
Neutral📍 EXTRA Arena, Trondheim
Season stats1. Division
Ranheim9matchesStrommen9matches

Every panel below reflects each team's matches in 1. Division.

Coverage varies by leaguetop-tier competitions have richer per-match data; lower divisions and smaller leagues track fewer metrics, so some panels may be sparse or missing entirely.
Pre-match snapshotevery value reflects each team's state going into kick-off — frozen before the match starts, not updated live.

Overall

Overallteam-strength snapshot
60%
Overall

Composite team strength — average of LTQ and Hype.

21%
1570
ELO

Chess-style strength rating going into kick-off.

1463
58%
LTQ

Long-term quality across all competitions.

35%
61%
Hype

Short-term fixture buzz / excitement signal.

7%
4.71
Momentum

Recent goal-scoring trend (weighted goals signal).

4.19

Match Outcome

Match Outcomeresults breakdown
99
1.78
Points per Game

Average points per match across the sampled games (max 3).

0.44
56%
Win Rate

Share of sampled matches won.

11%
11%
Draw Rate

Share of sampled matches that ended level.

11%
33%
Loss Rate

Share of sampled matches lost (lower is better).

78%
11%
Clean Sheet6%

Share of matches with no goals conceded.

0%
11%
Failed to Score

Share of matches where the team didn't score (lower is better).

44%

Goal Scoring

Goal Scoringattacking output
99
2.89
Avg Goals Scored

Goals scored per match across the sampled games.

1.33
89%
Scored > 0.572%

Share of matches where the team scored at least once.

56%
100%
Over 1.594%

Share of matches with total goals > 1.5.

89%
89%
Over 2.589%

Share of matches with total goals > 2.5.

89%
78%
Over 3.567%

Share of matches with total goals > 3.5 — high-scoring affairs.

56%
78%
BTTS67%

Share of matches where both teams scored.

56%
44%
BTTS & Win

Share of matches won while both teams scored — strong attack with a defensive lapse.

11%
56%
Scored Both Halves39%

Share of matches with a goal in both the 1st and 2nd half.

22%

Defensive Solidity

Defensive Soliditygoals & shots conceded
99
2.00
Avg Goals Conceded

Goals conceded per match (lower is better).

3.22
11%
Clean Sheet6%

Share of matches with no goals conceded.

0%

HT / FT Patterns

HT / FT Patternshalf-time vs full-time outcomes
99
56%5/9
Leading at HT33%

Share of matches the team led at halftime — fast-start signal.

11%1/9
11%1/9
Level at HT

Share of matches level at halftime — balanced or low-tempo openings.

11%1/9
33%3/9
Trailing at HT

Share of matches the team trailed at halftime — slow starts (lower is better).

78%7/9
78%7/9
HT/FT Same Outcome78%

Share of matches where the W/D/L state at halftime matched the full-time result — game-state stability.

78%7/9
80%4/5
Led at HT → Won90%

Of matches led at HT, share converted into a full-time win — closing strength.

100%1/1
33%1/3
Trailed at HT → Recovered24%

Of matches trailing at HT, share rescued to a draw or win — comeback resilience.

14%1/7

Goal Timing

Goal Timingwhen goals happen
events 9/99/999
16%
0-15'12%

Hot starts — share of the team's goals scored in the opening 15 minutes.

8%
12%
16-30'6%

Early control — share scored between the 16th and 30th minute.

0%
20%
31-45'22%

Pre-HT push — share scored in the run-up to halftime.

23%
28%
46-60'18%

Restart wave — share scored in the first 15 minutes after HT.

8%
8%
61-75'12%

Game-state shift — share scored between minutes 61 and 75.

15%
16%
76-90+'31%

Late-game finishers — share scored from the 76th minute onwards (incl. stoppage time).

46%

First-Goal Edge

First-Goal Edgewho strikes first
events 9/99/999
67%6/9
Scored First44%

Share of matches where the team opened the scoring — fast-start signal.

22%2/9
33%3/9
Conceded First

Share of matches where the team conceded the opening goal (lower is better).

78%7/9
67%4/6
Win when Scoring First58%

Of matches the team scored first, share converted into a win — closing strength after the opener.

50%1/2
33%1/3
Win when Conceding First17%

Of matches conceding first, share rescued into a win — comeback strength.

0%0/7
18'
Avg Min. 1st Goal Scored

Average minute of the team's first goal — earlier means faster starters.

24'
14'
Avg Min. 1st Goal Conceded

Average minute of the first goal conceded — later is better (defense holds longer).

29'

Late-Game Strength

Late-Game Strengthafter the 75th minute
events 9/99/999
33%3/9
Scored after 75'39%

Share of matches with a late goal scored by the team — late finishers signal.

44%4/9
56%5/9
Conceded after 75'

Share of matches the team conceded a late goal — late-game vulnerability (lower is better).

67%6/9
100%4/4
Lead Saved after 75'75%

Of matches leading at 75', share closed out for a win — closing strength.

50%1/2
0%0/4
Lead Lost after 75'

Of matches leading at 75', share dropped to a draw or loss — late-game collapse risk.

50%1/2
0%0/9
Any Goal in Stoppage Time

Share of matches with any goal in stoppage time (90+) — late-drama frequency.

0%0/9

Set Pieces

Set Piecespenalty / own-goal share
events 9/99/999
96%24/25
Open-Play Share94%

Of the team's scored goals, share from open play — non-set-piece scoring quality.

92%12/13
4%1/25
Penalty Share

Of the team's scored goals, share from penalty kicks — penalty dependency.

0%0/13
0%0/25
Opp Own-Goal Bonus

Of the team's scored goals, share that were opponent own-goals — pressure / fortune.

8%1/13
11%2/19
Penalty Conceded Share

Of conceded goals, share from opponent penalties — defensive discipline (lower is better).

7%2/28
5%1/19
Own-Goal Cost

Of conceded goals, share that were the team's own goals — pressure-induced errors (lower is better).

0%0/28

Cards & Discipline

Cards & Disciplineyellows, reds & fouls
events 9/99/999
67%4/6
Match Cards > 3.569%

Share of matches with total card points (both teams, yellow=1 / red=2, 2Y→R counted as 2) > 3.5 — Over 3.5 line.

71%5/7
6/97/9
33%2/6
Match Cards > 4.531%

Share of matches with total card points > 4.5 — Over 4.5 line.

29%2/7
6/97/9
60%
Cards in 2nd Half

Share of card events that occur after halftime — late-discipline tendency.

72%