Sarpsborg 08 vs HamKam preview

Norway flag 2026 Eliteserien, Norway
Sarpsborg Stadion Sun, 26 Jul - 3:00 PM
Eliteserien
Sarpsborg 08SA08
1 0
HamKamHamKam
Full Time Sun, 26 Jul 3:00 PM
Round 15 Regular Season
Goal
|

CONTEXT

Sarpsborg 08 hosted HamKam in a match that concluded with a 1-0 victory for the home side. The halftime score stood at 1-0 after Sarpsborg 08 scored early. Sarpsborg 08 recorded 2.0 expected goals while HamKam managed 1.02. Possession favored HamKam at 62 percent against Sarpsborg 08's 38 percent. No red cards were shown to either team. The stronger team according to pre-match assessment was Sarpsborg 08 and they secured the win. The result proved consistent with the expected goals distribution. Significant structural deviation occurred for Sarpsborg 08 relative to baseline projections.

TL;DR

  • Structural deviation: Sarpsborg 08 recorded significant deviation from expected performance levels in the match.
  • Efficiency shift: Efficiency remained in line with projections for both Sarpsborg 08 and HamKam.
  • xG alignment: The final outcome aligned with the xG figures of 2.0 for Sarpsborg 08 and 1.02 for HamKam.
  • Market alignment: The result stayed aligned with pre-match expectations for the stronger team.
  • xG expectations: Sarpsborg 08 met xG expectations while HamKam fell short of theirs.
  • Event impact: The first-half goal created the decisive margin in the 1-0 scoreline.
  • Red card distortion: Absence of red cards left game dynamics undistorted throughout.
No standings statistics available.
No head-to-head records found.
0.5+ goals: 85%
1.5+ goals: 70%
2.5+ goals: 50%
3.5+ goals: 25%
Confidence: High (≥8 matches)

Quality vs Volume

Home: xG 1.8, Shots 12, xG/Shot 0.15
Away: xG 1.5, Shots 14, xG/Shot 0.11

Open Play vs Set Play

Open Play: 65%
Set Play: 35%

Expected Points

TeamxPts
Home1.8
Away1.2
ℹ️ Methodology: Expected Goals (xG) measures shot quality
K. Hagenes
K. Hagenes
Referee • 25 matches
Fouls / Match
Referee 30.4
League Avg 0
Yellow Cards / Match
Referee 4
League Avg 0
Red Cards / Match
Referee 0.36
League Avg 0
Penalties / Match
Referee 0.36
League Avg 0
?. Simon Ytterland
?. Simon Ytterland
1st Assistant • 0 matches
Fouls / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Yellow Cards / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Red Cards / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Penalties / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
H. Sunde
H. Sunde
2nd Assistant • 0 matches
Fouls / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Yellow Cards / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Red Cards / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Penalties / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
A. Flückiger
A. Flückiger
4th Official • 0 matches
Fouls / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Yellow Cards / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Red Cards / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Penalties / Match
Referee 0
League Avg 0
Sarpsborg 08 E. Sel
E. Sel
VS
HamKam T. Myhre
T. Myhre
1.38
Avg Points / Game (Last 100 Matches)
1.38
2.17 i
Last 6 Opponents
Kristiansund Rank: 56 D
Viking Rank: 80 W
Brann Rank: 70 W
Molde Rank: 68 W
Vålerenga Rank: 62 L
Fredrikstad Rank: 62 W
Avg Points / Game (Last 6 Matches)
0.83 i
Last 6 Opponents
Bodø / Glimt Rank: 83 L
Tromsø Rank: 70 L
Sandefjord Rank: 62 D
Aalesund Rank: 49 D
Lillestrøm Rank: 61 W
Fredrikstad Rank: 62 L
3
Head to Head (Wins - Draws - Losses)
3 - 0 - 1
1

Team Power Ranking

i
What is Power Ranking?
Power ranking is SportMonks' model-based team strength indicator. Historical input capped to 2 seasons.
64.64
60.94
0 (Weakest) 100 (Strongest)
Metric
Sarpsborg 08
HamKam
Power Score
64.64
60.94
League Position
6
9
Global Rank
415
531

Form Analysis Opponent-Weighted

Line chart of recent results (points/trend). Friendlies excluded by default. Hover for opponent, result, xG/xGA and power ranking — based on last 6 matches.

–
vs
Sarpsborg 08 — Opponent-weighted form score
HamKam — Opponent-weighted form score
Win (3 pts) Draw (1 pt) Loss (0 pts) Sarpsborg 08 HamKam

Heatmaps Ball coordinates

Attack and defence zones from ball position data. Filters: last 6 matches (overall/home/away), time period, competition.

–
vs

Sarpsborg 08

Left / Center / Right —
Opposition half density —
vs season average —

HamKam

Left / Center / Right —
Opposition half density —
vs season average —

Possession Efficiency Possession-Adjusted

How effectively each team uses and defends their share of possession. Efficiency adjusted based on team possession percentage

Sarpsborg 08 ⚠ Proxy
vs
⚠ Proxy HamKam
Attacking Efficiency
Higher is better
Attacking Efficiency
39.61
24.03
Defensive Efficiency
Lower is better
Defensive Efficiency
24.03
39.61
Combined Efficiency Index Z-score combining attacking and defensive possession-adjusted efficiency.
Positive = above league average.
Negative = below league average.
Formula: EfficiencyIndex = z(AttackEff) − z(DefenceEff)
-3 0 3
Sarpsborg 08 +1.51 Efficiency Index
vs
HamKam -1.51 Efficiency Index
xG data unavailable for both teams. Values estimated using shots and dangerous attacks (proxy). Confidence: Medium.
Sarpsborg 08
HamKam
AttackEff = xG ÷ pos
DefenceEff = xGA ÷ (1−pos)

Set Pieces Efficiency Attack & Defence

Set-piece reliance and strength using expected metrics and actual outcomes for each team.

Sarpsborg 08
vs
HamKam
Created Set-piece attacking threat
Sarpsborg 08 HamKam
Set-piece xG Share Share of total expected goals generated from set pieces. Higher = more set-piece reliant in attack.
18%
4%
Goals per Match Average set-piece goals scored per match.
0.00 0.00
vs Expected (xG) Goals scored minus set-piece xG. Positive = overperforming; Negative = underperforming expectations.
-0.35 vs -0.04
Conceded Set-piece defensive exposure
Sarpsborg 08 HamKam
Set-piece xGA Share Share of total expected goals conceded from set pieces. Higher = more exposed to set pieces defensively.
4%
18%
Conceded per Match Average set-piece goals conceded per match.
0.00 0.00
vs Expected (xGA) Goals conceded minus set-piece xGA. Positive = conceding more than expected (bad); Negative = conceding less than expected (good).
-0.04 vs -0.35
Sarpsborg 08
HamKam
xG Share = set-piece xG ÷ total xG
vs Expected = goals − set-piece xG

Counter / Transition Attack & Defence

What happens in the 15 seconds immediately after possession changes hands — based on Last 6 matches.

–
Sarpsborg 08
vs
HamKam
Attack After Winning Possession transition → offence
Sarpsborg 08 HamKam
Goals per Match Average goals scored within 15s of winning the ball per match. ↑ better
—
—
Shots per Match Average shots taken within 15s of winning the ball per match. ↑ better
—
—
Dangerous Attacks Average dangerous attacks launched within 15s of winning possession per match. ↑ better
—
—
Transition Efficiency Index Composite score (0–1) of how efficiently this team attacks within 15s of winning the ball. Higher = more dangerous on transition. Higher = stronger on the counter
Sarpsborg 08 0.32
HamKam 0.14
Defence After Losing Possession loss → defensive exposure
Sarpsborg 08 HamKam
Goals Conceded Average goals conceded within 15s of losing the ball per match. ↓ better
—
—
Shots Conceded Average shots conceded within 15s of losing the ball per match. ↓ better
—
—
Dangerous Attacks Conceded Average dangerous attacks allowed within 15s of losing possession per match. ↓ better
—
—
Vulnerability Index Composite score (0–1) of how exposed this team is within 15s of losing the ball. Lower = better at preventing transition attacks. Lower = better transition defence
Sarpsborg 08 0.00
HamKam 0.02
Sarpsborg 08
HamKam
Window = 15s post-possession change
Index = 0–1 composite score

PRESSURE INDEX

Momentum phases from smoothed minute-by-minute pressure.

  • HamKam had peak pressure around 88'.
  • HamKam started the game with stronger pressure.
SA08 Pressure HamKam Pressure
⚡
Pressure Index: HamKam reached the top pressure at 88' (100.00).

Team Head to Head Last 6 Seasons

Summary of 4 matches between these sides — filtered by competition and venue context.

Sarpsborg 08 SA08 Home
4 matches
HamKam HamKam Away
Match Record
3
Wins
1
0
Draws
0
1
Losses
3
Goals
10
Goals Scored
8
8
Goals Conceded
10
+2
Goal Difference
-2
Expected Goals
0
xG
0
0
xGA
0

Data last updated: 2026-07-27T00:04:17+00:00

STARTING XI

Match Formation 4-4-2
Match Formation 5-3-2
Pitch

General Information

Date & Time
Jul 26, 2026, 03:00 PM
Competition
2026 Eliteserien, Norway · Round 15 · Regular Season
Stadium
Sarpsborg Stadion
Capacity
8022
Attendance
4431
Pitch Surface
Artificial turf
Weather
☀️ , Clear
Referees
Kristoffer Hagenes
Øystein Simon Ytterland
Henrik Sunde
Andreas Flückiger

Statistics

Possession
SA08
41%
HamKam
59%

Top Statistics

1 Goals 0
2 Big Chances Created 0
6 Shots 9
41 Dangerous attacks 78
38 Possession 62
4 Corners 3
9 Free kicks 19
3 Yellow Cards 3

Match Overview

79 Ball Safe 81
17 Goal Kicks 10
9 Goal Attempts 11
5 Substitutions 4
10 Throwins 26
1 Hit Woodwork 0
1 Injuries 0
5 Dribble Attempts 12
2 Successful Dribbles 8
40 Successful Dribbles Percentage 67

Attacking

64 Attacks 105
1 Big Chances Missed 0
6 Counter Attacks 3

Possession

61 Long Passes 50
322 Passes 520
247 Successful Passes 448
77 Successful Passes Percentage 86
9 Key Passes 7
28 Successful Long Passes 24
46 Successful Long Passes Percentage 48

Defensive

3 Saves 3
18 Tackles 6
7 Interceptions 5
45 Duels Won 37

Build-up

14 Total Crosses 24
6 Accurate Crosses 9

Discipline

1 Offsides 0
19 Fouls 9

Lineup

Referee : Kristoffer Hagenes

Starting XI ▼

87
L. Øy
L. Øy Goalkeeper
7.09
4
Bjørn Inge Utvik
Bjørn Inge Utvik Defender
7.18
5
Magnar Odegaard
Magnar Odegaard (C) Defender
6.84
12
Claus Niyukuri
Claus Niyukuri Defender
6.65
2
Marius Lode
Marius Lode
Defender68'
6.6
21
Anders Hiim
Anders Hiim Defender
6.67
6
Aimar Sher
Aimar Sher Midfielder
7.51
17
Noa Williams
Noa Williams
Midfielder79'
6.57
8
Sander Christiansen
Sander Christiansen Midfielder
7.33
10
Sondre Sörli
Sondre Sörli Midfielder
7.14
14
Jo Inge Berget
Jo Inge Berget
Attacker84'
6.36
33
Andreas Hansen
Andreas Hansen Midfielder
7.58
77
Olaus Skarsem
Olaus Skarsem
Midfielder68'
6.35
11
Daniel Karlsbakk
Daniel Karlsbakk Attacker
6.56
32
Eirik Wichne
Eirik Wichne
Defender84'
6.63
22
Victor Emanuel Halvorsen
Victor Emanuel Halvorsen Attacker
7.14
Referee : Kristoffer Hagenes

Starting XI ▼

12
M. Sandberg
M. Sandberg Goalkeeper
7.09
2
Martin Gjone
Martin Gjone Defender
7.34
3
Ethan Amundsen Day
Ethan Amundsen Day Defender
6.47
5
A. Ekeroth
A. Ekeroth Defender
6.96
23
F. Sjølstad
F. Sjølstad (C) Defender
6.33
4
H. Opsahl
H. Opsahl
Defender46'
6.77
26
Patrick Metcalfe
Patrick Metcalfe Defender
6.58
22
S. Strand Nilsen
S. Strand Nilsen
Defender87'
8
M. Johnsgård
M. Johnsgård Midfielder
6.39
24
Danilo Al-Saed
Danilo Al-Saed
Attacker70'
6.5
14
L. Mares
L. Mares Midfielder
6.74
17
A. Potur
A. Potur Midfielder
7.03
19
Henrik Udahl
Henrik Udahl Attacker
6.76
28
David Benjamin
David Benjamin Attacker
6.61
29
Blerton Isufi
Blerton Isufi
Midfielder61'
6.63

Events

2ND-HALF
87'
Event
S. Strand Nilsen → Patrick Metcalfe
9th Substitution
Event
Jo Inge Berget → Sondre Sörli
7th Substitution
84'
Event
Eirik Wichne → Daniel Karlsbakk
8th Substitution
84'
Event
Bjørn Inge Utvik
Foul / 6th Yellowcard
84'
Event
Noa Williams → Aimar Sher
6th Substitution
79'
71'
Event
H. Opsahl
Foul / 5th Yellowcard
70'
Event
Danilo Al-Saed → M. Johnsgård
5th Substitution
Event
Marius Lode → Claus Niyukuri
3rd Substitution
68'
Event
Olaus Skarsem → Andreas Hansen
4th Substitution
68'
61'
Event
Blerton Isufi → David Benjamin
2nd Substitution
Event
Anders Hiim
Foul / 4th Yellowcard
58'
52'
Event
A. Ekeroth
Foul / 3rd Yellowcard
46'
Event
H. Opsahl → F. Sjølstad
1st Substitution
1ST-HALF
Event
Daniel Karlsbakk
Foul / 2nd Yellowcard
33'
Event
Andreas Hansen
Right foot shot / 1st Goal
29'
27'
Event
M. Johnsgård
Foul / 1st Yellowcard

CONCLUSION

The 1-0 result reflected Sarpsborg 08's ability to convert their xG advantage despite lower possession. HamKam controlled more of the ball yet generated fewer quality chances. The early goal set the tone and no further scoring occurred after halftime. Both teams operated without disciplinary interruptions that could have altered the structure. The match demonstrated clear consistency between expected goals and actual outcome. Sarpsborg 08 secured the points as the designated stronger side. Analytical review shows the performance gap manifested primarily through finishing efficiency rather than territorial dominance.