Swedish Ettan

    Läs på svenska
    RosengårdRosengårdPossession & high press
    vs
    Hässleholms IFHässleholms IFLow block & direct
    The model's lean: 1 · Rosengård (41%)Best value by the model: 2 · Hässleholms IF @ 3.25 (+12 %)

    Rosengård vs Hässleholms IF · Swedish Ettan

    1 · Rosengård 41%X 24%34% Hässleholms IF · 2

    Analysis: Rosengård – Hässleholms IF

    Erik Lindberg · · Written from the model's numbers · How the predictions work

    With a slim 41% chance, Rosengård holds a slight edge over Hässleholms IF's 34% in this closely contested matchup. The most probable outcome is a cautious 1-1 draw at 12%, hinting at a tight affair. Despite the visitors' higher points tally of 42 to the hosts' 35, Rosengård's ability to maintain possession and press high could tilt this in their favor, especially in a game with expected goals of 1.62 to 1.29.

    Rosengård's playing style, centered on possession and a high press, contrasts sharply with Hässleholms IF's low defensive block and direct approach. This clash of styles often leads to a scrappy, low-margin game. Though Rosengård's xG per match edges slightly in their favor at 1.5 versus 1.4, both teams are defensively solid, with Rosengård having a marginally better xGA of 1.0 compared to Hässleholms IF's 1.1.

    The match is finely poised, but betting value lies with the visitors. With odds of 3.35 at Betsafe, Betsson, and Nordicbet, Hässleholms IF presents a 15% value edge given their assessed 34% victory chance. If you're looking for value, the away side might just be your play.

    RosengårdRosengård
    Form WWLLD
    League ranking xG #7xGA #5xT #9xP/match #4Points #13
    Key players
    • Emmanuel OnotuLWxG 0.19 · xT 0.16
    • Joel Voelkerling PerssonFxG 0.50 · xT 0.06
    • Ludvig CarliusFxG 0.30 · xT 0.31
    Hässleholms IFHässleholms IF
    Form WWLWL
    League ranking xG #12xGA #6xT #18xP/match #2Points #5
    Key players
    • Albin AhlstrandFxG 0.19 · xT 0.09
    • Alex HallFxG 0.44 · xT 0.13
    • Linus BraunLWxG 0.13 · xT 0.52

    Match prediction: Rosengård – Hässleholms IF

    Predicted score matrix

    Hässleholms IF →
    Rosengård →
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4+
    0
    0–05.8%
    0–16.7%
    0–24.5%
    0–32.0%
    0–4+0.8%
    1
    1–08.5%
    1–111.7%
    1–27.4%
    1–33.2%
    1–4+1.4%
    2
    2–07.1%
    2–19.2%
    2–25.9%
    2–32.6%
    2–4+1.1%
    3
    3–03.8%
    3–15.0%
    3–23.2%
    3–31.4%
    3–4+0.6%
    4+
    4+–02.2%
    4+–12.9%
    4+–21.9%
    4+–30.8%
    4+–4+0.3%
    Probability per final score. Rows = home goals, columns = away goals.

    Most likely scorelines

    1. 1.1-112%
    2. 2.2-19%
    3. 3.1-08%
    4. 4.1-27%
    5. 5.2-07%
    Expected goals
    1,62–1,29
    Both teams to score
    58%

    Over/under goals

    Expected goals: 2,9
    Under 2,544%
    –
    Over 2,556%
    –

    Ready-made bet suggestions

    More combos & build your own →

    01 · 2 legs

    Safe

    • Double chance Rosengård or draw (1X)70%
    • Over 1.5 goals79%

    Combined probability

    56%

    Fair odds

    1.80

    Two legs pulling the same way — the probability is computed exactly from the score matrix, not multiplied.

    02 · 2 legs

    Balanced

    • Double chance Rosengård or draw (1X)70%
    • Over 2.5 goals56%

    Combined probability

    37%

    Fair odds

    2.73

    The whole slip is priced jointly via 20,000 simulated matches — the scorer interacts with result and total goals, never naive multiplication.

    03 · 2 legs

    Bold

    • Both teams to score58%
    • Over 2.5 goals56%

    Combined probability

    47%

    Fair odds

    2.14

    The goal-fest: both teams score with at least three goals, plus the match's most likely scorer and card candidate — all priced jointly via 20,000 simulated matches.

    Odds & value

    The model's value spots

    Bets where the model's probability beats what the odds imply (EV+).

    • 2 · Hässleholms IF34% probability@3.25BetsafeEV+12%reference odds
    • 2 · Hässleholms IF34% probability@3.25BetssonEV+12%reference odds
    • 2 · Hässleholms IF34% probability@3.25NordicbetEV+12%reference odds
    Bookmaker1 · RosengårdX2 · Hässleholms IF
    Betsafe1.983.50
    EV+ 12%
    3.25
    Betsson1.983.50
    EV+ 12%
    3.25
    Nordicbet1.983.50
    EV+ 12%
    3.25

    Odds updated 21 Sept, 16:35

    Odds movement

    1+3 %
    49 %44 %

    1.92 → 1.98

    X-1 %
    28 %23 %

    3.55 → 3.50

    2-3 %
    30 %25 %

    3.35 → 3.25

    Betsson · 2 recorded price levels · 21/09/2026 → 21/09/2026 · fixed scale 5 percentage points

    Statistics

    Head-to-head

    1 matches
    Rosengård 0Draw 1Hässleholms IF 0
    Goals: 1–1 (⌀ 2)

    Head-to-head based on Ettan data since 2023.

    xG & xGA per match — 3-game rolling average

    Solid line = created (xG), dashed = conceded (xGA).

    Rosengård
    Hässleholms IF
    When goals are scored and conceded — 2026
    Rosengård (39–33)
    Hässleholms IF (43–27)
    Pass networks

    Last 5 matches. Circle size = pass volume, line width = combinations between players. Attacking left to right.

    Rosengård
    Graham Nii Ankamah Ankamafio: 267 passningar, xT 0.33AnkamafioFrederik Lesley Schmidt Petersen: 207 passningar, xT 0.16PetersenKalle Larsson: 191 passningar, xT 0.36LarssonWilliam Lindberg: 168 passningar, xT 0.61LindbergNiklas Söderberg: 149 passningar, xT 1.09SöderbergKevin Pasalic: 142 passningar, xT 0.53PasalicOtto Håkansson: 139 passningar, xT 0.23HåkanssonLudvig Carlius: 107 passningar, xT 0.41CarliusRasmus Bonde: 89 passningar, xT 0.71BondeMattias Andersson: 78 passningar, xT 0.1AnderssonKelvin Emmanuel Igbonekwu: 62 passningar, xT 0.37Igbonekwu
    Hässleholms IF
    Anton Branting: 201 passningar, xT 0.32BrantingRami Jassim: 191 passningar, xT 0.45JassimJohan Persson Åhstedt: 173 passningar, xT 1.2ÅhstedtVilmer Persson Åhstedt: 133 passningar, xT 1.38ÅhstedtAdi Terzic: 132 passningar, xT 0.33TerzicAlbin Andersson: 99 passningar, xT 0.23AnderssonAlbin Ahlstrand: 98 passningar, xT 0.12AhlstrandPontus Carlsson: 93 passningar, xT 0.78CarlssonAlex Hall: 60 passningar, xT 0.22HallElton Ursprung: 45 passningar, xT 0.2UrsprungJussi Tikkanen: 39 passningar, xT -0.01Tikkanen
    xT networks

    The same network weighted by offensive threat (xT): circle size = threat created by the player, line width = threat of the combinations. Last 5 matches, attacking left to right.

    Rosengård
    Graham Nii Ankamah Ankamafio: 267 passningar, xT 0.33AnkamafioFrederik Lesley Schmidt Petersen: 207 passningar, xT 0.16PetersenKalle Larsson: 191 passningar, xT 0.36LarssonWilliam Lindberg: 168 passningar, xT 0.61LindbergNiklas Söderberg: 149 passningar, xT 1.09SöderbergKevin Pasalic: 142 passningar, xT 0.53PasalicOtto Håkansson: 139 passningar, xT 0.23HåkanssonLudvig Carlius: 107 passningar, xT 0.41CarliusRasmus Bonde: 89 passningar, xT 0.71BondeMattias Andersson: 78 passningar, xT 0.1AnderssonKelvin Emmanuel Igbonekwu: 62 passningar, xT 0.37Igbonekwu
    Hässleholms IF
    Anton Branting: 201 passningar, xT 0.32BrantingRami Jassim: 191 passningar, xT 0.45JassimJohan Persson Åhstedt: 173 passningar, xT 1.2ÅhstedtVilmer Persson Åhstedt: 133 passningar, xT 1.38ÅhstedtAdi Terzic: 132 passningar, xT 0.33TerzicAlbin Andersson: 99 passningar, xT 0.23AnderssonAlbin Ahlstrand: 98 passningar, xT 0.12AhlstrandPontus Carlsson: 93 passningar, xT 0.78CarlssonAlex Hall: 60 passningar, xT 0.22HallElton Ursprung: 45 passningar, xT 0.2UrsprungJussi Tikkanen: 39 passningar, xT -0.01Tikkanen

    The teams in numbers

    PerformanceRosengårdHässleholms IF
    Points3542
    xPoints36.539
    xG per match1.51.4
    xGA per match11.1
    xG within 8s of winning the ball0.360.28
    xGA within 8s of losing the ball0.180.28
    Playing styleRosengårdHässleholms IF
    Build-up efficiency0.390.33
    Field tilt0.610.38
    xT per match1.51.4
    xTA per match1.21.6
    Won balls, offensive half3329
    Pressing intensity0.50.47
    Pressing efficiency0.280.29
    Pressing efficiency, offensive half0.280.3
    Entries into the box per match1710
    Entries into the box against1115
    Pass completion %0.790.73
    Pass completion % under pressure0.740.66
    Passes per match388265
    Passes against per match354385
    Switches of play per match16.215.1
    Long balls per match3024
    Set piecesRosengårdHässleholms IF
    xG from free kicks0.220.21
    Corners per match63.6
    Corners against per match3.56.2
    xG per corner0.030.03
    xGA per corner against0.030.02
    First touch, offensive corners %0.430.3
    First touch, defensive corners %0.650.61
    OtherRosengårdHässleholms IF
    Throw-in control0.550.48
    The goalkeepersAlexander Cederfelt (Rosengård)Liam Bengtsson (Hässleholms IF)
    Saves5640
    Save %71%65%
    xG prevented72%45%
    Claims105 (91%)101 (96%)

    Teams & more matches this round

    Rosengård
    Fixtures, form & tips
    Hässleholms IF
    Fixtures, form & tips

    Frequently asked questions

    Who wins Rosengård vs Hässleholms IF according to our model?

    The model gives Rosengård a 41% win probability. Full 1X2 picture: Rosengård 41%, draw 24%, Hässleholms IF 34%.

    What is the most likely scoreline?

    The model's most likely final score is 1-1 at 12% probability.

    Over or under 2.5 goals?

    The model rates over 2.5 goals at 56% and under at 44%.

    Will both teams score?

    The probability of both teams scoring is 58% according to the model.

    Why are some legs locked in the bet builder?

    The same rules as the bookmakers’ builders: legs that contradict or already follow from your slip cannot be combined — for example correct score 2–1 with under 2.5 goals. The difference is that we don’t look the rules up in a table; we compute them straight from the score matrix.

    More matches in the league

    TvååkerTvååker
    2–2
    UtsiktenUtsikten
    1 52%X 23%2 25%
    The model missed the outcome
    PiteåPiteå
    0–2
    GefleGefle
    1 28%X 21%2 51%
    The model called the outcome
    IFK StocksundIFK Stocksund
    0–2
    KarlbergKarlberg
    1 40%X 20%2 40%
    The model called the outcome

    Predictions come from PlaymakerAI's match model and reflect the model's assessment — not betting advice. Gamble responsibly.