What this team's results have earned: every match in the database is replayed in date order, both sides start at 1500 and the winner takes points from the loser. The rating is the one it held after its last rated match, and the rank counts every club ever rated, sides that no longer play included. A measure of strength, not a forecast of the next result. Computed 3 Nov 2026.
| # | Run | From → To | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 10 | 03 Nov 2024 → 27 Apr 2025 | ▸ matches |
| 2 | 10 | 11 Jun 2023 → 23 Aug 2023 | ▸ matches |
| 3 | 9 | 22 Apr 2019 → 02 Jun 2019 | ▸ matches |
| 4 | 9 | 24 Aug 2016 → 30 Oct 2016 | ▸ matches |
| 5 | 7 | 22 Aug 2026 → 12 Oct 2026 | ▸ matches |
| 6 | 7 | 13 May 2023 → 04 Jun 2023 | ▸ matches |
| 7 | 7 | 24 Apr 2022 → 30 May 2022 | ▸ matches |
| 8 | 7 | 02 Oct 2021 → 06 Nov 2021 | ▸ matches |
| 9 | 6 | 04 Jul 2026 → 07 Aug 2026 | ▸ matches |
| 10 | 6 | 21 Feb 2026 → 07 Apr 2026 | ▸ matches |
| Competition | P | D | Draw% | N | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. divisjon | 180 | 48 | 26.7% | 0 | 14 |
| Eliteserien | 85 | 28 | 32.9% | 0 | 9 |
| Norwegian Football Cup | 66 | 11 | 16.7% | 2 | 6 |
| Club Friendlies | 5 | 2 | 40.0% | 2 | 2 |
| Year | P | D | Draw% | Max |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | 35 | 10 | 28.6% | 7 |
| 2025 | 36 | 11 | 30.6% | 6 |
| 2024 | 36 | 13 | 36.1% | 5 |
| 2023 | 34 | 8 | 23.5% | 10 |
| 2022 | 35 | 8 | 22.9% | 7 |
| 2021 | 33 | 8 | 24.2% | 7 |
| 2020 | 30 | 9 | 30.0% | 6 |
| 2019 | 35 | 9 | 25.7% | 9 |
| 2018 | 3 | 1 | 33.3% | 1 |
| 2017 | 3 | 0 | 0.0% | 3 |
| 2016 | 33 | 8 | 24.2% | 9 |
| 2015 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
| 2014 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 |
| 2013 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
| 2012 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
| 2011 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
| 2010 | 2 | 1 | 50.0% | 1 |
| 2009 | 1 | 1 | 100.0% | 0 |
| 2008 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
| 2007 | 2 | 1 | 50.0% | 1 |
| 2005 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 |
| 2002 | 1 | 0 | 0.0% | 1 |
| 1984 | 3 | 1 | 33.3% | 1 |
| 1982 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | 2 |
Over 315 matches (Apr 2015 – Nov 2026), KFUM Oslo drew 85 where the draw model expected 68.6 from those particular fixtures — about 16 more, or 2.2 standard errors, more of a gap than most, though roughly one subject in twenty looks like this by chance.
As unusual as a coin landing the same way 5 times running. A flat league average would have expected 67.1 instead — "more draws than the league" and "more draws than these fixtures deserved" are different claims. These matches were part of the model's own training set, so its chances were fitted already knowing the results.