Match statistics snapshot
- Le Havre created the clearer chances on xG (1.12 vs 1.15, Δ 0.03).
- Le Havre fired more attempts (14 vs 9 shots).
- Clermont Foot was more accurate in front of goal (44% on target vs 36%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Le Havre |
|---|---|---|
| 1.12 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.15Lead |
| 1 | Offsides | 0Lead |
| 4 | Shots inside the box | 11Lead |
| 3 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 4 | Shots on target | 5Lead |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 9 | Total shots | 14Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Le Havre |
|---|---|---|
| 40% | Ball possession | 60%Lead |
| 75% | Pass accuracy | 84%Lead |
| 242 | Accurate passes | 392Lead |
| 322 | Total passes | 469Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Le Havre |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 5Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Le Havre |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 4Lead |
| 4Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Le Havre |
|---|---|---|
| 13Lead | Fouls | 17 |
| 1 | Red cards | 1 |
| 3Lead | Yellow cards | 5 |