Match statistics snapshot
- Metz created the clearer chances on xG (0.54 vs 1.09, Δ 0.55).
- Clermont Foot fired more attempts (16 vs 10 shots).
- Metz was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 25%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Metz |
|---|---|---|
| 0.54 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.09Lead |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 2 |
| 9Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 4 | Shots on target | 5Lead |
|---|
| 7Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 16Lead | Total shots | 10 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Metz |
|---|---|---|
| 72%Lead | Ball possession | 28% |
| 87%Lead | Pass accuracy | 74% |
| 567Lead | Accurate passes | 187 |
| 653Lead | Total passes | 254 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Metz |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Metz |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 4 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Metz |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Fouls | 10 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |
Statistics is not available yet.