Match statistics snapshot
- Clermont Foot created the clearer chances on xG (3.06 vs 0.84, Δ 2.22).
- Clermont Foot fired more attempts (12 vs 10 shots).
- Clermont Foot was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 30%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Reims |
|---|---|---|
| 3.06Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.84 |
| 4 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 9Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| 2 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 6Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 12Lead | Total shots | 10 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Reims |
|---|---|---|
| 50% | Ball possession | 50% |
| 80% | Pass accuracy | 82%Lead |
| 312 | Accurate passes | 324Lead |
| 389 | Total passes | 397Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Reims |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Reims |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 2 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Clermont Foot | Statistic | Reims |
|---|---|---|
| 9Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| 0Lead | Red cards | 1 |
| 0Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |