Match statistics snapshot
- Metz created the clearer chances on xG (1.36 vs 0.87, Δ 0.49).
- Clermont Foot fired more attempts (14 vs 11 shots).
- Clermont Foot was more accurate in front of goal (43% on target vs 18%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Metz | Statistic | Clermont Foot |
|---|---|---|
| 1.36Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.87 |
| 3 | Offsides | 3 |
| 8 | Shots inside the box | 8 |
| 6 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 2 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 6Lead |
|---|
| 11 | Total shots | 14Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Metz | Statistic | Clermont Foot |
|---|---|---|
| 34% | Ball possession | 66%Lead |
| 71% | Pass accuracy | 87%Lead |
| 195 | Accurate passes | 479Lead |
| 275 | Total passes | 553Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Metz | Statistic | Clermont Foot |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 7Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Metz | Statistic | Clermont Foot |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Blocked shots | 5Lead |
| 6Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Metz | Statistic | Clermont Foot |
|---|---|---|
| 10 | Fouls | 10 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.