Clermont Foot
Ligue 1 · 2023Clermont Foot 0–1 Metz · Ligue 1
A completed match from a finished season. This page is the record of what happened.
Match at a glance
Metz won 0–1.
- Shots
- 16–10
- Shots on target
- 4–5
- Expected goals
- 0.67–1.08
- Possession
- 72%–28%
Full time
What the match recorded
Metz beat Clermont Foot 1–0. Recorded in this match (Clermont Foot – Metz): shots 16–10, shots on target 4–5, expected goals 0.67–1.08, possession 72%–28%. This is what was recorded. It is not a claim that the result was foreseeable.
Pre-match record
What the data showed before kick-off. Kept for reference; it did not know the result.
Clermont Foot show a distinct attacking-volume record
weakClermont Foot's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit above their competition baselines.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: Team shot volume is paired with the opponent's recorded shot allowance.
Window: season
| Metric | Clermont Foot | Metz | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shots | 14 shots/match | 9.67 shots/match | 13.2 shots/match |
| Shots against | 10.7 shots/match | 22.3 shots/match | 13 shots/match |
Caveat: Shot volume describes activity; it does not establish finishing quality or a match outcome.
The teams have contrasting possession records
weakClermont Foot have recorded the higher season possession share.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 26.7 percentage points.
Window: season
| Metric | Clermont Foot | Metz | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possession | 60.3% | 33.7% | 48% |
Caveat: Possession share does not show where possession occurred or how chances were created.
This match
Match statistics
Every shot
Shot map
Every recorded shot, placed where it was taken and sized by its expected-goals value. Arrows show each team’s attacking direction.
- off target
- on target
- goal
- penalty
- size = xG
Clermont Foot: 16 shots, 4 on target, 0.66 xG. Metz: 10 shots, 5 on target, 1.06 xG.
How the match built
Expected-goals timeline
Expected goals accumulated minute by minute. Circles mark the goals that were actually scored.
The step line is cumulative expected goals; circles mark goals. Final: Clermont Foot 0.66 xG · Metz 1.06 xG.
History
Head-to-head
Recent meetings between these teams.
Last 5 meetings
Metric comparison
Team comparison
Season averages, with the sample size beside each metric.
Season: Clermont Foot favored in 0 of 11 directional metrics · Metz in 0 · 11 too close
Window
Season
Window
Last 10
Window
Last 5
Competition percentiles describe recorded style; they do not rank likely outcomes.
Possession control
Relative share of recorded possession within the competition.
Attacking volume
Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.
Defensive resistance
Lower recorded scoring and shot allowance produces a higher descriptive percentile.
Directness proxy
Shots per possession point; a descriptive transition/directness proxy, not an outcome score.
Physicality
Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.
Set-piece relevance
Corner volume relative to competition peers.
Tempo and pressure proxy
Combined event-volume percentiles for shots, corners and fouls.
- Matches in previous 14 days · Both teams: 2 matches
Clermont Foot / Metz
Evidence quality
How much supports this analysis
- At least one team has fewer than the configured season sample.
- At least one team has an incomplete last-five window.
Known unknowns
- Lineups, injuries, suspensions and tactical changes are not available in the retained dataset.
- Some metrics are unavailable or below their observation minimum: cards.
- The completed-match sample is too small for broad style conclusions.
- The fixture season differs from the competition's configured active season.
More football
Related matches
Toulouse
RC Strasbourg
MontpellierTeam rankings in Ligue 1
Make a graphic from this match
Creator Studio builds a branded post from this match's recorded data, with its evidence grade and source cutoff carried into the export.