Inter 3-0 Parma: Serie A win built on stats
Najnovije priče
Barcelona 3-0 Getafe: Rodri (Sofascore Rating 8.9)
10. lis 2026.
Manchester United 1-1 Tottenham: Mbeumo shines as Solanke snatches late leveler
10. lis 2026.
RB Leipzig 6-0 Eintracht Frankfurt: ruthless and a perfect 10
10. lis 2026.
Lille 1-0 Le Havre: Bakwa’s early hit makes the difference
10. lis 2026.
Atlético Madrid outlast Alavés 2-1 as Romero rises late
10. lis 2026.
Aston Villa 2-2 Brentford: McGinn leads the comeback, Ajer levels late
10. lis 2026.Inter 3-0 Parma: Serie A win built on stats
Inter took care of business at San Siro, beating Parma 3-0 with all the damage done before halftime. It was round 6 of Serie A 26/27, and Inter’s blend of control and punch put the game to bed inside 31 minutes.
The numbers back the story. Inter led 59% possession, produced 19 shots to Parma’s 9, and posted 2.36 xG to 0.29. You can dig into the full timeline and player metrics on the match page on Sofascore, and track the bigger picture in the Serie A hub.
How the numbers told the story
Inter’s attack ran clean and constant. They produced 4 big chances to Parma’s 0, and turned 3 of those into goals. The shot profile was decisive too: 13 attempts inside the box and 6 on target, compared to Parma’s 7 inside and 2 on target. Inter also owned territory with 42 touches in the penalty area to Parma’s 16 and led final-third entries 63 to 41. Crosses didn’t quite land, but they didn’t need to; Inter completed just 3 of 21 while Parma went 0 of 7.
Possession and passing fed that control. Inter completed 572 passes against Parma’s 366 and advanced the ball more reliably, especially via long balls at 32/49 (65%) vs 23/51 (45%). The hosts were tidier but also more aggressive, committing 13 fouls to Parma’s 9 and getting caught offside six times in exchange for advanced positions. Defensively, Inter were sharper in key moments, winning 53% of tackles and logging more interceptions (14 to 10) and recoveries (50 to 44). Parma’s goalkeeper Edoardo Corvi made 4 saves, but his goals prevented sat at -0.83, underlining the quality of Inter’s finishing and shot locations.
Inter’s first half blueprint
The game swung early and did not swing back. Petar Sučić opened the scoring in the 13th minute with a left-foot strike from just outside the area, a chance logged at 0.21 xG and 0.33 xGOT. A brief VAR check at 15 minutes waved away an Inter penalty shout, but the hosts didn’t have to wait long. In the 18th minute, Hakan Çalhanoğlu buried a penalty, a high-value look worth 0.79 xG, for 2-0. Inter then added a third at 31 minutes when Marcus Thuram finished low to the far corner after a neat sequence involving Carlos Augusto, Pio Esposito and a slide-rule pass from Henrikh Mkhitaryan.
By halftime it was 3-0, with Inter converting all three of their first-half big chances and hitting 5 shots on target from 8 attempts. Parma managed just one shot on target before the interval and found little joy against Inter’s back line and midfield press. Even with a few offsides and a couple of speculative crosses, Inter’s vertical choices were worth it, and their 1.99 expected goals on target in the first half showed their accuracy. From there, game management took over. Inter added 11 more attempts after the break but needed only one on target, throttling the pace and limiting Parma to 0.21 second-half xG.
Midfield and back line control
Inter’s structure held firm. In duels, they hovered near parity overall but dominated in the air, winning 15 of 21 aerials. They posted more clearances (18-16) and interceptions (14-10), and turned those moments into steady possession, completing 87% of their 628 passes. Final-third efficiency also stood out: 149 of 183 actions (81%) in that phase found their mark, compared with Parma’s 45 of 71 (63%). The home side’s balance kept Parma at arm’s length even as the visitors tried to edge forward with 13 second-half tackles and a slight edge in ground duels after the break.
Serie A
Najnovije priče
Barcelona 3-0 Getafe: Rodri (Sofascore Rating 8.9)
10. lis 2026.Manchester United 1-1 Tottenham: Mbeumo shines as Solanke snatches late leveler
10. lis 2026.RB Leipzig 6-0 Eintracht Frankfurt: ruthless and a perfect 10
10. lis 2026.Lille 1-0 Le Havre: Bakwa’s early hit makes the difference
10. lis 2026.Atlético Madrid outlast Alavés 2-1 as Romero rises late
10. lis 2026.
Inter took care of business at San Siro, beating Parma 3-0 with all the damage done before halftime. It was round 6 of Serie A 26/27, and Inter’s blend of control and punch put the game to bed inside 31 minutes.
The numbers back the story. Inter led 59% possession, produced 19 shots to Parma’s 9, and posted 2.36 xG to 0.29. You can dig into the full timeline and player metrics on the match page on Sofascore, and track the bigger picture in the Serie A hub.
How the numbers told the story
Inter’s attack ran clean and constant. They produced 4 big chances to Parma’s 0, and turned 3 of those into goals. The shot profile was decisive too: 13 attempts inside the box and 6 on target, compared to Parma’s 7 inside and 2 on target. Inter also owned territory with 42 touches in the penalty area to Parma’s 16 and led final-third entries 63 to 41. Crosses didn’t quite land, but they didn’t need to; Inter completed just 3 of 21 while Parma went 0 of 7.
Possession and passing fed that control. Inter completed 572 passes against Parma’s 366 and advanced the ball more reliably, especially via long balls at 32/49 (65%) vs 23/51 (45%). The hosts were tidier but also more aggressive, committing 13 fouls to Parma’s 9 and getting caught offside six times in exchange for advanced positions. Defensively, Inter were sharper in key moments, winning 53% of tackles and logging more interceptions (14 to 10) and recoveries (50 to 44). Parma’s goalkeeper Edoardo Corvi made 4 saves, but his goals prevented sat at -0.83, underlining the quality of Inter’s finishing and shot locations.
Inter’s first half blueprint
The game swung early and did not swing back. Petar Sučić opened the scoring in the 13th minute with a left-foot strike from just outside the area, a chance logged at 0.21 xG and 0.33 xGOT. A brief VAR check at 15 minutes waved away an Inter penalty shout, but the hosts didn’t have to wait long. In the 18th minute, Hakan Çalhanoğlu buried a penalty, a high-value look worth 0.79 xG, for 2-0. Inter then added a third at 31 minutes when Marcus Thuram finished low to the far corner after a neat sequence involving Carlos Augusto, Pio Esposito and a slide-rule pass from Henrikh Mkhitaryan.
By halftime it was 3-0, with Inter converting all three of their first-half big chances and hitting 5 shots on target from 8 attempts. Parma managed just one shot on target before the interval and found little joy against Inter’s back line and midfield press. Even with a few offsides and a couple of speculative crosses, Inter’s vertical choices were worth it, and their 1.99 expected goals on target in the first half showed their accuracy. From there, game management took over. Inter added 11 more attempts after the break but needed only one on target, throttling the pace and limiting Parma to 0.21 second-half xG.
Midfield and back line control
Inter’s structure held firm. In duels, they hovered near parity overall but dominated in the air, winning 15 of 21 aerials. They posted more clearances (18-16) and interceptions (14-10), and turned those moments into steady possession, completing 87% of their 628 passes. Final-third efficiency also stood out: 149 of 183 actions (81%) in that phase found their mark, compared with Parma’s 45 of 71 (63%). The home side’s balance kept Parma at arm’s length even as the visitors tried to edge forward with 13 second-half tackles and a slight edge in ground duels after the break.
Individually, several Nerazzurri were tidy and impactful. Benjamin Pavard earned a 7.9 Sofascore Rating with 40/41 passing, 6 clearances and 4 tackles, a near-faultless defensive line outing. Carlos Augusto (81/86 passes, 4 interceptions) and Yann Bisseck (65/67) moved the ball cleanly while stepping in when needed. Çalhanoğlu (7.8) controlled rhythm before coming off on 61 minutes, and Mkhitaryan added an assist plus two key passes. In goal, Josep Martínez made two saves and posted 0.11 goals prevented, handling his lighter workload with assurance. For Parma, captain Enrico Delprato’s 7.0 and Emanuele Valeri’s 6.9 were bright spots, but chances never truly opened up.
MVP: Petar Sučić’s complete display
Sučić delivered a box-to-box performance that tied the evening together. He finished with a 7.9 Sofascore Rating, led by his opener and a composed, near-error-free night on the ball. The midfielder completed 55 of 58 passes, including 3 of 3 long balls, and created a chance with one key pass. He added 4 ball recoveries, 2 tackles, and showed control in tight areas with only 5 possessions lost across 90 minutes and 69 touches. His expected goals sat at 0.21 (0.33 xGOT), reflecting a clean strike rather than a hopeful swing.
Beyond the goal, Sučić’s carrying game kept Inter moving. He logged 24 ball carries over 147.4 meters of distance and advanced play by 41.9 meters in total progression. That blend of circulation and incision helped Inter sustain waves of pressure that forced Parma into deeper zones, and it complemented the wide supply from Dimarco and Augusto. With Inter’s defense sweeping up and the midfield recycling efficiently, Sučić’s timing on and off the ball turned strong team structure into a scoreboard cushion.
Player of the Match
By Sofascore Rating, Petar Sučić topped the list at 7.9. Fans saw it slightly differently, giving Hakan Çalhanoğlu the most votes with 459 out of 1296. That split says plenty: the model rated Sučić’s all-round control, while voters rewarded Çalhanoğlu’s penalty and tempo work. Either way, Inter had standout showings across the pitch.