Match statistics snapshot
- Portland Timbers created the clearer chances on xG (2.08 vs 2.25, Δ 0.17).
- Portland Timbers fired more attempts (16 vs 15 shots).
- CF Montreal was more accurate in front of goal (53% on target vs 25%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Cf Montreal | Statistic | Portland Timbers |
|---|---|---|
| 2.08 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.25Lead |
| 3Lead | Offsides | 4 |
| 10 | Shots inside the box | 13Lead |
| 5 | Shots off target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 8Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 5Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 15 | Total shots | 16Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Cf Montreal | Statistic | Portland Timbers |
|---|---|---|
| 43% | Ball possession | 57%Lead |
| 80% | Pass accuracy | 83%Lead |
| 291 | Accurate passes | 394Lead |
| 363 | Total passes | 476Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Cf Montreal | Statistic | Portland Timbers |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Cf Montreal | Statistic | Portland Timbers |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 6Lead |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Cf Montreal | Statistic | Portland Timbers |
|---|---|---|
| 11Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| 0Lead | Yellow cards | 1 |
Statistics is not available yet.