Match statistics snapshot
- CF Montreal created the clearer chances on xG (0.81 vs 1.57, Δ 0.76).
- CF Montreal fired more attempts (17 vs 6 shots).
- CF Montreal held more of the ball (57% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Cf Montreal |
|---|---|---|
| 0.81 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.57Lead |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 5 |
| 3 | Shots inside the box | 12Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 8Lead |
| 2 | Shots on target | 7Lead |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 6 | Total shots | 17Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Cf Montreal |
|---|---|---|
| 43% | Ball possession | 57%Lead |
| 80% | Pass accuracy | 85%Lead |
| 307 | Accurate passes | 424Lead |
| 384 | Total passes | 501Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Cf Montreal |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Corner kicks | 8Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Cf Montreal |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 2Lead |
| 6Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 1 |
| 0.52 | Goals prevented | 0.52 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Cf Montreal |
|---|---|---|
| 19 | Fouls | 14Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.