Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (2.38 vs 0.47, Δ 1.91).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (22 vs 7 shots).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (41% on target vs 14%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 2.38Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.47 |
| 6 | Offsides | 4Lead |
| 19Lead | Shots inside the box | 3 |
| 5Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 9Lead | Shots on target | 1 |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 4Lead |
|---|
| 22Lead | Total shots | 7 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 51%Lead | Ball possession | 49% |
| 87%Lead | Pass accuracy | 84% |
| 420Lead | Accurate passes | 393 |
| 482Lead | Total passes | 469 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 6Lead |
| -0.57 | Goals prevented | -0.57 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Columbus Crew |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Fouls | 9 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |