Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (1.05 vs 0.89, Δ 0.16).
- FC Cincinnati fired more attempts (14 vs 5 shots).
- FC Cincinnati was more accurate in front of goal (43% on target vs 20%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 1.05Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.89 |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 3 |
| 2 | Shots inside the box | 7Lead |
| 3 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 1 | Shots on target | 6Lead |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 7Lead |
|---|
| 5 | Total shots | 14Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 51%Lead | Ball possession | 49% |
| 84%Lead | Pass accuracy | 82% |
| 373Lead | Accurate passes | 348 |
| 443Lead | Total passes | 426 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 9Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Blocked shots | 2Lead |
| 4Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 0 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 16 | Fouls | 12Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.