Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (1.44 vs 0.98, Δ 0.46).
- Houston Dynamo fired more attempts (14 vs 8 shots).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (75% on target vs 29%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Houston Dynamo |
|---|---|---|
| 1.44Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.98 |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 5 | Shots inside the box | 9Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 6Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 5Lead |
|---|
| 8 | Total shots | 14Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Houston Dynamo |
|---|---|---|
| 41% | Ball possession | 59%Lead |
| 76% | Pass accuracy | 84%Lead |
| 284 | Accurate passes | 464Lead |
| 375 | Total passes | 554Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Houston Dynamo |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 6Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Houston Dynamo |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | Blocked shots | 4Lead |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Houston Dynamo |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Fouls | 12Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |
Statistics is not available yet.