Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (2.84 vs 1.80, Δ 1.04).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (15 vs 10 shots).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (47% on target vs 20%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 2.84Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.80 |
| 4 | Offsides | 3Lead |
| 12Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| 3 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 3 | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 15Lead | Total shots | 10 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 37% | Ball possession | 63%Lead |
| 80% | Pass accuracy | 88%Lead |
| 262 | Accurate passes | 504Lead |
| 326 | Total passes | 570Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 3 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 2Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 2 |