Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (1.23 vs 0.97, Δ 0.26).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (16 vs 10 shots).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (44% on target vs 30%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 1.23Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.97 |
| 3 | Offsides | 2Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
| 4 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 9Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 16Lead | Total shots | 10 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 47% | Ball possession | 53%Lead |
| 85% | Pass accuracy | 85% |
| 383 | Accurate passes | 445Lead |
| 449 | Total passes | 523Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 4 | Corner kicks | 5Lead |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 7Lead |
| 0.64 | Goals prevented | 0.64 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Inter Miami |
|---|---|---|
| 12 | Fouls | 11Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 5 | Yellow cards | 3Lead |