Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (1.26 vs 0.89, Δ 0.37).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (15 vs 11 shots).
- New England Revolution was more accurate in front of goal (36% on target vs 20%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 1.26Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.89 |
| 2 | Offsides | 0Lead |
| 9 | Shots inside the box | 9 |
| 9Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 3 | Shots on target | 4Lead |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 15Lead | Total shots | 11 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 51%Lead | Ball possession | 49% |
| 78%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 310Lead | Accurate passes | 302 |
| 396Lead | Total passes | 394 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 3 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | New England Revolution |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Fouls | 15 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 4 |
Statistics is not available yet.