Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (1.00 vs 0.82, Δ 0.18).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (19 vs 8 shots).
- Orlando City SC was more accurate in front of goal (25% on target vs 16%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 1.00Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.82 |
| 3 | Offsides | 3 |
| 13Lead | Shots inside the box | 5 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 3Lead | Shots on target | 2 |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 19Lead | Total shots | 8 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 49% | Ball possession | 51%Lead |
| 83% | Pass accuracy | 84%Lead |
| 396 | Accurate passes | 431Lead |
| 475 | Total passes | 515Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Blocked shots | 4Lead |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 2Lead |
| 0.41 | Goals prevented | 0.41 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 14 | Fouls | 4Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.