Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (3.32 vs 0.33, Δ 2.99).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (24 vs 6 shots).
- Orlando City SC was more accurate in front of goal (67% on target vs 38%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 3.32Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.33 |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 16Lead | Shots inside the box | 4 |
| 11Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 2 |
| 9Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 8Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 24Lead | Total shots | 6 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 52%Lead | Ball possession | 48% |
| 82% | Pass accuracy | 83%Lead |
| 385Lead | Accurate passes | 363 |
| 468Lead | Total passes | 436 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 3 | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Blocked shots | 0 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| 0.24 | Goals prevented | 0.24 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Chicago Fire | Statistic | Orlando City Sc |
|---|---|---|
| 11 | Fouls | 11 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |
Statistics is not available yet.