Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (1.53 vs 1.56, Δ 0.03).
- FC Cincinnati fired more attempts (19 vs 16 shots).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 37%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 1.53 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.56Lead |
| 0Lead | Offsides | 1 |
| 11 | Shots inside the box | 11 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 6Lead |
| 7 | Shots on target | 8Lead |
|---|
| 8Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 19Lead | Total shots | 16 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 63%Lead | Ball possession | 37% |
| 88%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 532Lead | Accurate passes | 277 |
| 607Lead | Total passes | 359 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 9Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 7 | Goalkeeper saves | 7 |
| 1.16 | Goals prevented | 1.16 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Fc Cincinnati | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Fouls | 18 |
| 1 | Red cards | 0Lead |
| 2Lead | Yellow cards | 3 |