Match statistics snapshot
- Inter Miami created the clearer chances on xG (2.32 vs 0.69, Δ 1.63).
- Inter Miami fired more attempts (18 vs 14 shots).
- Inter Miami was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 36%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 2.32Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 0.69 |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 13Lead | Shots inside the box | 6 |
| 7Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 9Lead | Shots on target | 5 |
|---|
| 5 | Shots outside the box | 8Lead |
|---|
| 18Lead | Total shots | 14 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 49% | Ball possession | 51%Lead |
| 87% | Pass accuracy | 87% |
| 404 | Accurate passes | 413Lead |
| 464 | Total passes | 474Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 5Lead |
| 4 | Goalkeeper saves | 7Lead |
| -0.52 | Goals prevented | -0.52 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 9Lead | Fouls | 10 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |