Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (2.36 vs 2.41, Δ 0.05).
- Inter Miami fired more attempts (24 vs 11 shots).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (55% on target vs 42%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 2.36 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.41Lead |
| 3 | Offsides | 2Lead |
| 16Lead | Shots inside the box | 9 |
| 10Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 10Lead | Shots on target | 6 |
|---|
| 8Lead | Shots outside the box | 2 |
|---|
| 24Lead | Total shots | 11 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 64%Lead | Ball possession | 36% |
| 88%Lead | Pass accuracy | 84% |
| 578Lead | Accurate passes | 303 |
| 654Lead | Total passes | 360 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 3Lead | Corner kicks | 2 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 4Lead | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 7Lead |
| 0.33 | Goals prevented | 0.33 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 9 | Fouls | 8Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 4 | Yellow cards | 3Lead |