Match statistics snapshot
- Inter Miami created the clearer chances on xG (2.11 vs 1.90, Δ 0.21).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (15 vs 14 shots).
- Inter Miami was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 27%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 2.11Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.90 |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 3 |
| 7 | Shots inside the box | 12Lead |
| 5 |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 9Lead |
| 7Lead | Shots on target | 4 |
|---|
| 7Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 14 | Total shots | 15Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 53%Lead | Ball possession | 47% |
| 86%Lead | Pass accuracy | 84% |
| 436Lead | Accurate passes | 382 |
| 507Lead | Total passes | 454 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 2 |
| 3 | Goalkeeper saves | 4Lead |
| -0.39 | Goals prevented | -0.39 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Inter Miami | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 8Lead | Fouls | 16 |
| Red cards | ||
| 1 | Yellow cards | 1 |