Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (0.97 vs 2.46, Δ 1.49).
- Chicago Fire fired more attempts (18 vs 12 shots).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 33%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Minnesota United Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 0.97 | Expected goals (xG) | 2.46Lead |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 8 | Shots inside the box | 14Lead |
| 6Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 4 |
| 4 | Shots on target | 9Lead |
|---|
| 4 | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 12 | Total shots | 18Lead |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Minnesota United Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 36% | Ball possession | 64%Lead |
| 81% | Pass accuracy | 90%Lead |
| 257 | Accurate passes | 520Lead |
| 316 | Total passes | 577Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Minnesota United Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Minnesota United Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Blocked shots | 5Lead |
| 6Lead | Goalkeeper saves | 4 |
| 0.39 | Goals prevented | 0.39 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Minnesota United Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 16 | Fouls | 9Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 3 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |