Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (1.10 vs 1.29, Δ 0.19).
- Portland Timbers fired more attempts (18 vs 12 shots).
- Chicago Fire held more of the ball (54% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 1.10 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.29Lead |
| 1Lead | Offsides | 3 |
| 12Lead | Shots inside the box | 8 |
| 6Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 5 |
| 5Lead | Shots on target | 3 |
|---|
| 6Lead | Shots outside the box | 4 |
|---|
| 18Lead | Total shots | 12 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 46% | Ball possession | 54%Lead |
| 77% | Pass accuracy | 85%Lead |
| 268 | Accurate passes | 351Lead |
| 347 | Total passes | 415Lead |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 4 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 7Lead | Blocked shots | 4 |
| 1 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 21 | Fouls | 15Lead |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 0Lead |
Statistics is not available yet.