Match statistics snapshot
- Portland Timbers created the clearer chances on xG (2.54 vs 1.33, Δ 1.21).
- Portland Timbers fired more attempts (24 vs 10 shots).
- FC Cincinnati was more accurate in front of goal (50% on target vs 21%).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 2.54Lead | Expected goals (xG) | 1.33 |
| 2 | Offsides | 1Lead |
| 16Lead | Shots inside the box | 7 |
| 8Lead | Shots off target | 4 |
|---|
| 5 | Shots on target | 5 |
|---|
| 8Lead | Shots outside the box | 3 |
|---|
| 24Lead | Total shots | 10 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 58%Lead | Ball possession | 42% |
| 87%Lead | Pass accuracy | 77% |
| 460Lead | Accurate passes | 312 |
| 530Lead | Total passes | 403 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Corner kicks | 3 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 11Lead | Blocked shots | 1 |
| 2 | Goalkeeper saves | 3Lead |
| -0.52 | Goals prevented | -0.52 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Portland Timbers | Statistic | Fc Cincinnati |
|---|---|---|
| 10Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| 2 | Yellow cards | 1Lead |