Match statistics snapshot
- Chicago Fire created the clearer chances on xG (0.90 vs 1.17, Δ 0.27).
- Chicago Fire was more accurate in front of goal (53% on target vs 40%).
- Toronto FC held more of the ball (62% possession).
Shot volume, box entries, and chance quality — who threatened the goal more.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 0.90 | Expected goals (xG) | 1.17Lead |
| 1 | Offsides | 1 |
| 8 | Shots inside the box | 10Lead |
| Shots off target |
|---|
| 3 |
| 6 | Shots on target | 8Lead |
|---|
| 7Lead | Shots outside the box | 5 |
|---|
| 15 | Total shots | 15 |
|---|
How each side moved the ball and shared control of the match.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 62%Lead | Ball possession | 38% |
| 86%Lead | Pass accuracy | 78% |
| 531Lead | Accurate passes | 299 |
| 615Lead | Total passes | 382 |
Dead-ball situations that can swing momentum and territory.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 5 | Corner kicks | 5 |
Blocks, saves, and how much danger was actually allowed.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 5Lead | Blocked shots | 4 |
| 4 | Goalkeeper saves | 5Lead |
| -0.12 | Goals prevented | -0.12 |
Physical intensity and referee involvement — fouls and cards.
| Toronto Fc | Statistic | Chicago Fire |
|---|---|---|
| 6Lead | Fouls | 12 |
| Red cards | ||
| Yellow cards |