Major League Soccer · 2026Sun, 16 Aug 2026, 22:00 UTCScheduledPre-match analysis

Chicago Fire

LWWWL

vsPre-match analysis

Portland Timbers

DLLWD

30-second read

What the record shows

The clearest recorded pattern is: Chicago Fire's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit above their competition baselines. A second useful context is: Portland Timbers's last-five shots average is above their season average. Limitation: At least one team lacks a recent completed match near this fixture cutoff.

Chicago Fire show a distinct attacking-volume record

strong

Chicago Fire's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit above their competition baselines.

14.8 shots/match▲ShotsChicago Fire · Portland Timbers12.9 shots/match

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: Team shot volume is paired with the opponent's recorded shot allowance.

Window: season

Metric	Chicago Fire	Portland Timbers	Baseline
Shots	14.8 shots/match	12.9 shots/match	13 shots/match
Shots against	12.1 shots/match	17 shots/match	12.3 shots/match

Caveat: Shot volume describes activity; it does not establish finishing quality or a match outcome.

Portland Timbers's recent record differs from the season

moderate

Portland Timbers's last-five shots average is above their season average.

16.2 shots/match▲ShotsLast 5 · Season12.9 shots/match

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: An unweighted last-five average is compared with the unweighted season average.

Window: last_5 versus season

Metric	Last 5	Season	Baseline
Shots	16.2 shots/match	12.9 shots/match	13 shots/match

Caveat: Five matches are sensitive to opponent mix and isolated match states.

Chicago Fire have a visible home split

moderate

Chicago Fire's home-only shot average is above their full-season average.

17.4 shots/match▲ShotsHome only · Season14.8 shots/match

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: Venue-only shot volume is compared with the same team's season record.

Window: home

Metric	Home only	Season	Baseline
Shots	17.4 shots/match	14.8 shots/match	13 shots/match

Caveat: Venue splits can reflect opponent mix and should be read with the listed sample.

Metric comparison

Values, percentiles and samples

Where the edge is

Chicago Fire favored in 11 of 14 directional metrics · Portland Timbers in 0 · 3 too close

1.93 goals/match▲Goals scoredseason · 15/161.81 goals/match

1.27 goals/match▲Goals allowedseason · 15/161.94 goals/match

2.01 xG/match▲Expected goalsseason · 12/131.43 xG/match

1.4 xG/match▲Expected goals allowedseason · 12/131.68 xG/match

14.8 shots/match▲Shotsseason · 15/1612.9 shots/match

12.1 shots/match▲Shots allowedseason · 15/1617 shots/match

5.13 shots/match▲Shots on targetseason · 15/164.69 shots/match

4.53 shots/match▲Shots on target allowedseason · 15/166.69 shots/match

52.7%Possessionseason · 15/1650.6%

4.53 corners/matchCornersseason · 15/164.44 corners/match

5.87 corners/match▲Corners allowedseason · 15/166.44 corners/match

2.25 cards/matchCardsseason · 4/53 cards/match

13 fouls/matchFoulsseason · 15/169.75 fouls/match

—Passesseason · 0/0—

—Pass accuracyseason · 0/0—

—Shots inside boxseason · 0/0—

—Blocked shotsseason · 0/0—

—Goalkeeper savesseason · 0/0—

—Offsidesseason · 0/0—

40%▲Clean-sheet frequencyseason · 15/166%

93%▲Scoring frequencyseason · 15/1675%

Style profile

How the teams compare

Competition percentiles describe recorded style; they do not rank likely outcomes.

Possession control

Relative share of recorded possession within the competition.

Chicago Fire70

Portland Timbers58.3

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Attacking volume

Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.

Chicago Fire79.4

Portland Timbers56.7

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Defensive resistance

Lower recorded scoring and shot allowance produces a higher descriptive percentile.

Chicago Fire62.8

Portland Timbers13.3

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Directness proxy

Shots per possession point; a descriptive transition/directness proxy, not an outcome score.

Chicago Fire68.3

Portland Timbers45

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Physicality

Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.

Chicago Fire55

Portland Timbers45

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 63%

Set-piece relevance

Corner volume relative to competition peers.

Chicago Fire35

Portland Timbers28.3

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Tempo and pressure proxy

Combined event-volume percentiles for shots, corners and fouls.

Chicago Fire66.7

Portland Timbers33.8

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Recent form

Season, last 10 and last 5

Window

Last 5

5 / 5 matches

2 goals/matchGoals scored5/52 goals/match

1.6 goals/match▲Goals allowed5/52 goals/match

1.6 xG/matchExpected goals5/5▲1.79 xG/match

14.2 shots/matchShots5/5▲16.2 shots/match

5.2 shots/matchShots on target5/5▲5.6 shots/match

53%Possession5/558.6%

4.8 corners/matchCorners5/55.8 corners/match

—Cards0/0—

11.8 fouls/matchFouls5/59 fouls/match

Window

Last 10

10 / 10 matches

2.2 goals/match▲Goals scored10/102 goals/match

1.4 goals/match▲Goals allowed10/101.6 goals/match

1.96 xG/match▲Expected goals10/101.56 xG/match

16.6 shots/match▲Shots10/1014.3 shots/match

5.4 shots/match▲Shots on target10/105 shots/match

52.1%Possession10/1055%

4.5 corners/matchCorners10/104.6 corners/match

—Cards1/0—

12.6 fouls/matchFouls10/109.5 fouls/match

Window

Season

15 / 16 matches

1.93 goals/match▲Goals scored15/161.81 goals/match

1.27 goals/match▲Goals allowed15/161.94 goals/match

2.01 xG/match▲Expected goals12/131.43 xG/match

14.8 shots/match▲Shots15/1612.9 shots/match

5.13 shots/match▲Shots on target15/164.69 shots/match

52.7%Possession15/1650.6%

4.53 corners/matchCorners15/164.44 corners/match

2.25 cards/matchCards4/53 cards/match

13 fouls/matchFouls15/169.75 fouls/match

Venue split

Home and away samples

Window

Home team at home / away team away

8 / 9 matches

2 goals/match▲Goals scored8/91.44 goals/match

1.13 goals/match▲Goals allowed8/92 goals/match

2.07 xG/match▲Expected goals7/81.43 xG/match

17.4 shots/match▲Shots8/913.6 shots/match

5.63 shots/match▲Shots on target8/94.56 shots/match

54.8%Possession8/948.4%

5.25 corners/matchCorners8/95.11 corners/match

—Cards2/2—

12.6 fouls/matchFouls8/99.78 fouls/match

Schedule context

Rest and recent workload

24.9 daysRest before fixtureprevious completed fixtures · 1/124.8 days

0 matchesMatches in previous 14 daysprevious completed fixtures · 1/10 matches

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade B · Useful evidencelimited

Season samples15 / 16home / away teams

Recent samples5 / 5last-five windows

Freshness25 daysstale at cutoff

At least one team lacks a recent completed match near this fixture cutoff.

Known unknowns

Lineups, injuries, suspensions and tactical changes are not available in the retained dataset.
The nearest completed-match evidence is stale relative to this fixture cutoff.

Analysis cutoff: Sun, 16 Aug 2026, 22:00 UTC · analysis-v4

Make a graphic from this match

Creator Studio builds a branded post from this match's recorded data, with its evidence grade and source cutoff carried into the export.

Create a graphic from this match

What the record shows

Chicago Fire show a distinct attacking-volume record

Portland Timbers's recent record differs from the season

Chicago Fire have a visible home split

Values, percentiles and samples

How the teams compare

Possession control

Attacking volume

Defensive resistance

Directness proxy

Physicality

Set-piece relevance

Tempo and pressure proxy

Season, last 10 and last 5

Last 5

Last 10

Season

Home and away samples

Home team at home / away team away

Rest and recent workload

How much supports this analysis

Known unknowns

Related matches

Make a graphic from this match