Major League Soccer · 2026Sun, 8 Mar 2026, 23:00 UTCFull timeTQL StadiumFull-time recap

FC Cincinnati

0–1Full-time recap

Toronto FC

This page describes the completed match context. The result is not presented as a prior forecast.

This match

Match statistics

Metric	FC Cincinnati	Toronto FC
Shots	13 shots/match▲	11 shots/match
Shots on target	2 shots/match	5 shots/match▲
Expected goals	0.65 xG/match	0.69 xG/match▲
Possession	57%	43%
Corners	7 corners/match	7 corners/match
Fouls	14 fouls/match	11 fouls/match
Yellow cards	2 cards/match	2 cards/match

30-second read

What the record shows

The clearest recorded pattern is: FC Cincinnati have recorded the higher season possession share. No second pattern clears the sample and coverage gates. Limitation: At least one team has fewer than the configured season sample.

The teams have contrasting possession records

weak

FC Cincinnati have recorded the higher season possession share.

55.3%▲PossessionFC Cincinnati · Toronto FC46%

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 9.3 percentage points.

Window: season

Metric	FC Cincinnati	Toronto FC	Baseline
Possession	55.3%	46%	49.3%

Caveat: Possession share does not show where possession occurred or how chances were created.

Metric comparison

Values, percentiles and samples

Where the edge is

FC Cincinnati favored in 0 of 14 directional metrics · Toronto FC in 0 · 14 too close

0.67 goals/matchGoals scoredseason · 3/31 goals/match

0.67 goals/matchGoals allowedseason · 3/32 goals/match

—Expected goalsseason · 1/1—

—Expected goals allowedseason · 1/1—

12 shots/matchShotsseason · 3/39.33 shots/match

11.7 shots/matchShots allowedseason · 3/313.3 shots/match

3 shots/matchShots on targetseason · 3/34 shots/match

4.33 shots/matchShots on target allowedseason · 3/33 shots/match

55.3%Possessionseason · 3/346%

8 corners/matchCornersseason · 3/35 corners/match

4.67 corners/matchCorners allowedseason · 3/35 corners/match

—Cardsseason · 2/2—

10 fouls/matchFoulsseason · 3/312.3 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—

33%Clean-sheet frequencyseason · 3/333%

33%Scoring frequencyseason · 3/367%

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.

FC Cincinnati78.6

Toronto FC30.4

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Attacking volume

Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.

FC Cincinnati26.2

Toronto FC25.6

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Defensive resistance

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

FC Cincinnati59.5

Toronto FC42.9

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Directness proxy

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

FC Cincinnati32.1

Toronto FC26.8

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Physicality

Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.

FC Cincinnati17.9

Toronto FC53.6

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 83%

Set-piece relevance

Corner volume relative to competition peers.

FC Cincinnati94.6

Toronto FC44.6

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Tempo and pressure proxy

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

FC Cincinnati44.2

Toronto FC36.1

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Recent form

Season, last 10 and last 5

Window

Last 5

3 / 3 matches

0.67 goals/matchGoals scored3/3▲1 goals/match

0.67 goals/match▲Goals allowed3/32 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

12 shots/match▲Shots3/39.33 shots/match

3 shots/matchShots on target3/3▲4 shots/match

55.3%Possession3/346%

8 corners/matchCorners3/35 corners/match

—Cards2/2—

10 fouls/matchFouls3/312.3 fouls/match

Window

Last 10

3 / 3 matches

0.67 goals/matchGoals scored3/3▲1 goals/match

0.67 goals/match▲Goals allowed3/32 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

12 shots/match▲Shots3/39.33 shots/match

3 shots/matchShots on target3/3▲4 shots/match

55.3%Possession3/346%

8 corners/matchCorners3/35 corners/match

—Cards2/2—

10 fouls/matchFouls3/312.3 fouls/match

Window

Season

3 / 3 matches

0.67 goals/matchGoals scored3/3▲1 goals/match

0.67 goals/match▲Goals allowed3/32 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

12 shots/match▲Shots3/39.33 shots/match

3 shots/matchShots on target3/3▲4 shots/match

55.3%Possession3/346%

8 corners/matchCorners3/35 corners/match

—Cards2/2—

10 fouls/matchFouls3/312.3 fouls/match

Venue split

Home and away samples

Window

Home team at home / away team away

2 / 3 matches

—Goals scored2/31 goals/match

—Goals allowed2/32 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

—Shots2/39.33 shots/match

—Shots on target2/34 shots/match

—Possession2/346%

—Corners2/35 corners/match

—Cards1/2—

—Fouls2/312.3 fouls/match

Schedule context

Rest and recent workload

8.06 daysRest before fixtureprevious completed fixtures · 1/17.85 days

1 matchesMatches in previous 14 daysprevious completed fixtures · 1/11 matches

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade C · Limited evidencelimited

Season samples3 / 3home / away teams

Recent samples3 / 3last-five windows

FreshnessLess than one dayfrom nearest prior match

At least one team has fewer than the configured season sample.
At least one team has an incomplete last-five window.
Recorded xG is incomplete, so xG context is omitted where unavailable.

Known unknowns

Lineups, injuries, suspensions and tactical changes are not available in the retained dataset.
Some metrics are unavailable or below their observation minimum: xg_for, xg_against, cards.
The completed-match sample is too small for broad style conclusions.

Analysis cutoff: Mon, 9 Mar 2026, 03:00 UTC · analysis-v4