Major League Soccer · 2026Sun, 15 Mar 2026, 20:30 UTCFull timeBC PlaceFull-time recap

Vancouver Whitecaps

WWW

6–0Full-time recap

Minnesota United FC

DWL

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

This match

Match statistics

Metric	Vancouver Whitecaps	Minnesota United FC
Shots	16 shots/match▲	8 shots/match
Shots on target	8 shots/match▲	4 shots/match
Expected goals	4.08 xG/match▲	1.07 xG/match
Possession	50%	50%
Corners	3 corners/match	7 corners/match
Fouls	23 fouls/match	22 fouls/match
Yellow cards	1 cards/match▲	2 cards/match

30-second read

What the record shows

The clearest recorded pattern is: Each team's season fouls average is above the competition baseline. A second useful context is: Minnesota United FC's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit below their competition baselines. Limitation: At least one team has fewer than the configured season sample.

Both teams have elevated fouls records

weak

Each team's season fouls average is above the competition baseline.

16.3 fouls/match▲FoulsVancouver Whitecaps · Minnesota United FC14.3 fouls/match

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: Both team averages are compared with the same competition baseline.

Window: season

Metric	Vancouver Whitecaps	Minnesota United FC	Baseline
Fouls	16.3 fouls/match	14.3 fouls/match	12 fouls/match

Caveat: A shared historical pattern is descriptive and may not repeat in one fixture.

Minnesota United FC show a distinct attacking-volume record

weak

Minnesota United FC's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit below their competition baselines.

14.8 shots/match▲ShotsVancouver Whitecaps · Minnesota United FC12.3 shots/match

Evidence and caveat

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

Window: season

Metric	Vancouver Whitecaps	Minnesota United FC	Baseline
Shots	14.8 shots/match	12.3 shots/match	11.9 shots/match
Shots against	7.5 shots/match	13.5 shots/match	12.6 shots/match

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

The teams have contrasting possession records

weak

Vancouver Whitecaps have recorded the higher season possession share.

56.3%▲PossessionVancouver Whitecaps · Minnesota United FC45%

Evidence and caveat

Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 11.2 percentage points.

Window: season

Metric	Vancouver Whitecaps	Minnesota United FC	Baseline
Possession	56.3%	45%	50.8%

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

Metric comparison

Values, percentiles and samples

Where the edge is

Vancouver Whitecaps favored in 0 of 14 directional metrics · Minnesota United FC in 0 · 14 too close

3.5 goals/matchGoals scoredseason · 4/41 goals/match

0.25 goals/matchGoals allowedseason · 4/42.75 goals/match

—Expected goalsseason · 1/1—

—Expected goals allowedseason · 1/1—

14.8 shots/matchShotsseason · 4/412.3 shots/match

7.5 shots/matchShots allowedseason · 4/413.5 shots/match

6.25 shots/matchShots on targetseason · 4/44 shots/match

2.5 shots/matchShots on target allowedseason · 4/46 shots/match

56.3%Possessionseason · 4/445%

5.5 corners/matchCornersseason · 4/45.5 corners/match

4 corners/matchCorners allowedseason · 4/46.75 corners/match

2 cards/matchCardsseason · 3/31.33 cards/match

16.3 fouls/matchFoulsseason · 4/414.3 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—

75%Clean-sheet frequencyseason · 4/425%

100%Scoring frequencyseason · 4/475%

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.

Vancouver Whitecaps85

Minnesota United FC30

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Attacking volume

Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.

Vancouver Whitecaps92.8

Minnesota United FC34.4

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Defensive resistance

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

Vancouver Whitecaps93.3

Minnesota United FC22.2

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Directness proxy

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

Vancouver Whitecaps65

Minnesota United FC78.3

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Physicality

Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.

Vancouver Whitecaps75

Minnesota United FC41

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 88%

Set-piece relevance

Corner volume relative to competition peers.

Vancouver Whitecaps66.7

Minnesota United FC66.7

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Tempo and pressure proxy

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

Vancouver Whitecaps86.2

Minnesota United FC54.6

0–100 competition percentile · coverage 100%

Recent form

Season, last 10 and last 5

Window

Last 5

4 / 4 matches

3.5 goals/match▲Goals scored4/41 goals/match

0.25 goals/match▲Goals allowed4/42.75 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

14.8 shots/match▲Shots4/412.3 shots/match

6.25 shots/match▲Shots on target4/44 shots/match

56.3%Possession4/445%

5.5 corners/matchCorners4/45.5 corners/match

2 cards/matchCards3/31.33 cards/match

16.3 fouls/matchFouls4/414.3 fouls/match

Window

Last 10

4 / 4 matches

3.5 goals/match▲Goals scored4/41 goals/match

0.25 goals/match▲Goals allowed4/42.75 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

14.8 shots/match▲Shots4/412.3 shots/match

6.25 shots/match▲Shots on target4/44 shots/match

56.3%Possession4/445%

5.5 corners/matchCorners4/45.5 corners/match

2 cards/matchCards3/31.33 cards/match

16.3 fouls/matchFouls4/414.3 fouls/match

Window

Season

4 / 4 matches

3.5 goals/match▲Goals scored4/41 goals/match

0.25 goals/match▲Goals allowed4/42.75 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

14.8 shots/match▲Shots4/412.3 shots/match

6.25 shots/match▲Shots on target4/44 shots/match

56.3%Possession4/445%

5.5 corners/matchCorners4/45.5 corners/match

2 cards/matchCards3/31.33 cards/match

16.3 fouls/matchFouls4/414.3 fouls/match

Venue split

Home and away samples

Window

Home team at home / away team away

3 / 3 matches

3.33 goals/match▲Goals scored3/31 goals/match

0 goals/match▲Goals allowed3/33.67 goals/match

—Expected goals1/1—

14.3 shots/match▲Shots3/311 shots/match

5.67 shots/match▲Shots on target3/33.67 shots/match

56.3%Possession3/345%

5 corners/matchCorners3/35.67 corners/match

—Cards2/2—

17.3 fouls/matchFouls3/316 fouls/match

Schedule context

Rest and recent workload

7.71 daysRest before fixtureprevious completed fixtures · 1/17.79 days

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

Evidence quality

How much supports this analysis

Grade C · Limited evidencelimited

Season samples4 / 4home / away teams

Recent samples4 / 4last-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.
The completed-match sample is too small for broad style conclusions.

Analysis cutoff: Mon, 16 Mar 2026, 00:30 UTC · analysis-v4