30-second read
What the record shows
The clearest recorded pattern is: Vancouver Whitecaps's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit above their competition baselines. A second useful context is: Each team's season corners average is above the competition baseline. Limitation: Lineup availability and tactical choices are not in the retained data.
Vancouver Whitecaps show a distinct attacking-volume record
moderateVancouver Whitecaps's shot volume and the opposing shot-allowance context sit above their competition baselines.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: Team shot volume is paired with the opponent's recorded shot allowance.
Window: season
| Metric | Vancouver Whitecaps | Los Angeles FC | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Shots | 17.5 shots/match | 13.9 shots/match | 13 shots/match |
| Shots against | 8.33 shots/match | 12.5 shots/match | 12.3 shots/match |
Caveat: Shot volume describes activity; it does not establish finishing quality or a match outcome.
Both teams have elevated corners records
weakEach team's season corners average is above the competition baseline.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: Both team averages are compared with the same competition baseline.
Window: season
| Metric | Vancouver Whitecaps | Los Angeles FC | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Corners | 5.33 corners/match | 5.82 corners/match | 4.78 corners/match |
Caveat: A shared historical pattern is descriptive and may not repeat in one fixture.
The teams have contrasting possession records
moderateVancouver Whitecaps have recorded the higher season possession share.
Evidence and caveat
Comparison: The recorded possession gap is 8.5 percentage points.
Window: season
| Metric | Vancouver Whitecaps | Los Angeles FC | Baseline |
|---|---|---|---|
| Possession | 54.9% | 46.4% | 50% |
Caveat: Possession share does not show where possession occurred or how chances were created.
Metric comparison
Values, percentiles and samples
Vancouver Whitecaps favored in 8 of 14 directional metrics · Los Angeles FC in 1 · 5 too close
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.
Attacking volume
Recorded shot and scoring volume, expressed as competition percentiles.
Defensive resistance
Lower recorded scoring and shot allowance produces a higher descriptive percentile.
Directness proxy
Shots per possession point; a descriptive transition/directness proxy, not an outcome score.
Physicality
Recorded fouls and cards relative to competition peers.
Set-piece relevance
Corner volume relative to competition peers.
Tempo and pressure proxy
Combined event-volume percentiles for shots, corners and fouls.
Recent form
Season, last 10 and last 5
Window
Last 5
Window
Last 10
Window
Season
Venue split
Home and away samples
Window
Home team at home / away team away
Schedule context
Rest and recent workload
Evidence quality
How much supports this analysis
- Recent samples and important metric coverage meet the strong evidence threshold.
Known unknowns
- Lineups, injuries, suspensions and tactical changes are not available in the retained dataset.
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.
Vancouver Whitecaps
Minnesota United FC
Sporting Kansas City
Inter Miami
Columbus Crew
Philadelphia Union
Atlanta United FC