CF Montréal vs. Chicago Fire FC Highlights (May 16)
MLS 2026
MLS 2026
| # | GP | W | D | L | DIFF | Goals | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30 | 20 | 7 | 3 | +41 | 64:23 | 67 | |
| 2 | 30 | 15 | 10 | 5 | +22 | 73:51 | 55 | |
| 3 | 30 | 16 | 4 | 10 | +8 | 49:41 | 52 | |
| 4 | 30 | 14 | 6 | 10 | +8 | 52:44 | 48 | |
| 5 | 30 | 13 | 8 | 9 | +8 | 53:45 | 47 | |
| 6 | 30 | 13 | 7 | 10 | +13 | 61:48 | 46 | |
| 7 | 30 | 12 | 5 | 13 | -12 | 58:70 | 41 | |
| 8 | 30 | 8 | 12 | 10 | -9 | 46:55 | 36 | |
| 9 | 29 | 9 | 9 | 11 | -10 | 60:70 | 36 | |
| 10 | 30 | 10 | 6 | 14 | -17 | 39:56 | 36 | |
| 11 | 30 | 10 | 5 | 15 | -1 | 46:47 | 35 | |
| 12 | 30 | 8 | 10 | 12 | +2 | 43:41 | 34 | |
| 13 | 29 | 7 | 12 | 10 | -14 | 37:51 | 33 | |
| 14 | 30 | 8 | 6 | 16 | -14 | 37:51 | 30 | |
| 15 | 30 | 6 | 7 | 17 | -24 | 36:60 | 25 |
| # | GP | W | D | L | DIFF | Goals | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 30 | 16 | 7 | 7 | +32 | 63:31 | 55 | |
| 2 | 30 | 14 | 9 | 7 | +15 | 56:41 | 51 | |
| 3 | 30 | 14 | 9 | 7 | +8 | 55:47 | 51 | |
| 4 | 30 | 13 | 9 | 8 | +10 | 52:42 | 48 | |
| 5 | 30 | 13 | 8 | 9 | +2 | 41:39 | 47 | |
| 6 | 31 | 12 | 10 | 9 | +15 | 48:33 | 46 | |
| 7 | 30 | 11 | 9 | 10 | +2 | 39:37 | 42 | |
| 8 | 31 | 10 | 10 | 11 | -9 | 43:52 | 40 | |
| 9 | 30 | 11 | 6 | 13 | +0 | 41:41 | 39 | |
| 10 | 30 | 10 | 6 | 14 | -3 | 45:48 | 36 | |
| 11 | 30 | 8 | 10 | 12 | -3 | 53:56 | 34 | |
| 12 | 30 | 9 | 7 | 14 | -5 | 51:56 | 34 | |
| 13 | 30 | 8 | 10 | 12 | -8 | 47:55 | 34 | |
| 14 | 30 | 7 | 10 | 13 | -18 | 38:56 | 31 | |
| 15 | 30 | 6 | 4 | 20 | -39 | 36:75 | 22 |
CF Montréal and Chicago Fire FC clashed in a tightly contested MLS encounter. Both sides showcased moments of attacking intent, but the decisive moments remained elusive throughout the ninety minutes.
CF Montréal asserted a strong presence in possession, dictating play for significant portions of the match. Their build-up play was evident in the 327 passes completed in the opposition half, coupled with 16 corners that constantly threatened the Chicago Fire's defense. The home side generated an Expected Goals figure of 0.92, indicating a solid creative output and a notable big chance created. Despite 5 shots on target and a 59% possession advantage, converting their dominance into goals proved a challenge.
The attacking strategy for Montréal involved numerous crosses, with 36 attempts, 10 of which found their mark. Their ability to progress the ball into the final third was also a key feature, with 128 passes reaching that crucial area. However, the efficiency of these attacks, reflected in a shot accuracy of 0.31, meant that Chicago Fire's defense, despite facing sustained pressure, managed to hold firm and prevent clear-cut scoring opportunities from being consistently converted.
Chicago Fire FC, while seeing less of the ball, demonstrated resilience and tactical discipline throughout the fixture. Their defensive efforts were highlighted by 16 tackles, with 10 successfully won, and 22 clearances, showcasing their commitment to shutting down Montréal's advances. Despite the pressure, they managed to limit the opposition's clear-cut opportunities, forcing Montréal to rely on a high volume of attacks rather than sustained, high-quality chances.
The Fire's attacking forays, though fewer, aimed to exploit any available space. Their ability to win 12 aerial duels out of 25 suggests they were competitive in key physical battles. While the statistics do not highlight extensive attacking pressure from Chicago, their organized structure and determination ensured they remained a threat, preventing Montréal from fully capitalizing on their possession and territorial advantage. The match ultimately saw both teams unable to break the deadlock.
The game concluded without a decisive breakthrough, a testament to the defensive solidity shown by both CF Montréal and Chicago Fire FC. Despite Montréal's statistical edge in possession and attacking metrics, the final scoreline reflected a balanced contest where neither side could find the clinical edge required to secure victory. The tactical battle played out with moments of dominance for the home side, met by the resolute defending of the visitors.
