Latest Highlights
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
MLS 2026
| # | GP | W | D | L | DIFF | Goals | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 18 | 12 | 4 | 2 | +21 | 35:14 | 40 | |
| 2 | 18 | 11 | 5 | 2 | +13 | 45:32 | 38 | |
| 3 | 17 | 9 | 3 | 5 | +7 | 28:21 | 30 | |
| 4 | 17 | 9 | 2 | 6 | +9 | 32:23 | 29 | |
| 5 | 18 | 7 | 5 | 6 | +7 | 31:24 | 26 | |
| 6 | 18 | 7 | 5 | 6 | +1 | 45:44 | 26 | |
| 7 | 18 | 7 | 4 | 7 | +2 | 29:27 | 25 | |
| 8 | 18 | 7 | 4 | 7 | -10 | 29:39 | 25 | |
| 9 | 18 | 5 | 8 | 5 | -3 | 26:29 | 23 | |
| 10 | 18 | 6 | 2 | 10 | -17 | 30:47 | 20 | |
| 11 | 18 | 5 | 5 | 8 | -2 | 26:28 | 20 | |
| 12 | 18 | 3 | 8 | 7 | -8 | 24:32 | 17 | |
| 13 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 10 | -8 | 25:33 | 16 | |
| 14 | 18 | 4 | 4 | 10 | -11 | 24:35 | 16 | |
| 15 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 12 | -14 | 19:33 | 12 |
| # | GP | W | D | L | DIFF | Goals | Pts | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17 | 10 | 4 | 3 | +21 | 38:17 | 34 | |
| 2 | 19 | 10 | 4 | 5 | +16 | 35:19 | 34 | |
| 3 | 18 | 10 | 3 | 5 | +13 | 37:24 | 33 | |
| 4 | 17 | 9 | 2 | 6 | +1 | 25:24 | 29 | |
| 5 | 17 | 8 | 3 | 6 | +4 | 29:25 | 27 | |
| 6 | 18 | 7 | 6 | 5 | +7 | 32:25 | 27 | |
| 7 | 18 | 7 | 5 | 6 | +0 | 24:24 | 26 | |
| 8 | 18 | 7 | 3 | 8 | +0 | 33:33 | 24 | |
| 9 | 17 | 7 | 3 | 7 | -2 | 20:22 | 24 | |
| 10 | 18 | 6 | 6 | 6 | -5 | 20:25 | 24 | |
| 11 | 18 | 7 | 1 | 10 | +2 | 27:25 | 22 | |
| 12 | 19 | 5 | 7 | 7 | -5 | 24:29 | 22 | |
| 13 | 18 | 5 | 6 | 7 | +3 | 32:29 | 21 | |
| 14 | 18 | 4 | 5 | 9 | -14 | 22:36 | 17 | |
| 15 | 18 | 4 | 2 | 12 | -28 | 18:46 | 14 |
Columbus Crew and Chicago Fire FC locked horns in a tightly contested MLS clash. Both sides showcased moments of attacking intent, but neither could find the decisive edge in a game defined by strategic battles across the midfield.
Columbus Crew asserted a slight possession advantage early on, probing the Chicago Fire FC defense with patient build-up play. Their attacks, numbering 54 throughout the match, saw them successfully move the ball into the opposition half 252 times. The Crew's efforts resulted in an expected goals tally of 1.17, suggesting they created genuine scoring opportunities. They managed to get 5 shots on target from their 20 crosses, indicating a willingness to test the opposing goalkeeper and look for openings.
Chicago Fire FC, conversely, focused on a disciplined defensive structure, aiming to stifle the Crew's attacking rhythm. While their possession was evenly split, they absorbed pressure effectively. The Fire's defensive unit worked hard, registering 13 tackles and 9 clearances to deny the Crew clear sight of goal. Their ability to disrupt the Crew's final third passes, limiting them to 84 successful entries, was a testament to their organized backline throughout the opening exchanges.
The second half saw an increase in the intensity of exchanges as both teams pushed for a breakthrough. Columbus Crew continued to create chances, evidenced by their 2 big chances created and 6 key passes, indicating they were close to unlocking the Fire's defense. Their attacking forays, though at times thwarted by Chicago's resilience, kept the pressure on, with a persistent threat emanating from wide areas and through the middle.
Chicago Fire FC, despite facing sustained pressure, also showed flashes of attacking intent. Their counter-attacking movements and quick transitions aimed to exploit any spaces left by the Crew. The Fire's ability to win 7 successful aerial duels demonstrated their physical presence in key duels. Ultimately, neither side could convert their statistical advantages into goals, leading to a frustrating stalemate where defensive solidity and missed opportunities defined the narrative.
The match statistics painted a picture of a closely fought contest, with Columbus Crew holding a slight edge in offensive metrics like expected goals and shots on target. However, Chicago Fire FC's organized defense and competitive spirit prevented the Crew from capitalizing. The final whistle blew on a match where tactical discipline and the inability to finish proved to be the defining factors for both teams.