Chicago Fire vs New England Revolution: match statistics
Chicago Fire vs New England Revolution: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
Chicago Fire played against New England Revolution in MLS (United States). The game was played on September 13, 2026. Venue: Soldier Field. Final score: 1:2.
Recent form
Chicago Fire has 1 win, 4 draws and 0 losses over its last five games, averaging 1.40 points per game. New England Revolution has 3 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss, with 2.00 points per game.
Scoring records
Chicago Fire scores 1.91 goals per game and allows 1.43. New England Revolution scores 1.63 and allows 1.25. Games in this league average 3.20 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 74% of Chicago Fire's games and 63% of New England Revolution's. The Over 2.5 rates are 74% and 67%, compared with league averages of 63% for BTTS and 62% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
Chicago Fire has the higher season xG average, 1.56 to 1.50 per game. Chicago Fire takes 13.7 shots per game, while New England Revolution takes 12.5.
First-half and second-half trends
Chicago Fire leads at halftime in 43% of its games and scores 1.00 goals per game after halftime. New England Revolution leads at halftime in 33% and scores 0.92 after halftime.
When the teams score
Chicago Fire's most productive scoring window is minutes 61-75 (10 goals). For New England Revolution, it is minutes 76-90+ (12 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
MLS games average 3.20 goals. Both teams score in 63% of games, and 62% finish with at least three goals.
Head-to-head record
There is not enough head-to-head history for a meaningful comparison.
Archived pre-match analysis
This analysis was prepared before kick-off. The conclusions use only information available before the match and do not include the final result or post-match statistics.
General match analysis
Chicago Fire have a clear home advantage: they win 70% of their home matches, score an average of 2.00 goals at home, and have not been held scoreless. New England Revolution win only 27% of their away matches, lose 55%, and concede an average of 1.64 goals per game. The hosts also create slightly better chances, recording a home xG of 1.76 compared with the visitors’ away xG of 1.66, while also registering more shots: 16.2 to 14.55. Chicago’s recent form has been less convincing, however, with three draws in their last five appearances, so the risk of a share of the points remains significant. The Revs’ defense has improved over their last five matches, conceding 6 goals, but only 9% of their away games end with a clean sheet, which strengthens the case for a Chicago win with goals.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
The signal for both sides to score is clear: BTTS occurred in 73% of New England Revolution matches and 50% of Chicago Fire games, compared with a league average of 63%. Current form further supports this selection, as Chicago recorded BTTS in 5 of their last 5 matches, while New England did so in 4 of 5. During this period, the hosts scored and conceded an average of 2.0 goals per match, whereas the visitors averaged 1.8 goals scored and 1.2 conceded. New England have recently created chances worth 2.25 xG, while Chicago allow opponents 1.43 xG, strengthening the visitors’ chances of scoring. Chicago do have a 33% clean-sheet rate this season, but New England have kept a clean sheet in only 9% of matches, and the hosts average 1.83 goals at home. Therefore, a scenario with a goal for each team is more likely.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
The signal for at least two goals is very strong: Chicago score an average of 1.83 goals at home, while New England concede 1.64 away from home. In their last five matches, Chicago scored 10 and conceded 10 goals, while New England netted 9, confirming the elevated scoring potential of both sides. Over 1.5 goals landed in 75% of Chicago’s matches and 82% of New England’s, while the 2.5 line was covered in as many as 80% of the teams’ last five matches. The visitors generate an average of 1.66 xG per match and record 5.18 shots on target, so they should make a significant contribution to the total despite the hosts conceding only 0.92 goals per game this season. Over 1.5 has the highest probability, as even with lower-than-expected finishing efficiency, the data clearly points to a minimum of two goals.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Chicago Fire have won 67% of their matches this season, averaging 1.83 goals scored and conceding just 0.92, while New England Revolution lose 55% of their games and allow opponents to score 1.64 goals per match. The home side’s advantage is already evident before half-time: Chicago have led at the break in 33% of their appearances, while the visitors have gone into the interval behind in as many as 55% of cases. New England do create more chances, with an average xG of 1.66 compared with Chicago’s 1.36, but convert their shots into goals at a rate of only 9%, versus 17% for the hosts. After the break, Chicago score an average of 1.08 goals and concede just 0.25, strongly supporting the preservation of any lead. The visitors’ better recent form limits the extent of the advantage, but the most likely scenario remains Chicago leading at half-time and securing victory by the final whistle.
View first-half and second-half statisticsStats by half
Game stats
Pre-game profile— what do the season numbers say?
This team profile combines season stats and recent form. In-game statistics appear after the final whistle.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Compare both teams' attacking and defensive records this season.
Shooting quality
| Chicago Fire | New England Revolution | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 38% | 39% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.11 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.37 | 0.33 |
xG per shot around 0.08 usually means long-range attempts; 0.15+ usually means box chances. The style label comes from possession, shot volume and conversion.
* xG (expected goals) says how many goals a team should score from its chances. If actual goals are above xG, finishing is above average; if below xG, chances are being missed.
Team form— who is in better shape?
Last five games and season record, overall, at home and away.
New England Revolution is 43% better for: last-5 form.
1.4 pts / game - Chicago Fire · 2 pts / game - New England Revolution
Goals— how do both teams score and concede?
How many goals both teams score and concede, plus how often they keep a clean sheet or fail to score.
Chicago Fire is 17% better for: goals scored per game.
1.91 goals / game - Chicago Fire · 1.63 goals / game - New England Revolution
New England Revolution is 14% better for: goals allowed per game.
1.43 goals / game - Chicago Fire · 1.25 goals / game - New England Revolution
Chicago Fire scores in 96% of games (22 of 23 games), while New England Revolution keeps a clean sheet in 21% (5 of 24 games).
New England Revolution scores in 79% of games (19 of 24 games), while Chicago Fire keeps a clean sheet in 26% (6 of 23 games).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* Statistics include both teams' home and away games this season.
Both teams scored (BTTS)— how often do both teams score?
How often games involving these teams produce goals at both ends, compared with the league average.
Goal patterns
BTTS and goal count
Goal count (Over/Under)— how often do these games cross the goal lines?
See how often games involving these teams clear each goal line, for the full game and each half.
Full game - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under - Chicago Fire
Over / Under - New England Revolution
1st half
2nd half
Game halves— when do the teams score more often?
How teams split performance between first and second half: goals, points, clean sheets and half-time state.
Chicago Fire is 36% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.7 pts / game - Chicago Fire · 1.25 pts / game - New England Revolution
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Chicago Fire - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 43% of games and wins 48%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Allows 0.1 more goals per game after halftime, a sign that the defense becomes less effective later in games.
New England Revolution - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 33% of games and wins 50%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 2.00 | 1.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 1.0 | 1.0 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.6 | 1.2 |
| Average goals per game | 1.6 | 2.2 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 0% |
| No goal | 0% | 40% |
| Goal difference | +2 | -1 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 2.00 | 2.20 |
| Goals scored / game | 1.2 | 0.8 |
| Goals allowed / game | 0.8 | 0.2 |
| Average goals per game | 2.0 | 1.0 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 80% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 80% |
| No goal | 20% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +2 | +3 |
* Table colors show frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate and red is rare. They are not team ratings.
Goals by minute— when do goals arrive?
The parts of a game in which both teams score and allow the most goals.
Most dangerous in minutes 61-75 (10 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (11). Late-goal balance (76-90): -3 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (12 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (11). Late-goal balance (76-90): +9 - wins late phases.
* Buckets 31-45 and 76-90 include added-time goals.
Additional team indicators— what do xG, efficiency and form show?
A comparison of chance quality, results and trends from completed games this season.
Game profile
Chicago Fire
New England Revolution
* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range use public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical game profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed games from the season.
League context— is this a high-scoring league?
How both teams compare with league-wide averages (MLS).
Teams vs league
| Chicago Fire | Liga | New England Revolution | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | ▲ 3.35 | 3.20 | ▼ 2.88 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 74% | 63% | • 63% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 74% | 62% | ▲ 67% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 26% | 21% | • 21% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 87% | 77% | ▲ 83% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 83% | 81% | ▲ 83% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Lineups and player events
Verified starters, substitutes and recorded player events for this match.
Home team
Starting lineup
Away team
Starting lineup
Match timeline
Goals, cards and substitutions arranged in chronological order.
Referee and managers
Open their season profiles to compare match records, goals and disciplinary trends.
FAQ
What was the result of Chicago Fire vs New England Revolution?
The MLS match finished Chicago Fire 1:2 New England Revolution. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What do the goal statistics show before Chicago Fire vs New England Revolution?
Chicago Fire score 1.91 goals per game on average and New England Revolution 1.63. The MLS average is 3.20 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 62% of games. Both teams score in 74% of Chicago Fire's matches and 63% of New England Revolution's.
What form are Chicago Fire and New England Revolution in?
Over the last 5 games Chicago Fire have a 1-4-0 record (1.40 points per game) and New England Revolution 3-1-1 (2.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Chicago Fire vs New England Revolution?
This page shows the full statistical context — form, head-to-head, goals, BTTS and Over/Under. The tip, value assessment and full reasoning are in the NoFluffPicks app.


