Chicago Fire vs Portland Timbers: match statistics
Chicago Fire vs Portland Timbers: form, goals and key statistics
Game details
Chicago Fire played against Portland Timbers in MLS (United States). The game was played on August 16, 2026. Venue: Soldier Field. Final score: 2:1.
Recent form
Chicago Fire has 3 wins, 0 draws and 2 losses over its last five games, averaging 1.80 points per game. Portland Timbers has 3 wins, 1 draw and 1 loss, with 2.00 points per game.
Scoring records
Chicago Fire scores 1.88 goals per game and allows 1.35. Portland Timbers scores 1.83 and allows 1.83. Games in this league average 3.20 goals.
BTTS and goal totals
Both teams score in 65% of Chicago Fire's games and 72% of Portland Timbers's. The Over 2.5 rates are 76% and 72%, compared with league averages of 62% for BTTS and 61% for Over 2.5.
xG and shots
Chicago Fire has the higher season xG average, 1.62 to 1.56 per game. Chicago Fire takes 14.5 shots per game, while Portland Timbers takes 13.4.
First-half and second-half trends
Chicago Fire leads at halftime in 35% of its games and scores 1.06 goals per game after halftime. Portland Timbers leads at halftime in 28% and scores 0.94 after halftime.
When the teams score
Chicago Fire's most productive scoring window is minutes 16-30 (8 goals). For Portland Timbers, it is minutes 76-90+ (8 goals). These are past scoring patterns, not predicted goal times.
League scoring profile
MLS games average 3.20 goals. Both teams score in 62% of games, and 61% 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 67% of their home matches, score an average of 2.00 goals per game, and have never failed to score at home. Portland Timbers lose 67% of their away matches, concede an average of 2.00 goals, have kept no clean sheets, and fail to score in 44% of their away games. The hosts also create higher-quality chances, recording an average xG of 1.85 compared with Portland’s 1.49, while averaging 17.11 shots per match versus 13.56 for the visitors. Both teams have been prolific recently, with Chicago scoring 10 goals in five matches and Portland 12; however, the visitors’ defense has allowed 2.19 xG against on the road. Portland’s recent form, including 3 wins and a draw from their last five matches, could keep the game open, but their away profile clearly points to a Chicago victory.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Chicago Fire have recorded BTTS in 89% of their matches, compared with 56% for Portland Timbers, while their respective figures over the last five games stand at 80% and as high as 100%. The hosts average 2.22 goals per match and have failed to keep a clean sheet in any game, while Portland concede an average of 2.00 goals. Chicago also allow opponents plenty of chances, with an average of 1.67 goals conceded and an xG against of 1.57, which strengthens the visitors’ chances of scoring. Portland have scored 12 goals in their last five appearances, averaging 2.4 per match, while their average xG of 1.75 confirms that this efficiency is well supported by the quality of their chances. Both attacks create more than 13 shots per match, making a goal for each team the most likely scenario.
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
Chicago average 2.22 goals per match, while Portland concede as many as 2.00, clearly favoring the hosts’ scoring potential. Chicago’s attacking strength is supported by an average xG of 1.63, whereas Portland’s defense allows opponents an average of 2.19 xG. Both teams have been highly offensive in their last five matches: Chicago averaged 2.0 goals, and Portland 2.4, with 17 goals conceded across these ten appearances. The 1.5 line was surpassed in 100% of both teams’ seasonal matches, while Over 2.5 occurred in 89% of Chicago’s games and 56% of Portland’s. Therefore, the strongest pick is Over 1.5, as even moderately efficient finishing should be enough to produce at least two goals.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Chicago Fire have a clear advantage in their home results: they win 56% of matches, while Portland Timbers have lost 67% of their away games and won only 22%. The hosts score an average of 2.22 goals, while Portland concede 2.00 per match; additionally, Chicago’s xG stands at 1.63, compared with the visitors’ defensive xG of 2.19. The scenario of Chicago taking the lead at the break is supported by the fact that Portland went into half-time trailing in 56% of their away matches, although caution is warranted, as Chicago were ahead at half-time in only 22% of games. After the break, the Fire are considerably more consistent, averaging 1.11 goals scored and just 0.56 conceded, while they won the second half in 56% of cases. Portland have recently looked dangerous offensively, averaging 2.4 goals across their last five matches, so the risk of a turnaround remains significant; nevertheless, a full-time home win after leading at half-time remains the strongest option.
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 | Portland Timbers | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 35% | 36% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.11 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.37 | 0.38 |
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.
Portland Timbers is 11% better for: last-5 form.
1.8 pts / game - Chicago Fire · 2 pts / game - Portland Timbers
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 36% better for: goals allowed per game.
1.35 goals / game - Chicago Fire · 1.83 goals / game - Portland Timbers
Chicago Fire scores in 94% of games (16 of 17 games), while Portland Timbers keeps a clean sheet in 6% (1 of 18 games).
Portland Timbers scores in 78% of games (14 of 18 games), while Chicago Fire keeps a clean sheet in 35% (6 of 17 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 - Portland Timbers
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 44% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.53 pts / game - Chicago Fire · 1.06 pts / game - Portland Timbers
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Chicago Fire - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 35% of games and wins 53%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
Portland Timbers - second-half results
Leads at halftime in 28% of games and wins 39%. Also wins some games without leading at halftime.
Defense stays consistent across the full game.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 1.20 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / game | 1.0 | 0.8 |
| Goals allowed / game | 1.2 | 0.4 |
| Average goals per game | 2.2 | 1.2 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 80% | 20% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 80% |
| No goal | 0% | 20% |
| Goal difference | -1 | +2 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per game | 0.80 | 2.60 |
| Goals scored / game | 0.6 | 1.8 |
| Goals allowed / game | 1.2 | 0.4 |
| Average goals per game | 1.8 | 2.2 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 80% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 60% |
| No goal | 40% | 20% |
| Goal difference | -3 | +7 |
* 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 16-30 (8 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (8). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 76-90 (8 goals). Concedes most in 0-15 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): +1 - 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
Portland Timbers
* 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 | Portland Timbers | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals per game | • 3.24 | 3.20 | ▲ 3.67 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 65% | 62% | ▲ 72% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 76% | 61% | ▲ 72% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 35% | 21% | ▼ 6% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 82% | 76% | ▲ 100% |
| Goal after half-time | ▼ 76% | 80% | ▼ 78% |
^ 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 Portland Timbers?
The MLS match finished Chicago Fire 2:1 Portland Timbers. 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 Portland Timbers?
Chicago Fire score 1.88 goals per game on average and Portland Timbers 1.83. The MLS average is 3.20 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 61% of games. Both teams score in 65% of Chicago Fire's matches and 72% of Portland Timbers's.
What form are Chicago Fire and Portland Timbers in?
Over the last 5 games Chicago Fire have a 3-0-2 record (1.80 points per game) and Portland Timbers 3-1-1 (2.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Chicago Fire vs Portland Timbers?
The statistical background for Chicago Fire vs Portland Timbers — form, head-to-head, goals, BTTS and Over/Under — is on this page. The tip with full reasoning and a value assessment is in the NoFluffPicks app.