Carolina Core vs Chicago Fire II: match statistics
Carolina Core vs Chicago Fire II: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Carolina Core played Chicago Fire II in MLS Next Pro (United States). The match was played on 25 July 2026. Final score: 1:5.
Current form
Carolina Core: 2-2-1, 1.60 points/match. Chicago Fire II: 2-2-1, 1.60 points/match.
Goal statistics
Carolina Core scores 1.30 and concedes 1.60 goals per match. Chicago Fire II scores 1.56 and concedes 1.56. League average: 3.23 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Carolina Core 65%, Chicago Fire II 67%. Over 2.5: Carolina Core 60%, Chicago Fire II 83%. League level: BTTS 60%, Over 2.5 66%.
xG, shots and style
Chicago Fire II has higher xG: 1.49 vs 1.46. Carolina Core: 12.2 shots per match, Chicago Fire II: 12.4.
Match halves
Carolina Core: half-time lead 25%, second-half goals 0.80. Chicago Fire II: half-time lead 39%, second-half goals 0.67.
Goals by minute
Carolina Core: 46-60 (7 goals). Chicago Fire II: 31-45+ (10 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
MLS Next Pro: 3.23 goals per match, BTTS 60%, Over 2.5 66%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 3 previous H2H matches were available: 1-2-0. Average goals 1.67, BTTS 67%.
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
Carolina Core holds a clear statistical edge at home: they average 1.44 goals at home with an average xG of 1.59, while Chicago Fire II score 1.2 goals away with xG 1.4. Defensively the hosts are superior — Carolina concedes 1.22 goals per home match, Chicago concedes 1.8 on the road; the hosts have 0% home matches without scoring (i.e. they always score), whereas the visitors fail to score in 20% of away fixtures. The hosts produce more shots and more shots on target: 13.44 shots and 4.78 on target per match with an 11% conversion rate, versus Chicago’s 11.9 shots, 4.4 on target and 10% conversion. Working for the visitors is better form over the last 5 matches — Chicago average 1.6 points per match with a 2-2-1 record and 11 goals scored, while Carolina average 1.0 point with a 1-2-2 record and 5 goals, which reduces the home advantage. Considering the positive home goal difference for the hosts (+2 vs -6 away for Chicago), higher xG and the fact that Chicago win away only 10% of the time, I rate a Carolina victory as the most likely outcome.
View the statistical overviewBTTS - will both teams score?
Strong signal for BTTS - Yes: Chicago Fire II has a season BTTS rate of 80% versus Carolina Core’s 50%, with the league average at 61%. In the last 5 matches both teams had BTTS rates of 80% (Chicago) and 60% (Carolina), with average goals scored 2.2 and 1.0 and conceded 1.6 and 1.4 respectively, indicating frequent goal exchanges. Defensively Carolina concedes 1.25 goals per game this season, Chicago 1.8, and Chicago has only 10% clean sheets versus Carolina’s 38%, so Chicago rarely keeps a clean sheet. xG and big-chance statistics support BTTS: xG_for 1.61 (Carolina) vs 1.40 (Chicago) and xG_against 1.42 vs 1.57, suggesting both sides create and concede chances; season goals are 22 and 28. Considering season BTTS 50/80, form 60/80 in the last 5, Chicago’s low 10% clean sheets and high over 2.5 percentages (88% and 80%), I assess BTTS probability at 72% (Yes) and 28% (No).
View BTTS statisticsOver/Under - goals analysis
The xG model gives 1.59 xG for Carolina Core and 1.41 xG for Chicago Fire II, totaling approximately 3.00 expected goals (calculated as the average of home attack 1.61 and away defense 1.57, and away attack 1.40 and home defense 1.42). Seasonal metrics confirm a propensity for high-scoring games: Carolina has 88% of matches Over 2.5, Chicago 80%, and the league average is 65%; in the last 5 matches Chicago had all (100%) Over 2.5, hosts 40%. Both teams create chances — Carolina averages 13 shots and 3.75 on target per game vs Chicago 11.9 and 4.4, with conversion rates of 15% and 10% — and BTTS occurs for the home team in 50% and for the away team in 80% of matches. Defensively Carolina concedes 1.25 goals on average and has 38% clean sheets, Chicago concedes 1.8 and has 10% clean sheets, which further increases the likelihood of more goals; accordingly the strongest data-driven signal is a bet on Over at the 2.5 line.
View Over/Under statisticsHT/FT - half-time and full-time scenario
Carolina Core has a clear edge: they led at the break in 5 matches (63%) and won 63% of their games this season, while Chicago Fire II has only a 10% win rate and averages 0.7 points per game. The hosts score an average of 1.25 goals by half-time and concede 0.5, whereas the visitors average 0.6 scored and 0.6 conceded by the break, which favors Carolina Core to have the lead at Half-Time. Additionally, the hosts’ xG is 1.61 versus 1.4 for the visitors, and shot conversion is 15% vs 10%, meaning the hosts convert chances more efficiently. Chicago, however, has a high both-teams-to-score rate (80%) and a strong second half (the visitors scored 5 goals in minutes 46–60), but Carolina Core maintain better efficiency in second halves and keep clean sheets more often (38% vs 10% in second halves). On that basis the safest scenario is 1/1 (I assign it roughly a 46% probability), with notable alternatives X/X (~11%) and X/1 (~10%) due to the possibility of a turnaround.
View first-half and second-half statisticsHalf-by-half
Match statistics
Pre-match profile— what do the season numbers say?
This is a team profile based on season data and form. Match-flow statistics are shown only after the fixture is played.
Team stats— who is more efficient?
Attack and defence comparison for both teams in the current season.
Shooting quality
| Carolina Core | Chicago Fire II | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 37% | 33% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.29 | 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 matches and season record, overall and split by home and away matches.
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 II is 20% better for: goals scored per match.
1.3 goals / match - Carolina Core · 1.56 goals / match - Chicago Fire II
Carolina Core scores in 80% of matches (16 of 20 matches), while Chicago Fire II keeps a clean sheet in 22% (4 of 18 matches).
Chicago Fire II scores in 78% of matches (14 of 18 matches), while Carolina Core keeps a clean sheet in 25% (5 of 20 matches).
How often they score at least...
How often they concede at least...
* Statistics include both teams' home and away matches in the current season.
Both teams scored (BTTS)— how often do both teams score?
How often both teams' matches have goals on both sides, compared with the league average.
Goal patterns
BTTS and goal count
Goal count (Over/Under)— how often do these matches cross the goal lines?
How often matches involving these teams clear goal thresholds, in the full match and in each half.
Full match - team comparison (Over)
Over / Under - Carolina Core
Over / Under - Chicago Fire II
1st half
2nd half
Match 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 II is 49% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.05 pts / match - Carolina Core · 1.56 pts / match - Chicago Fire II
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Carolina Core - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 25% of matches and wins 20%. Usually protects the lead until full-time.
Defence stays stable across the full match.
Chicago Fire II - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 39% of matches and wins 33%. Usually protects the lead until full-time.
Concedes 0.4 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.60 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.8 | 0.6 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.4 | 0.4 |
| Average goals in match | 1.2 | 1.0 |
| 1 goal | 80% | 60% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 40% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 0% |
| Clean sheet | 60% | 80% |
| No goal | 40% | 60% |
| Goal difference | +2 | +1 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.40 | 1.60 |
| Goals scored / match | 1.2 | 1.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.8 | 0.8 |
| Average goals in match | 2.0 | 1.8 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 80% | 60% |
| 3 goals | 20% | 20% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 20% |
| No goal | 20% | 20% |
| Goal difference | +2 | +1 |
* Colours in tables show event frequency: green is common, yellow is moderate, red is rare. It is frequency, not a team rating.
Goals by minute— when do goals arrive?
Match phases in which both teams most often score and concede.
Most dangerous in minutes 46-60 (7 goals). Concedes most in 31-45 (7). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 31-45 (10 goals). Concedes most in 46-60 (8). Late-goal balance (76-90): -3 - late phases are a weakness.
* 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 based on completed matches from the current season.
Match profile
Carolina Core
Chicago Fire II
* The estimated goal total and split, BTTS estimate, 0:0 risk and goal range are calculated from public season averages and frequencies for both teams. This is a statistical match profile, not a private model prediction or betting pick. The remaining indicators describe completed matches from the season.
League context— is this a high-scoring league?
How both teams compare with league-wide averages (MLS Next Pro).
Teams vs league
| Carolina Core | Liga | Chicago Fire II | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▼ 2.90 | 3.23 | ▼ 3.11 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 65% | 60% | ▲ 67% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▼ 60% | 66% | ▲ 83% |
| Clean sheets | ▲ 25% | 22% | • 22% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 85% | 75% | ▲ 78% |
| Goal after half-time | ▼ 80% | 84% | ▲ 89% |
^ 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
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.
Head-to-head
Recent meetings (3): Carolina Core 1 - 2 - 0 Chicago Fire II. Average goals 1.67, both teams scored in 67% matches.
FAQ
What was the result of Carolina Core vs Chicago Fire II?
The MLS Next Pro match finished Carolina Core 1:5 Chicago Fire II. Full match statistics, the half-by-half breakdown and head-to-head are on this page.
What is the head-to-head record between Carolina Core and Chicago Fire II?
In the last 3 head-to-head matches Carolina Core won 1, Chicago Fire II won 0 and 2 ended level. These games averaged 1.67 goals, with both teams scoring in 67% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Carolina Core vs Chicago Fire II?
Carolina Core score 1.30 goals per game on average and Chicago Fire II 1.56. The MLS Next Pro average is 3.23 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 66% of games. Both teams score in 65% of Carolina Core's matches and 67% of Chicago Fire II's.
What form are Carolina Core and Chicago Fire II in?
Over the last 5 games Carolina Core have a 2-2-1 record (1.60 points per game) and Chicago Fire II 2-2-1 (1.60 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Carolina Core vs Chicago Fire II?
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.