Chicago Fire II vs Chattanooga FC: match statistics
Full analysis and pick in the app
Check the betting analysis, pick, value bet and full reasoning for this match.
Chicago Fire II vs Chattanooga FC: form, goals and key statistics
Key match information
Chicago Fire II play Chattanooga FC in MLS Next Pro (United States). The match date is 20 September 2026. Venue: SeatGeek Stadium.
Current form
Chicago Fire II: 1-0-4, 0.60 points/match. Chattanooga FC: 3-1-1, 2.00 points/match.
Goal statistics
Chicago Fire II scores 1.81 and concedes 1.78 goals per match. Chattanooga FC scores 2.04 and concedes 1.44. League average: 3.33 goals.
BTTS / Over / Under
BTTS: Chicago Fire II 67%, Chattanooga FC 67%. Over 2.5: Chicago Fire II 85%, Chattanooga FC 63%. League level: BTTS 63%, Over 2.5 66%.
xG, shots and style
Chattanooga FC has higher xG: 1.74 vs 1.67. Chicago Fire II: 13.6 shots per match, Chattanooga FC: 14.6.
Match halves
Chicago Fire II: half-time lead 41%, second-half goals 0.85. Chattanooga FC: half-time lead 48%, second-half goals 1.07.
Goals by minute
Chicago Fire II: 31-45+ (13 goals). Chattanooga FC: 31-45+ (12 goals). This is historical distribution, not a predicted goal minute.
League context
MLS Next Pro: 3.33 goals per match, BTTS 63%, Over 2.5 66%.
Head-to-head
Before this fixture, 3 previous H2H matches were available: 2-1-0. Average goals 2.67, BTTS 67%.
Before the match
1X2 odds
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
| Chicago Fire II | Chattanooga FC | |
|---|---|---|
| Accuracy (shots on target) | 37% | 41% |
| Chance quality (xG per shot) | 0.12 | 0.12 |
| Finishing (goals per shot on target) | 0.36 | 0.34 |
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.
Chattanooga FC is 233% better for: last-5 form.
0.6 pts / match - Chicago Fire II · 2 pts / match - Chattanooga FC
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.
Chattanooga FC is 13% better for: goals scored per match.
1.81 goals / match - Chicago Fire II · 2.04 goals / match - Chattanooga FC
Chattanooga FC is 24% better for: goals conceded per match.
1.78 goals / match - Chicago Fire II · 1.44 goals / match - Chattanooga FC
Chicago Fire II scores in 78% of matches (21 of 27 matches), while Chattanooga FC keeps a clean sheet in 26% (7 of 27 matches).
Chattanooga FC scores in 93% of matches (25 of 27 matches), while Chicago Fire II keeps a clean sheet in 19% (5 of 27 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 - Chicago Fire II
Over / Under - Chattanooga FC
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.
Chattanooga FC is 18% better for: first-half form (half-time points).
1.48 pts / match - Chicago Fire II · 1.74 pts / match - Chattanooga FC
Before half-time (1st half)
After half-time (2nd half)
Chicago Fire II - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 41% of matches and wins 37%. Usually protects the lead until full-time.
Concedes 0.3 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
Chattanooga FC - second-half results
Leads at half-time in 48% of matches and wins 52%. Also wins matches without a half-time lead.
Concedes 0.5 more goals per match after half-time - defensive level drops in the second half.
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 0.60 | 1.20 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.2 | 0.8 |
| Goals conceded / match | 1.2 | 1.4 |
| Average goals in match | 1.4 | 2.2 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 40% |
| Clean sheet | 20% | 40% |
| No goal | 80% | 60% |
| Goal difference | -5 | -3 |
| 1st half | 2nd half | |
|---|---|---|
| Points per match | 1.60 | 2.00 |
| Goals scored / match | 0.8 | 2.0 |
| Goals conceded / match | 0.6 | 1.2 |
| Average goals in match | 1.4 | 3.2 |
| 1 goal | 100% | 100% |
| 2 goals | 40% | 80% |
| 3 goals | 0% | 60% |
| Clean sheet | 40% | 20% |
| No goal | 20% | 0% |
| Goal difference | +1 | +4 |
* 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 31-45 (13 goals). Concedes most in 76-90 (13). Late-goal balance (76-90): -5 - late phases are a weakness.
Most dangerous in minutes 31-45 (12 goals). Concedes most in 61-75 (9). Late-goal balance (76-90): -1 - 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
Chicago Fire II
Chattanooga FC
* 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
| Chicago Fire II | Liga | Chattanooga FC | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Average goals in match | ▲ 3.59 | 3.33 | ▲ 3.48 |
| Both teams scored | ▲ 67% | 63% | ▲ 67% |
| Min. 3 goals (Over 2.5) | ▲ 85% | 66% | ▼ 63% |
| Clean sheets | ▼ 19% | 21% | ▲ 26% |
| Goal before half-time | ▲ 85% | 76% | ▲ 81% |
| Goal after half-time | ▲ 93% | 85% | ▲ 89% |
^ green = above league average, ˇ red = below league average. This shows direction of the gap, not a team rating.
Head-to-head
Recent meetings (3): Chicago Fire II 2 - 1 - 0 Chattanooga FC. Average goals 2.67, both teams scored in 67% matches.
FAQ
When do Chicago Fire II and Chattanooga FC play?
Chicago Fire II face Chattanooga FC on 20 September 2026 in MLS Next Pro at SeatGeek Stadium. The exact kick-off time in your timezone is shown at the top of the match page.
What is the head-to-head record between Chicago Fire II and Chattanooga FC?
In the last 3 head-to-head matches Chicago Fire II won 2, Chattanooga FC won 0 and 1 ended level. These games averaged 2.67 goals, with both teams scoring in 67% of them.
What do the goal statistics show before Chicago Fire II vs Chattanooga FC?
Chicago Fire II score 1.81 goals per game on average and Chattanooga FC 2.04. The MLS Next Pro average is 3.33 goals, with Over 2.5 landing in 66% of games. Both teams score in 67% of Chicago Fire II's matches and 67% of Chattanooga FC's.
What form are Chicago Fire II and Chattanooga FC in?
Over the last 5 games Chicago Fire II have a 1-0-4 record (0.60 points per game) and Chattanooga FC 3-1-1 (2.00 points per game).
Where can I find a betting tip and analysis for Chicago Fire II vs Chattanooga FC?
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.