Chicago’s 7-1-3 Home Record Puts Pressure on New England
An in-depth analysis of the tactical battle ahead
How this story was made
- Evidence
- fixture data, league standings, team statistics, events, and injuries
- Generated
- 9/12/2026, 8:06:29 AM
- Model
- GPT56Luna
- Editorial checks
- passed · score 100/100 · 495 words

Chicago Fire

New England Revolution
A one-point gap shapes the contest
Chicago Fire host New England Revolution at Soldier Field on Sunday with only one point separating the Eastern Conference teams. New England sit third on 40 points from 24 matches, while Chicago are fourth on 39 points from 23. The Fire also have a game in hand, adding importance to a fixture that could alter the order near the top of the conference.
Neither side is close to Nashville SC at the summit, with the leader holding 53 points. Chicago trail by 14 points and New England by 13, so the immediate objective is to strengthen their position among the leading teams rather than focus only on first place. A win would give either side a useful advantage in a close section of the table.
Chicago bring strong home numbers
Chicago’s home record is a major part of their case. They have won seven of 11 matches at Soldier Field, drawing once and losing three times. They have scored 21 home goals, averaging 1.90 per game, while conceding 12 at an average of 1.10. Four home clean sheets show that their attack has support from a relatively reliable defensive platform.
Their most recent five results, read from the supplied form list, are two wins, one draw and two losses. That record offers encouragement but not complete momentum. The Fire will need to turn their home scoring rate into early pressure without allowing New England’s attack to exploit the spaces created by an aggressive approach.
Revolution face an away test
New England’s away record is less consistent: four wins, two draws and six losses from 12 matches. They have scored 17 goals on the road, averaging 1.40 per game, but have conceded 19, or 1.60 per game, and have kept only one clean sheet. Those figures suggest Chicago may see opportunities if they can sustain pressure.
New England’s latest five results include two wins and three losses. Their preferred 4-2-3-1, used in 14 matches, gives them a clear structural identity, with the 4-3-3 used nine times as the main alternative. Chicago have used both 4-2-3-1 and 4-4-2 eight times each, while also selecting a 4-3-3 in five matches. That variety could allow the hosts to change the balance between midfield control and width.
Absences could affect the plan
Chicago will be without J. Bamba, A. Franco and M. Mbokazi, with Bamba and Mbokazi listed with lower-body injuries and Franco unavailable because of a knee injury. Those absences may encourage a more measured approach, particularly if the Fire want to protect their home defensive record. New England will miss L. Campana through a hamstring injury and J. Wynder, who is inactive, while A. Yusuf is questionable with an injury. The Revolution may therefore need to manage their attacking and squad options carefully.
Prediction
Chicago Fire 2-1 New England Revolution. Chicago’s superior home record and New England’s away defensive numbers give the hosts the narrow edge, despite the teams’ close league positions.
By the numbers
The data behind Chicago Fire vs New England Revolution, in 4 charts.
The season so far
Wins, draws and losses side by side
Two different teams?
Home and away form for Chicago Fire
Who wins more often?
Share of league games won this season
How they line up
Most-used formations this season
The table as it stands
| Logo | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Vancouver Whitecaps | WLWWL | 23 | 14 | 4 | 5 | 52 | 21 | 46 | |
| 2 | Houston Dynamo | WDDLW | 24 | 13 | 4 | 7 | 32 | 27 | 43 | |
| 3 | Los Angeles FC | WDDDL | 25 | 11 | 7 | 7 | 40 | 24 | 40 | |
| 4 | FC Dallas | WWDLW | 24 | 11 | 7 | 6 | 47 | 41 | 40 | |
| 5 | San Jose Earthquakes | WDDLL | 24 | 11 | 5 | 8 | 43 | 36 | 38 | |
| 6 | St. Louis City | DWDWD | 24 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 38 | 33 | 38 | |
| 7 | Colorado Rapids | DLWLW | 24 | 10 | 2 | 12 | 32 | 32 | 32 | |
| 8 | Portland Timbers | DWLDW | 24 | 9 | 5 | 10 | 46 | 45 | 32 | |
| 9 | San Diego | LLWWL | 24 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 42 | 37 | 30 | |
| 10 | Real Salt Lake | LDLLL | 23 | 8 | 5 | 10 | 37 | 37 | 29 | |
| 11 | Minnesota United FC | LLDWL | 24 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 35 | 39 | 29 | |
| 12 | Los Angeles Galaxy | LWLDW | 25 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 30 | 39 | 29 | |
| 13 | Seattle Sounders | DDDLL | 22 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 24 | 29 | 27 | |
| 14 | Austin | DDWDW | 24 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 30 | 43 | 26 | |
| 15 | Sporting Kansas City | LLLDL | 23 | 4 | 3 | 16 | 23 | 58 | 15 | |
| 1 | Nashville SC | LDWWW | 24 | 16 | 5 | 3 | 48 | 19 | 53 | |
| 2 | Inter Miami | DDWLD | 24 | 12 | 8 | 4 | 59 | 44 | 44 | |
| 3 | New England Revolution | WLWDW | 24 | 12 | 4 | 8 | 39 | 30 | 40 | |
| 4 | Chicago Fire | DDDDW | 23 | 11 | 6 | 6 | 44 | 33 | 39 | |
| 5 | Charlotte | WDWWD | 24 | 11 | 6 | 7 | 42 | 33 | 39 | |
| 6 | Orlando City SC | WWDWL | 24 | 9 | 4 | 11 | 41 | 56 | 31 | |
| 7 | FC Cincinnati | LLDWD | 23 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 49 | 56 | 31 | |
| 8 | Philadelphia Union | WWWDD | 24 | 8 | 6 | 10 | 41 | 39 | 30 | |
| 9 | New York City FC | LDDDL | 24 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 37 | 33 | 29 | |
| 10 | Toronto FC | WDDWD | 24 | 6 | 11 | 7 | 38 | 43 | 29 | |
| 11 | DC United | WDLLD | 23 | 6 | 10 | 7 | 30 | 37 | 28 | |
| 12 | New York Red Bulls | LDLDL | 24 | 7 | 6 | 11 | 32 | 48 | 27 | |
| 13 | Columbus Crew | LWLLL | 24 | 6 | 5 | 13 | 35 | 41 | 23 | |
| 14 | Atlanta United FC | LDLWW | 24 | 6 | 4 | 14 | 29 | 43 | 22 | |
| 15 | CF Montreal | LLLDW | 24 | 5 | 6 | 13 | 31 | 50 | 21 |