Inter Miami Are Scoring Freely — So Why Can’t They Win?

Inter Miami have not lost in five matches. They have scored 14 goals in that run. On the surface, it sounds like the form of a side building momentum at exactly the right time.

The problem is that they have only won one of those five matches.

A 7-1 victory over CF Montréal was followed by four draws: 2-2 against Atlanta United, 1-1 at Chicago Fire, then consecutive 2-2 results against Nashville SC and San Diego. The unbeaten sequence has kept Inter Miami moving, but it has also exposed the difference between attacking well and controlling matches well enough to win them.

That is what makes their trip to Columbus Crew more interesting than a routine MLS fixture. The question is not whether Inter Miami can create chances. Their season data leaves little doubt about that. The question is whether they can turn their attacking advantage into a match they control from start to finish.

The attack is not the issue

Inter Miami average 2.4 goals per match this season, compared with Columbus Crew’s 1.4. Their underlying attacking output is just as clear:

• 1.96 xG per match

• 15.7 shots per match

• 6.2 shots on target per match

• 10.2 shots from inside the box per match

• 3.8 big chances per match

• 11 key passes per match

Columbus are not a passive side. They average 56.9 per cent possession, 106.8 attacks and 57 dangerous attacks per match — all slightly higher than Inter Miami’s figures in those areas. But Miami’s final product is much stronger.

They turn a similar level of possession into more shots, more shots on target, more big chances and more assists. Their 1.5 assists per match are more than double Columbus’ 0.7. Their xG on target is also much higher, at 2.26 per match to Columbus’ 1.25.

This is a team that gets into the box regularly and creates high-value shooting situations. The last five games did not create the story; they simply made an existing pattern impossible to miss.

Four draws point to the other end of the pitch

Inter Miami’s attacking production has been good enough to win more than one of their last five. Their issue is that the games have stayed open long enough for opponents to remain in them.

They have conceded eight goals during the unbeaten run. That is not a collapse, but it is too much for a team trying to convert a high-output attack into a consistent winning sequence.

The season numbers add context. Inter Miami allow 1.65 xGA per match, considerably higher than Columbus’ 1.24. In other words, Miami create more than Columbus, but they also permit more expected chance value at the other end.

That imbalance is central to this fixture.

Inter Miami’s attack has carried them through matches that could have become defeats. But the same openness has limited the value of their scoring. A 2-2 draw is not a failure of chance creation when a team scores twice; it is a failure to make two goals enough.

Columbus have a route into the game

Columbus arrive with a much rougher results sequence: two wins and three defeats in their last five. They have scored seven and conceded six in that span.

But the Crew’s overall attacking process suggests they should not be dismissed as a side waiting to defend. They average more attacks, more dangerous attacks and more passes into the final third than Inter Miami. Their 56.1 final-third passes per match marginally exceed Miami’s 52.6.

The difference is what happens after those possessions reach the final third.

Columbus take 11.8 shots per match, compared with Miami’s 15.7. They create 2.1 big chances to Miami’s 3.8, and record 3.8 shots on target to Miami’s 6.2. They can move the ball forward and sustain territorial pressure, but they have not converted enough of that work into the kind of penalty-area volume Miami produce.

Against this opponent, the Crew may not need to dominate the entire game. They need to exploit the moments when Miami’s defensive structure breaks and turn their own attacking pressure into clearer final actions.

The midfield battle is about control, not possession

The possession averages are almost identical: Columbus at 56.9 per cent, Inter Miami at 56.7.

That makes this less about who has the ball and more about what each team does after winning it. Columbus produce 57 dangerous attacks per match, while Inter Miami average 44.9. Miami, however, are far more efficient in the final phase.

For Columbus, the objective is to make their territorial activity count before Miami can establish their attacking rhythm. For Inter Miami, the objective is to avoid another match in which their front-foot football generates goals without killing the contest.

There is a reason the last four Inter Miami results have all been decided by one goal or fewer. Their football is creating enough for victory; their match control has not yet been as convincing as their attacking numbers.

Squad availability may matter

Columbus have Wessam Abou Ali listed as unavailable. Inter Miami’s unavailable list includes Telasco Segovia, Micael, Tadeo Allende, Tyler Hall and Israel Boatwright.

For both teams, the final line-ups will shape how much weight to place on the season averages. The difference between a high-possession team and a high-quality attacking team is often the personnel available to connect midfield control with penalty-area actions.

A test of Inter Miami’s next step

This is not simply a question of whether Inter Miami can extend their unbeaten run.

They are already scoring at a rate that should make them dangerous against any MLS opponent. The more revealing question is whether they can make that scoring power decisive. Four draws in five matches are not a crisis, but they are evidence of an unresolved problem.

Columbus have created enough attacking territory to test it. Inter Miami have created enough quality to win it.

Before the official line-ups are announced, you can build your own Columbus Crew vs Inter Miami simulation by selecting the players you expect to start. Once the confirmed XIs are available, StatsLook’s system simulation will run from the official teams.