Soccer predictions: actual data vs predicted data
Slate 20260614 · 6 match(es)
How to read this report. Each match shows the model's headline prediction, the stage-by-stage lambda (goal-rate) build, both teams' standing/form inputs, and every starter's projected line next to their real season baseline. A moderate / large deviation badge flags a projection that strays far from the player's season form — a quick way to spot when the inputs look right but a projection does not. When the real result is known an actual-vs-predicted banner appears.
All matches overview
| Match | Score | Winner | H / D / A | O2.5 | BTTS | Conf | λ H/A | Actual | Result |
|---|
| Germany vs Curaçao FIFA World Cup | 2-0 | Draw | 81.2% / 12.5% / 6.2% | 66.2% | 44.8% | 0.88 | 2.76 / 0.65 | - | pending |
| Côte d'Ivoire vs Ecuador FIFA World Cup | 1-0 | Draw | 43.3% / 28.7% / 28.0% | 38.3% | 44.3% | 0.71 | 1.26 / 0.96 | - | pending |
| Netherlands vs Japan FIFA World Cup | 2-0 | Draw | 74.0% / 16.5% / 9.5% | 59.0% | 46.1% | 0.84 | 2.35 / 0.71 | - | pending |
| Haiti vs Scotland FIFA World Cup | 0-0 | Draw | 37.3% / 32.5% / 30.2% | 28.4% | 36.5% | 0.68 | 0.99 / 0.86 | - | pending |
| Sweden vs Tunisia FIFA World Cup | 1-0 | Draw | 64.3% / 22.0% / 13.7% | 46.2% | 42.2% | 0.78 | 1.82 / 0.70 | - | pending |
| Australia vs Türkiye FIFA World Cup | 0-1 | Draw | 11.6% / 20.4% / 68.0% | 47.9% | 40.9% | 0.8 | 0.65 / 1.94 | - | pending |
Match detail
Germany vs Curaçao
FIFA World Cup · 20260614 · 4-2-3-1 vs 3-5-2
Predicted 2-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.88λ home/away 2.76 / 0.65Most-likely P 12.6%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Germany λ | Curaçao λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 2.225 | 0.701 |
| Pre-calibration | 2.225 | 0.701 |
| Final λ | 2.759 | 0.650 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Truecompetitive underdog floor applied Falsestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 2-0 | 12.6% |
| 3-0 | 11.6% |
| 1-0 | 9.1% |
| 2-1 | 8.2% |
| 4-0 | 8.0% |
| Home win | 81.2% |
| Draw | 12.5% |
| Away win | 6.2% |
| Over 2.5 | 66.2% |
| BTTS yes | 44.8% |
Projected players vs season baseline
Proj = projected for this match · Season = this season's per-game average from match data · deviation badge compares projected xG to the player's season xG/game.
Germany — projected line vs season baseline (4-2-3-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Manuel Neuer | G | 83 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.3 | 46.0 | 12 |
| Joshua Kimmich | M | 91 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.06 | ok | 2 | 0.6 | 8.3 | 51.9 | 16 |
| Jonathan Tah | D | 83 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 558% | 0 | 0.1 | 7.5 | 58.6 | 14 |
| Nico Schlotterbeck | D | 94 | 0 | 0.47 | 0.08 | 476% | 0 | 0.3 | 8.3 | 51.4 | 9 |
| Kai Havertz | F | 36 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.23 | ok | 3 | 1.0 | 7.4 | 44.3 | 16 |
| Florian Wirtz | M | 69 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.17 | 35% | 2 | 1.3 | 7.5 | 42.5 | 15 |
| Jamal Musiala | M | 64 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.17 | 54% | 1 | 1.4 | 7.0 | 52.4 | 14 |
| Leroy Sané | M | 76 | 1 | 0.10 | 0.14 | ok | 2 | 1.1 | 6.8 | 46.6 | 10 |
| Aleksandar Pavlović | M | 80 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 100% | 1 | 0.6 | 7.8 | 51.0 | 14 |
| Felix Nmecha | M | 55 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.10 | 40% | 1 | 1.4 | 7.2 | 50.6 | 7 |
| Nathaniel Brown | D | 78 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 84% | 0 | 0.5 | 6.7 | 42.8 | 8 |
| Team totals | 2 | 2.76 | | 13 | | 7.3 | |
Curaçao — projected line vs season baseline (3-5-2)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Tahith Chong | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.04 | ok | 1 | 1.3 | 6.7 | 66.3 | 3 |
| Jürgen Locadia | F | 90 | 0 | 0.09 | 0.04 | 159% | 2 | 0.3 | 6.7 | 64.7 | 3 |
| Deveron Fonville | D | 88 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.03 | 392% | 0 | 0.2 | 6.9 | 65.0 | 5 |
| Juninho Bacuna | M | 76 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.07 | ok | 1 | 1.5 | 6.8 | 67.5 | 6 |
| Leandro Bacuna | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.13 | 62% | 1 | 2.0 | 6.7 | 66.3 | 3 |
| Livano Comenencia | D | 20 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 100% | 0 | 0.7 | 6.4 | 39.1 | 7 |
| Sherel Constancio Floranus | D | 88 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 100% | 0 | 0.5 | 6.6 | 66.5 | 4 |
| Riechedly Bazoer | D | 61 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 | 0.2 | 5.9 | 40.5 | 6 |
| Armando Obispo | D | 90 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.6 | 38.4 | 5 |
| Eloy Room | G | 90 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 72.0 | 3 |
| Jurien Gaari | D | 90 | 0 | - | 0.02 | n/a | | 0.7 | 6.6 | 42.3 | 3 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.65 | | 6 | | 6.6 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Home midfield dominates with ~55% possession expected (Florian Wirtz vs Tahith Chong). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.63, Away: 0.27. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Midfield — possession 55.4% / 44.6%, dominance ratio 0.68, key duel: Florian Wirtz vs Tahith Chong
Joshua Kimmich xG 0.06Leroy Sané xG 0.12Florian Wirtz xG 0.12Jürgen Locadia xG 0.09Leandro Bacuna xG 0.03Jurien Gaari xG 0.05
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Germany vs Curaçao. Most likely scoreline: 2-0. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 4-2-3-1 and 3-5-2. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Home midfield dominates with ~55% possession expected (Florian Wirtz vs Tahith Chong). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.63, Away: 0.27. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Côte d'Ivoire vs Ecuador
FIFA World Cup · 20260614 · 4-2-3-1 vs 4-3-3
Predicted 1-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.71λ home/away 1.26 / 0.96Most-likely P 13.6%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Côte d'Ivoire λ | Ecuador λ |
|---|
| Pre-competitive-floor | 1.264 | 0.957 |
| Pre-calibration | 1.264 | 0.957 |
| Final λ | 1.264 | 0.957 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Falsemismatch score pressure applied Falsecompetitive underdog floor applied Falsestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 1-0 | 13.6% |
| 1-1 | 13.2% |
| 0-0 | 10.9% |
| 0-1 | 10.3% |
| 2-0 | 8.7% |
| Home win | 43.3% |
| Draw | 28.7% |
| Away win | 28.0% |
| Over 2.5 | 38.3% |
| BTTS yes | 44.3% |
Projected players vs season baseline
Proj = projected for this match · Season = this season's per-game average from match data · deviation badge compares projected xG to the player's season xG/game.
Côte d'Ivoire — projected line vs season baseline (4-2-3-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Yahia Fofana | G | 89 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.2 | 67.9 | 7 |
| Guéla Doué | D | 94 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 7.0 | 68.7 | 7 |
| Wilfried Singo | D | 75 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.03 | 146% | 1 | 0.6 | 6.6 | 44.7 | 9 |
| Elye Wahi | F | 67 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.14 | 52% | 2 | 1.9 | 7.2 | 57.9 | 7 |
| Simon Adingra | M | 70 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.01 | 972% | 1 | 0.4 | 6.5 | 17.2 | 11 |
| Amad Diallo | M | 93 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.13 | ok | 2 | 1.2 | 7.6 | 46.9 | 11 |
| Oumar Diakité | F | 89 | 1 | 0.49 | 0.12 | 322% | 2 | 0.4 | 6.9 | 40.0 | 5 |
| Franck Kessié | M | 50 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 100% | 2 | 0.7 | 7.5 | 71.0 | 6 |
| Seko Fofana | M | 79 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.07 | ok | 1 | 1.0 | 6.9 | 48.6 | 11 |
| Ghislain Konan | D | 90 | 0 | - | 0.04 | n/a | | 0.9 | 6.6 | 58.3 | 7 |
| Emmanuel Agbadou | D | 72 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 36% | 0 | 0.5 | 7.3 | 61.6 | 8 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.26 | | 12 | | 6.9 | |
Ecuador — projected line vs season baseline (4-3-3)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Enner Valencia | F | 69 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.34 | 57% | 2 | 2.2 | 6.4 | 67.0 | 9 |
| Gonzalo Plata | M | 90 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.11 | 62% | 2 | 0.8 | 7.3 | 30.1 | 14 |
| Moisés Caicedo | M | 95 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 2 | 0.5 | 7.8 | 52.8 | 11 |
| Kendry Páez | M | 42 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 80% | 1 | 0.1 | 6.7 | 20.2 | 10 |
| Alan Franco | M | 75 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 35.7 | 15 |
| Pervis Estupiñán | M | 82 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 7.3 | 25.5 | 8 |
| Piero Hincapié | D | 89 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.05 | ok | 1 | 0.5 | 7.5 | 53.1 | 14 |
| Willian Pacho | D | 95 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 7.7 | 68.0 | 10 |
| Ángelo Preciado | M | 66 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 6.4 | 17.2 | 15 |
| Hernán Galíndez | G | 88 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.4 | 49.9 | 7 |
| John Yeboah | F | 66 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 219% | 2 | 1.1 | 6.5 | 40.1 | 7 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.96 | | 11 | | 7.0 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Midfield is evenly contested — Amad Diallo vs Moisés Caicedo will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.08, Away: 0.64. Home danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Midfield — possession 50.0% / 50.0%, dominance ratio 0.51, key duel: Amad Diallo vs Moisés Caicedo
Amad Diallo xG 0.20Oumar Diakité xG 0.49Franck Kessié xG 0.20Enner Valencia xG 0.15Gonzalo Plata xG 0.04John Yeboah xG 0.21
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Côte d'Ivoire vs Ecuador. Most likely scoreline: 1-0. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Midfield is evenly contested — Amad Diallo vs Moisés Caicedo will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.08, Away: 0.64. Home danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Netherlands vs Japan
FIFA World Cup · 20260614 · 4-2-3-1 vs 3-4-2-1
Predicted 2-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.84λ home/away 2.35 / 0.71Most-likely P 12.9%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Netherlands λ | Japan λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 2.042 | 0.746 |
| Pre-calibration | 2.042 | 0.746 |
| Final λ | 2.348 | 0.712 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Truecompetitive underdog floor applied Falsestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 2-0 | 12.9% |
| 1-0 | 11.0% |
| 3-0 | 10.1% |
| 2-1 | 9.2% |
| 1-1 | 7.8% |
| Home win | 74.0% |
| Draw | 16.5% |
| Away win | 9.5% |
| Over 2.5 | 59.0% |
| BTTS yes | 46.1% |
Projected players vs season baseline
Proj = projected for this match · Season = this season's per-game average from match data · deviation badge compares projected xG to the player's season xG/game.
Netherlands — projected line vs season baseline (4-2-3-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Donyell Malen | F | 95 | 1 | 0.50 | 0.51 | ok | 2 | 1.8 | 7.4 | 52.4 | 9 |
| Cody Gakpo | M | 90 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.14 | 60% | 2 | 0.9 | 7.5 | 36.8 | 17 |
| Tijjani Reijnders | M | 66 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.10 | ok | 2 | 1.3 | 7.4 | 41.9 | 11 |
| Crysencio Summerville | M | 95 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 127% | 1 | 0.5 | 8.2 | 45.7 | 10 |
| Frenkie de Jong | M | 37 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 7.4 | 31.8 | 11 |
| Ryan Gravenberch | M | 95 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.05 | ok | 2 | 0.9 | 7.5 | 43.6 | 14 |
| Micky van de Ven | D | 95 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 305% | 1 | 0.3 | 7.2 | 37.7 | 12 |
| Virgil van Dijk | D | 93 | 1 | 0.28 | 0.06 | 331% | 1 | 0.4 | 7.3 | 47.2 | 14 |
| Jan Paul van Hecke | D | 95 | 0 | 1.02 | 0.11 | 842% | 0 | 0.4 | 7.3 | 40.0 | 11 |
| Bart Verbruggen | G | 95 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 7.0 | 36.5 | 11 |
| Denzel Dumfries | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 95% | 1 | 0.3 | 7.2 | 20.2 | 14 |
| Team totals | 2 | 2.35 | | 13 | | 7.4 | |
Japan — projected line vs season baseline (3-4-2-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Junya Ito | M | 83 | 0 | 0.22 | 0.15 | 46% | 1 | 1.1 | 7.2 | 50.1 | 13 |
| Takefusa Kubo | M | 61 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 954% | 2 | 0.2 | 6.6 | 11.8 | 11 |
| Keito Nakamura | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.04 | ok | 2 | 1.2 | 6.8 | 72.0 | 4 |
| Ao Tanaka | M | 76 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.3 | 6.9 | 45.6 | 9 |
| Daichi Kamada | M | 61 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.10 | 100% | 1 | 0.5 | 6.9 | 45.8 | 12 |
| Ritsu Doan | M | 88 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.03 | 543% | 2 | 0.7 | 6.6 | 55.6 | 7 |
| Hiroki Itō | D | 64 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 488% | 0 | 0.2 | 7.2 | 39.2 | 12 |
| Ko Itakura | D | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 7.6 | 38.2 | 6 |
| Tsuyoshi Watanabe | D | 90 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 472% | 1 | 0.2 | 7.3 | 40.2 | 5 |
| Zion Suzuki | G | 94 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 7.6 | 43.5 | 10 |
| Ayase Ueda | F | 88 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.18 | 57% | 2 | 2.2 | 7.0 | 71.0 | 5 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.71 | | 12 | | 7.1 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Home midfield dominates with ~52% possession expected (Ryan Gravenberch vs Takefusa Kubo). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.75, Away: 0.40. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Left Wingback vs Right Back — Overlapping Run.
Midfield — possession 51.9% / 48.1%, dominance ratio 0.58, key duel: Ryan Gravenberch vs Takefusa Kubo
Tijjani Reijnders xG 0.12Cody Gakpo xG 0.07Ryan Gravenberch xG 0.07Keito Nakamura xG 0.03Ayase Ueda xG 0.08Junya Ito xG 0.16
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Netherlands vs Japan. Most likely scoreline: 2-0. Lambdas derived from 4 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 4-2-3-1 and 3-4-2-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Home midfield dominates with ~52% possession expected (Ryan Gravenberch vs Takefusa Kubo). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.75, Away: 0.40. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Left Wingback vs Right Back — Overlapping Run.
Haiti vs Scotland
FIFA World Cup · 20260614 · 4-3-3 vs 3-5-2
Predicted 0-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.68λ home/away 0.99 / 0.86Most-likely P 15.8%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Haiti λ | Scotland λ |
|---|
| Pre-calibration | 0.994 | 0.862 |
| Final λ | 0.994 | 0.862 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Falsestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 0-0 | 15.8% |
| 1-0 | 15.4% |
| 1-1 | 13.5% |
| 0-1 | 13.3% |
| 2-0 | 7.7% |
| Home win | 37.3% |
| Draw | 32.5% |
| Away win | 30.2% |
| Over 2.5 | 28.4% |
| BTTS yes | 36.5% |
Projected players vs season baseline
Proj = projected for this match · Season = this season's per-game average from match data · deviation badge compares projected xG to the player's season xG/game.
Haiti — projected line vs season baseline (4-3-3)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Johny Placide | G | 90 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 68.0 | 3 |
| Jean-Kévin Duverne | D | 54 | 0 | 0.40 | 0.22 | 77% | 0 | 0.6 | 6.3 | 57.3 | 7 |
| Hannes Delcroix | D | 86 | 0 | 0.26 | 0.06 | 331% | 1 | 0.6 | 7.0 | 69.2 | 8 |
| Carlens Arcus | D | 51 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 6.5 | 52.5 | 6 |
| Wilguens Paugain | D | 23 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 6.4 | - | 4 |
| Jean-Ricner Bellegarde | M | 32 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 100% | 1 | 1.2 | 6.8 | 68.0 | 5 |
| Josué Casimir | M | 64 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100% | 1 | 0.3 | 6.4 | 54.6 | 7 |
| Danley Jean Jacques | M | 90 | 0 | 0.09 | - | n/a | 1 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 47.9 | 7 |
| Wilson Isidor | F | 50 | 0 | 0.23 | 0.05 | 335% | 2 | 1.0 | 7.1 | 43.1 | 8 |
| Frantzdy Pierrot | F | 47 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.12 | 51% | 2 | 0.7 | 6.3 | 43.5 | 6 |
| Louicius Don Deedson | F | 90 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.01 | 1915% | 2 | 0.3 | 6.7 | 31.8 | 6 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.99 | | 12 | | 6.6 | |
Scotland — projected line vs season baseline (3-5-2)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Angus Gunn | G | 90 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 18.6 | 12 |
| Nathan Patterson | D | 41 | 0 | 0.01 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 14.9 | 13 |
| Andy Robertson | D | 78 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.00 | 6748% | 1 | 0.1 | 6.8 | 22.1 | 18 |
| Kieran Tierney | D | 81 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.01 | 1343% | 1 | 0.3 | 6.9 | 29.4 | 14 |
| Scott McTominay | M | 92 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.16 | ok | 2 | 1.3 | 7.8 | 32.1 | 13 |
| Billy Gilmour | M | 75 | 0 | 0.01 | - | n/a | 1 | 0.0 | 7.0 | 45.7 | 3 |
| Lewis Ferguson | M | 76 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 57% | 1 | 0.5 | 6.9 | 41.5 | 15 |
| John McGinn | M | 82 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.09 | 76% | 1 | 0.8 | 6.9 | 42.5 | 22 |
| Ryan Christie | M | 74 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 671% | 1 | 0.2 | 6.9 | 19.6 | 13 |
| Tommy Conway | F | 90 | 0 | 0.12 | - | n/a | 2 | - | 6.8 | - | 0 |
| George Hirst | F | 90 | 0 | 0.13 | - | n/a | 2 | 0.0 | 6.8 | - | 9 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.86 | | 13 | | 6.3 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Away midfield dictates play with ~52% possession expected (Jean-Ricner Bellegarde vs Scott McTominay). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.71, Away: 0.32. Home danger zone: Left Wing vs Right Wingback — Compact Flank. Away danger zone: Central Mid vs Central Mid — Box-to-Box Midfield Contest.
Midfield — possession 47.7% / 52.3%, dominance ratio 0.42, key duel: Jean-Ricner Bellegarde vs Scott McTominay
Wilson Isidor xG 0.23Louicius Don Deedson xG 0.20Frantzdy Pierrot xG 0.18Tommy Conway xG 0.12Billy Gilmour xG 0.01Ryan Christie xG 0.03
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Haiti vs Scotland. Most likely scoreline: 0-0. Lambdas derived from 4 home and 5 away individual player duels.
4-3-3 creates structural superiority against 3-5-2. Home team should exploit wider spaces and numerical advantages in transition. Away midfield dictates play with ~52% possession expected (Jean-Ricner Bellegarde vs Scott McTominay). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.71, Away: 0.32. Home danger zone: Left Wing vs Right Wingback — Compact Flank. Away danger zone: Central Mid vs Central Mid — Box-to-Box Midfield Contest.
Sweden vs Tunisia
FIFA World Cup · 20260614 · 3-4-1-2 vs 4-3-3
Predicted 1-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.78λ home/away 1.82 / 0.70Most-likely P 14.6%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Sweden λ | Tunisia λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 1.608 | 0.713 |
| Pre-competitive-floor | 1.824 | 0.684 |
| Pre-calibration | 1.608 | 0.713 |
| Final λ | 1.824 | 0.700 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Truecompetitive underdog floor applied Truestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 1-0 | 14.6% |
| 2-0 | 13.3% |
| 1-1 | 10.2% |
| 2-1 | 9.3% |
| 3-0 | 8.1% |
| Home win | 64.3% |
| Draw | 22.0% |
| Away win | 13.7% |
| Over 2.5 | 46.2% |
| BTTS yes | 42.2% |
Projected players vs season baseline
Proj = projected for this match · Season = this season's per-game average from match data · deviation badge compares projected xG to the player's season xG/game.
Sweden — projected line vs season baseline (3-4-1-2)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Kristoffer Nordfeldt | G | 88 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 37.0 | 7 |
| Isak Hien | D | 83 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 924% | 0 | 0.2 | 6.8 | 56.7 | 9 |
| Victor Lindelöf | D | 85 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 6.8 | 37.2 | 21 |
| Viktor Gyökeres | F | 78 | 1 | 0.18 | 0.19 | ok | 3 | 1.6 | 7.4 | 57.7 | 18 |
| Alexander Isak | F | 32 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 96% | 1 | 0.8 | 7.2 | 36.8 | 11 |
| Benjamin Nygren | F | 86 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.10 | 95% | 2 | 1.2 | 6.5 | 51.8 | 13 |
| Gabriel Gudmundsson | D | 26 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 1 | 0.2 | 6.9 | 36.8 | 11 |
| Yasin Ayari | M | 50 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 2 | 0.7 | 6.8 | 45.9 | 12 |
| Jesper Karlström | M | 78 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 1 | 0.5 | 6.6 | 47.2 | 10 |
| Alexander Bernhardsson | F | 24 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 1 | 0.1 | 6.5 | 24.0 | 8 |
| Gustaf Lagerbielke | D | 82 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.4 | 6.5 | 62.4 | 16 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.82 | | 11 | | 6.8 | |
Tunisia — projected line vs season baseline (4-3-3)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Firas Chaouat | F | 90 | 0 | 0.12 | - | n/a | 2 | 0.0 | 6.7 | 64.7 | 3 |
| Elias Achouri | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 60% | 2 | 1.0 | 6.7 | 43.3 | 3 |
| Rani Khedira | M | 87 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 2 | 0.4 | 6.4 | 50.2 | 5 |
| Hannibal Mejbri | M | 70 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.05 | ok | 2 | 1.0 | 7.1 | 59.6 | 7 |
| Ellyes Skhiri | M | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 6.7 | 56.7 | 7 |
| Ali Abdi | D | 31 | 0 | 0.28 | 0.10 | 180% | 1 | 1.0 | 6.5 | 56.6 | 8 |
| Montassar Talbi | D | 90 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ok | 0 | 0.4 | 7.1 | 66.2 | 5 |
| Omar Rekik | D | 74 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.04 | 54% | 0 | 0.4 | 6.7 | 57.3 | 7 |
| Ismael Gharbi | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.05 | ok | 1 | 0.6 | 6.7 | 38.6 | 5 |
| Yan Valery | D | 78 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 280% | 0 | 0.2 | 6.6 | 56.2 | 8 |
| Abdelmouhib Chamakh | G | 90 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.7 | 12.3 | 3 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.70 | | 12 | | 6.7 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Midfield is evenly contested — Yasin Ayari vs Hannibal Mejbri will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.65, Away: 0.41. Home danger zone: Attacking Mid vs Single Holding Mid — Space Creator Duel. Away danger zone: RW vs CB.
Midfield — possession 51.0% / 49.0%, dominance ratio 0.51, key duel: Yasin Ayari vs Hannibal Mejbri
Viktor Gyökeres xG 0.18Benjamin Nygren xG 0.20Jesper Karlström xG 0.05Hannibal Mejbri xG 0.06Ismael Gharbi xG 0.04Firas Chaouat xG 0.12
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Sweden vs Tunisia. Most likely scoreline: 1-0. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 3-4-1-2 and 4-3-3. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Midfield is evenly contested — Yasin Ayari vs Hannibal Mejbri will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.65, Away: 0.41. Home danger zone: Attacking Mid vs Single Holding Mid — Space Creator Duel. Away danger zone: RW vs CB.
Australia vs Türkiye
FIFA World Cup · 20260614 · 5-4-1 vs 4-2-3-1
Predicted 0-1Winner: DrawConfidence 0.8λ home/away 0.65 / 1.94Most-likely P 14.6%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Australia λ | Türkiye λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 0.677 | 1.714 |
| Pre-calibration | 0.677 | 1.714 |
| Final λ | 0.650 | 1.939 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Truecompetitive underdog floor applied Falsestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 0-1 | 14.6% |
| 0-2 | 14.1% |
| 1-1 | 9.5% |
| 1-2 | 9.2% |
| 0-3 | 9.1% |
| Home win | 11.6% |
| Draw | 20.4% |
| Away win | 68.0% |
| Over 2.5 | 47.9% |
| BTTS yes | 40.9% |
Projected players vs season baseline
Proj = projected for this match · Season = this season's per-game average from match data · deviation badge compares projected xG to the player's season xG/game.
Australia — projected line vs season baseline (5-4-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Mohamed Touré | F | 90 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.02 | 374% | 2 | 0.5 | 6.8 | 32.8 | 4 |
| Mathew Leckie | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 309% | 1 | 0.2 | 6.7 | 32.6 | 8 |
| Aiden O'Neill | M | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.00 | 1555% | 2 | 0.2 | 6.7 | 34.3 | 6 |
| Jackson Irvine | M | 86 | 0 | 0.09 | 0.09 | ok | 1 | 0.7 | 6.7 | 57.0 | 7 |
| Connor Metcalfe | M | 66 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 68% | 2 | 0.9 | 6.2 | 51.2 | 8 |
| Jordan Bos | D | 90 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.07 | 138% | 2 | 1.3 | 6.6 | 48.6 | 7 |
| Lucas Herrington | D | 90 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.6 | 21.0 | 10 |
| Harry Souttar | D | 90 | 0 | - | 0.01 | n/a | | 0.2 | 6.6 | 52.5 | 4 |
| Jacob Italiano | M | 86 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.09 | 100% | 1 | 0.4 | 6.8 | 42.1 | 10 |
| Mathew Ryan | G | 88 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 7.6 | 27.2 | 11 |
| Alessandro Circati | D | 92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 100% | 0 | 0.3 | 6.6 | 60.1 | 7 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.65 | | 13 | | 6.7 | |
Türkiye — projected line vs season baseline (4-2-3-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Ozan Kabak | D | 74 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.06 | 208% | 1 | 0.4 | 6.6 | 37.1 | 9 |
| Zeki Çelik | D | 79 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 100% | 1 | 0.2 | 6.7 | 52.3 | 9 |
| Uğurcan Çakır | G | 92 | 0 | - | - | n/a | | 0.0 | 6.9 | 64.4 | 9 |
| Abdülkerim Bardakcı | D | 84 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.02 | 79% | 1 | 0.8 | 6.6 | 62.5 | 10 |
| Eren Elmalı | D | 29 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 1177% | 0 | 0.1 | 6.6 | 34.5 | 12 |
| Hakan Çalhanoğlu | M | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 99% | 5 | 2.9 | 7.6 | 42.6 | 7 |
| İsmail Yüksek | M | 78 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 83% | 2 | 1.5 | 7.3 | 58.3 | 10 |
| Deniz Gül | F | 32 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.20 | 99% | 2 | 0.8 | 6.5 | 44.8 | 13 |
| Barış Alper Yılmaz | M | 87 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.08 | 100% | 2 | 0.2 | 7.1 | 50.9 | 12 |
| Orkun Kökçü | M | 71 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.22 | 63% | 2 | 1.8 | 7.6 | 63.5 | 10 |
| Arda Güler | M | 79 | 1 | 0.13 | 0.10 | ok | 3 | 1.4 | 7.7 | 48.0 | 17 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.94 | | 23 | | 7.0 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Away midfield dictates play with ~54% possession expected (Aiden O'Neill vs Arda Güler). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.46, Away: 0.58. Home danger zone: Right Mid vs Left Back — Wide Channel. Away danger zone: LW vs CB.
Midfield — possession 46.1% / 53.9%, dominance ratio 0.39, key duel: Aiden O'Neill vs Arda Güler
Mohamed Touré xG 0.10Connor Metcalfe xG 0.05Jacob Italiano xG 0.12Barış Alper Yılmaz xG 0.32Arda Güler xG 0.16Orkun Kökçü xG 0.09
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Australia vs Türkiye. Most likely scoreline: 0-1. Lambdas derived from 6 home and 4 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 5-4-1 and 4-2-3-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Away midfield dictates play with ~54% possession expected (Aiden O'Neill vs Arda Güler). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.46, Away: 0.58. Home danger zone: Right Mid vs Left Back — Wide Channel. Away danger zone: LW vs CB.
Generated 2026-09-04 22:27:55 UTC · Soccer prediction reporting