Soccer predictions: actual data vs predicted data
Slate 20260621 · 5 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 |
|---|
| Uruguay vs Cabo Verde FIFA World Cup | 1-1 | Draw | 54.3% / 23.4% / 22.3% | 53.6% | 54.0% | 0.77 | 1.77 / 1.05 | - | pending |
| New Zealand vs Egypt FIFA World Cup | 1-1 | Draw | 23.6% / 24.3% / 52.2% | 51.5% | 53.0% | 0.76 | 1.05 / 1.69 | - | pending |
| Belgium vs Iran FIFA World Cup | 2-0 | Draw | 83.4% / 11.1% / 5.5% | 69.9% | 45.6% | 0.89 | 2.95 / 0.66 | - | pending |
| Tunisia vs Japan FIFA World Cup | 1-1 | Draw | 29.8% / 28.4% / 41.8% | 39.9% | 45.9% | 0.72 | 1.02 / 1.26 | - | pending |
| Spain vs Saudi Arabia FIFA World Cup | 3-0 | Draw | 89.6% / 7.1% / 3.2% | 80.5% | 47.3% | 0.93 | 3.66 / 0.66 | - | pending |
Match detail
Uruguay vs Cabo Verde
FIFA World Cup · 20260621 · 4-3-3 vs 4-2-3-1
Predicted 1-1Winner: DrawConfidence 0.77λ home/away 1.77 / 1.05Most-likely P 11.1%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Uruguay λ | Cabo Verde λ |
|---|
| Pre-competitive-floor | 1.775 | 0.720 |
| Pre-calibration | 1.775 | 0.720 |
| Final λ | 1.775 | 1.050 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Falsecompetitive underdog floor applied Truestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 1-1 | 11.1% |
| 1-0 | 10.5% |
| 2-1 | 9.8% |
| 2-0 | 9.3% |
| 0-1 | 6.2% |
| Home win | 54.3% |
| Draw | 23.4% |
| Away win | 22.3% |
| Over 2.5 | 53.6% |
| BTTS yes | 54.0% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Uruguay (54.3%), fair total 2.83, fair spread 0.72
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.
Uruguay — 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 |
|---|
| Maximiliano Araújo | D | 85 | 0 | 0.27 | 0.19 | 45% | 2 | 1.0 | 84.5 | 53.9 | 12 |
| Federico Viñas | F | 75 | 0 | 0.46 | 0.13 | 249% | 2 | 1.5 | 78.5 | 55.0 | 6 |
| Agustín Canobbio | M | 57 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.10 | ok | 2 | 0.7 | 84.9 | 35.9 | 12 |
| Nicolás de la Cruz | M | 27 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.06 | 149% | 2 | 0.7 | 91.9 | 37.5 | 11 |
| Federico Valverde | M | 92 | 1 | 0.07 | 0.18 | 60% | 3 | 1.5 | 95.8 | 50.0 | 13 |
| Juan Sanabria | D | 58 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 385% | 2 | 0.5 | 89.0 | 42.4 | 8 |
| Mathías Olivera | D | 84 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.01 | 1259% | 1 | 0.2 | 85.4 | 58.3 | 6 |
| Sebastián Cáceres | D | 82 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 498% | 1 | 0.5 | 88.6 | 54.3 | 6 |
| Guillermo Varela | D | 81 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 1308% | 1 | 0.2 | 84.7 | 32.6 | 12 |
| Fernando Muslera | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 85.5 | 34.6 | 11 |
| Rodrigo Bentancur | M | 83 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.07 | 144% | 1 | 0.8 | 87.0 | 51.4 | 8 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.77 | | 17 | | 86.9 | |
Cabo Verde — 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 |
|---|
| Dailon Rocha Livramento | F | 58 | 1 | 0.04 | 0.05 | ok | 2 | 1.2 | 88.5 | 50.2 | 9 |
| Jovane Cabral | F | 58 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.11 | 76% | 2 | 0.5 | 76.6 | 35.1 | 8 |
| Jamiro Monteiro | M | 73 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 100% | 1 | 0.8 | 75.7 | 55.7 | 6 |
| Ryan Mendes | M | 89 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.05 | 104% | 2 | 1.0 | 77.8 | 51.0 | 4 |
| Laros Duarte | M | 67 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 100% | 2 | 1.0 | 88.4 | 67.9 | 7 |
| Kevin Lenini | M | 90 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.02 | 199% | 1 | 1.0 | 88.4 | 53.0 | 4 |
| Sidny Lopes Cabral | D | 66 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.4 | 88.9 | 41.2 | 5 |
| Diney Borges | D | 89 | 0 | 0.43 | 0.03 | 1137% | 1 | 0.5 | 90.3 | 56.8 | 4 |
| Pico | D | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 100% | 0 | 0.5 | 87.6 | 55.0 | 4 |
| Steven Moreira | D | 87 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 2383% | 1 | 0.1 | 78.6 | 33.5 | 8 |
| Vozinha | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 90.5 | 57.5 | 4 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.05 | | 12 | | 84.7 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Home midfield dominates with ~53% possession expected (Federico Valverde vs Kevin Lenini). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.79, Away: 0.24. Home danger zone: Left Wing vs Right Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Attacking Mid vs Single Holding Mid — Space Creator Duel.
Midfield — possession 53.1% / 46.9%, dominance ratio 0.59, key duel: Federico Valverde vs Kevin Lenini
Federico Viñas xG 0.40Guillermo Varela xG 0.04Agustín Canobbio xG 0.05Ryan Mendes xG 0.03Jovane Cabral xG 0.01Laros Duarte xG 0.14
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Uruguay vs Cabo Verde. Most likely scoreline: 1-1. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 4-3-3 and 4-2-3-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Home midfield dominates with ~53% possession expected (Federico Valverde vs Kevin Lenini). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.79, Away: 0.24. Home danger zone: Left Wing vs Right Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Attacking Mid vs Single Holding Mid — Space Creator Duel.
New Zealand vs Egypt
FIFA World Cup · 20260621 · 4-2-3-1 vs 4-2-3-1
Predicted 1-1Winner: DrawConfidence 0.76λ home/away 1.05 / 1.69Most-likely P 11.5%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | New Zealand λ | Egypt λ |
|---|
| Pre-competitive-floor | 0.823 | 1.685 |
| Pre-calibration | 0.824 | 1.685 |
| Final λ | 1.050 | 1.685 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Falsecompetitive underdog floor applied Truestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 1-1 | 11.5% |
| 0-1 | 10.9% |
| 1-2 | 9.7% |
| 0-2 | 9.2% |
| 1-0 | 6.8% |
| Home win | 23.6% |
| Draw | 24.3% |
| Away win | 52.2% |
| Over 2.5 | 51.5% |
| BTTS yes | 53.0% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Egypt (52.2%), fair total 2.73, fair spread -0.64
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.
New Zealand — 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 |
|---|
| Chris Wood | F | 80 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.20 | ok | 2 | 0.9 | 88.5 | 54.3 | 12 |
| Sarpreet Singh | M | 78 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 120% | 2 | 1.2 | 84.0 | 63.8 | 4 |
| Callum McCowatt | M | 68 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.11 | 57% | 2 | 1.3 | 73.7 | 63.3 | 3 |
| Elijah Just | M | 89 | 1 | 0.29 | 0.16 | 85% | 2 | 2.4 | 74.7 | 72.7 | 7 |
| Marko Stamenić | M | 89 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.04 | ok | 1 | 1.0 | 77.6 | 68.3 | 3 |
| Joe Bell | M | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.3 | 80.7 | 66.0 | 3 |
| Liberato Cacace | M | 75 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 369% | 2 | 0.2 | 78.3 | 48.8 | 4 |
| Michael Boxall | D | 88 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 75.6 | 45.4 | 7 |
| Finn Surman | D | 89 | 0 | 0.39 | 0.07 | 434% | 1 | 0.2 | 75.1 | 42.6 | 8 |
| Tim Payne | D | 73 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 | 0.3 | 70.1 | 64.0 | 6 |
| Max Crocombe | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 71.6 | 63.3 | 3 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.05 | | 12 | | 77.3 | |
Egypt — 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 |
|---|
| Omar Marmoush | F | 77 | 1 | 0.52 | 0.08 | 534% | 3 | 1.1 | 91.3 | 44.7 | 14 |
| Mostafa Ziko | M | 76 | 0 | 0.27 | 0.20 | 37% | 2 | 1.1 | 88.0 | 39.7 | 7 |
| Emam Ashour | M | 73 | 0 | 0.36 | 0.11 | 225% | 2 | 1.2 | 89.6 | 56.2 | 6 |
| Mohamed Salah | M | 75 | 0 | 0.19 | 0.28 | 32% | 2 | 1.6 | 97.9 | 53.3 | 12 |
| Mohanad Lasheen | M | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 100% | 1 | 0.4 | 88.9 | 68.6 | 5 |
| Marwan Attia | M | 90 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 502% | 1 | 0.2 | 88.4 | 58.7 | 6 |
| Ahmed Fatouh | D | 88 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.2 | 88.8 | 40.8 | 5 |
| Hamdy Fathy | M | 88 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.4 | 89.3 | 44.6 | 11 |
| Yasser Ibrahim | D | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 0 | 0.2 | 87.7 | 58.0 | 6 |
| Mohamed Hany | D | 89 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 223% | 2 | 0.8 | 88.1 | 55.0 | 6 |
| Mostafa Shobeir | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 89.3 | 62.2 | 6 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.69 | | 13 | | 89.8 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Midfield is evenly contested — Joe Bell vs Mohamed Salah will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.74, Away: 1.01. Home danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Midfield — possession 49.3% / 50.7%, dominance ratio 0.48, key duel: Joe Bell vs Mohamed Salah
Sarpreet Singh xG 0.15Elijah Just xG 0.36Liberato Cacace xG 0.02Mostafa Ziko xG 0.20Emam Ashour xG 0.28Mohamed Salah xG 0.11
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for New Zealand vs Egypt. Most likely scoreline: 1-1. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 4-2-3-1 and 4-2-3-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Midfield is evenly contested — Joe Bell vs Mohamed Salah will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.74, Away: 1.01. Home danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Belgium vs Iran
FIFA World Cup · 20260621 · 4-2-3-1 vs 4-4-2
Predicted 2-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.89λ home/away 2.95 / 0.66Most-likely P 11.8%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Belgium λ | Iran λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 2.732 | 0.671 |
| Pre-calibration | 2.732 | 0.671 |
| Final λ | 2.954 | 0.657 |
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 | 11.8% |
| 3-0 | 11.6% |
| 4-0 | 8.6% |
| 1-0 | 8.0% |
| 2-1 | 7.8% |
| Home win | 83.4% |
| Draw | 11.1% |
| Away win | 5.5% |
| Over 2.5 | 69.9% |
| BTTS yes | 45.6% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Belgium (83.4%), fair total 3.61, fair spread 2.30
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.
Belgium — 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 |
|---|
| Romelu Lukaku | F | 24 | 1 | 0.52 | 0.12 | 330% | 2 | 0.7 | 90.2 | 47.7 | 7 |
| Leandro Trossard | F | 77 | 0 | 0.27 | 0.15 | 81% | 2 | 1.6 | 90.0 | 45.3 | 19 |
| Kevin De Bruyne | M | 80 | 0 | 0.34 | 0.14 | 149% | 2 | 2.1 | 93.7 | 48.1 | 9 |
| Charles De Ketelaere | F | 65 | 1 | 0.64 | 0.14 | 348% | 3 | 0.7 | 89.3 | 51.1 | 11 |
| Youri Tielemans | M | 88 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 82% | 1 | 0.9 | 92.7 | 48.8 | 18 |
| Amadou Onana | M | 59 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 0 | 0.3 | 86.1 | 43.2 | 16 |
| Maxim De Cuyper | D | 46 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.09 | 69% | 0 | 0.8 | 87.1 | 44.3 | 13 |
| Brandon Mechele | D | 89 | 0 | 0.48 | 0.07 | 620% | 2 | 0.5 | 83.6 | 59.2 | 11 |
| Nathan Ngoy | D | 91 | 0 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 738% | 0 | 0.4 | 74.2 | 45.2 | 12 |
| Thibaut Courtois | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 96.0 | 46.9 | 17 |
| Thomas Meunier | D | 85 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 642% | 1 | 0.3 | 82.3 | 31.5 | 13 |
| Team totals | 2 | 2.95 | | 13 | | 87.7 | |
Iran — projected line vs season baseline (4-4-2)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Shoja Khalilzadeh | D | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.05 | 100% | 0 | 0.7 | 85.2 | 70.7 | 3 |
| Ramin Rezaeian | M | 90 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.12 | 37% | 1 | 0.8 | 88.4 | 45.4 | 5 |
| Alireza Beiranvand | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 87.4 | 76.3 | 3 |
| Ali Nemati | D | 89 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 85% | 1 | 0.3 | 6.2 | 67.7 | 3 |
| Milad Mohammadi | D | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 100% | 0 | 0.3 | 88.1 | 66.0 | 3 |
| Mohammad Mohebi | F | 90 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.08 | 32% | 2 | 0.5 | 89.3 | 51.2 | 4 |
| Mehdi Ghayedi | M | 58 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 330% | 1 | 0.2 | 90.6 | 11.0 | 6 |
| Mehdi Taremi | F | 67 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.30 | 60% | 2 | 2.0 | 84.7 | 56.9 | 7 |
| Shahriar Moghanlou | F | 53 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 81% | 3 | 1.0 | 89.1 | 67.0 | 3 |
| Aria Yousefi | M | 45 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 234% | 2 | 0.2 | 88.7 | 13.6 | 5 |
| Saeid Ezatolahi | M | 89 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.18 | 80% | 1 | 2.0 | 87.7 | 69.3 | 3 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.66 | | 13 | | 80.5 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Home midfield dominates with ~53% possession expected (Amadou Onana vs Mehdi Ghayedi). Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.14, Away: 0.51. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Central Mid vs Defensive Mid — Pressing/Creation Duel.
Midfield — possession 52.7% / 47.3%, dominance ratio 0.60, key duel: Amadou Onana vs Mehdi Ghayedi
Kevin De Bruyne xG 0.23Romelu Lukaku xG 0.32Leandro Trossard xG 0.16Mohammad Mohebi xG 0.17Aria Yousefi xG 0.05Saeid Ezatolahi xG 0.06
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Belgium vs Iran. Most likely scoreline: 2-0. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 4 away individual player duels.
4-2-3-1 creates structural superiority against 4-4-2. Home team should exploit wider spaces and numerical advantages in transition. Home midfield dominates with ~53% possession expected (Amadou Onana vs Mehdi Ghayedi). Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.14, Away: 0.51. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Central Mid vs Defensive Mid — Pressing/Creation Duel.
Tunisia vs Japan
FIFA World Cup · 20260621 · 4-2-3-1 vs 3-4-2-1
Predicted 1-1Winner: DrawConfidence 0.72λ home/away 1.02 / 1.26Most-likely P 13.2%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Tunisia λ | Japan λ |
|---|
| Pre-competitive-floor | 0.669 | 1.262 |
| Pre-calibration | 0.669 | 1.262 |
| Final λ | 1.020 | 1.262 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Falsecompetitive underdog floor applied Truestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 1-1 | 13.2% |
| 0-1 | 12.8% |
| 1-0 | 10.3% |
| 0-0 | 10.3% |
| 1-2 | 8.3% |
| Home win | 29.8% |
| Draw | 28.4% |
| Away win | 41.8% |
| Over 2.5 | 39.9% |
| BTTS yes | 45.9% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Japan (41.8%), fair total 2.28, fair spread -0.24
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.
Tunisia — 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 |
|---|
| Aymen Dahmen | G | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 90.7 | 42.7 | 3 |
| Firas Chaouat | F | 13 | 0 | 0.21 | - | n/a | 2 | 0.0 | 89.4 | 64.7 | 3 |
| Hannibal Mejbri | M | 86 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.05 | ok | 1 | 1.0 | 91.2 | 59.6 | 7 |
| Elias Achouri | M | 18 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.03 | ok | 2 | 1.0 | 78.4 | 43.3 | 3 |
| Rani Khedira | M | 84 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 74% | 2 | 0.4 | 81.2 | 50.2 | 5 |
| Ellyes Skhiri | M | 75 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 86.2 | 56.7 | 7 |
| Ali Abdi | D | 77 | 1 | 0.30 | 0.10 | 199% | 0 | 1.0 | 81.4 | 56.6 | 8 |
| Montassar Talbi | D | 90 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 279% | 1 | 0.4 | 80.0 | 66.2 | 5 |
| Omar Rekik | D | 86 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ok | 1 | 0.4 | 87.6 | 57.3 | 7 |
| Yan Valery | D | 73 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.04 | 306% | 0 | 0.2 | 76.7 | 56.2 | 8 |
| Ismael Gharbi | M | 37 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.05 | ok | 2 | 0.6 | 79.2 | 38.6 | 5 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.02 | | 11 | | 83.8 | |
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 |
|---|
| Keito Nakamura | M | 90 | 0 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 382% | 1 | 1.2 | 83.6 | 72.0 | 4 |
| Kaishu Sano | M | 92 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.06 | ok | 2 | 0.9 | 85.6 | 60.7 | 7 |
| Daichi Kamada | M | 83 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.10 | ok | 1 | 0.5 | 84.0 | 45.8 | 12 |
| Yukinari Sugawara | D | 13 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 718% | 1 | 0.4 | 81.0 | 52.1 | 7 |
| Hiroki Itō | D | 84 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 667% | 1 | 0.2 | 84.5 | 39.2 | 12 |
| Shogo Taniguchi | D | 88 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 75.7 | 43.4 | 8 |
| Tsuyoshi Watanabe | D | 77 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 638% | 0 | 0.2 | 81.5 | 40.2 | 5 |
| Zion Suzuki | G | 91 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 81.7 | 43.5 | 10 |
| Ritsu Doan | M | 78 | 0 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 262% | 0 | 0.7 | 88.4 | 55.6 | 7 |
| Daizen Maeda | F | 72 | 1 | 0.27 | 0.27 | ok | 2 | 1.3 | 85.6 | 45.8 | 11 |
| Ayase Ueda | F | 85 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.18 | 34% | 1 | 2.2 | 80.7 | 71.0 | 5 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.26 | | 9 | | 82.9 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Midfield is evenly contested — Hannibal Mejbri vs Kaishu Sano will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.27, Away: 0.62. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Shadow Striker vs CDM + CB — Zone 14 Battle.
Midfield — possession 48.1% / 51.9%, dominance ratio 0.45, key duel: Hannibal Mejbri vs Kaishu Sano
Elias Achouri xG 0.03Ismael Gharbi xG 0.04Rani Khedira xG 0.01Yukinari Sugawara xG 0.10Daizen Maeda xG 0.21Keito Nakamura xG 0.15
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Tunisia vs Japan. Most likely scoreline: 1-1. 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. Midfield is evenly contested — Hannibal Mejbri vs Kaishu Sano will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.27, Away: 0.62. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Shadow Striker vs CDM + CB — Zone 14 Battle.
Spain vs Saudi Arabia
FIFA World Cup · 20260621 · 4-3-3 vs 5-4-1
Predicted 3-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.93λ home/away 3.66 / 0.66Most-likely P 10.9%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Spain λ | Saudi Arabia λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 3.178 | 0.698 |
| Pre-calibration | 3.178 | 0.698 |
| Final λ | 3.659 | 0.664 |
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 |
|---|
| 3-0 | 10.9% |
| 4-0 | 10.0% |
| 2-0 | 8.9% |
| 5-0 | 7.3% |
| 3-1 | 7.2% |
| Home win | 89.6% |
| Draw | 7.1% |
| Away win | 3.2% |
| Over 2.5 | 80.5% |
| BTTS yes | 47.3% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Spain (89.6%), fair total 4.32, fair spread 3.00
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.
Spain — 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 |
|---|
| Rodri | M | 89 | 0 | 0.27 | 0.06 | 350% | 2 | 1.0 | 98.5 | 50.5 | 15 |
| Dani Olmo | M | 23 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.07 | 100% | 0 | 0.9 | 92.0 | 50.9 | 19 |
| Pedri | M | 87 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.01 | 1063% | 1 | 0.2 | 97.9 | 51.7 | 18 |
| Marc Cucurella | D | 91 | 0 | 0.29 | 0.02 | 1208% | 2 | 0.2 | 91.2 | 46.3 | 16 |
| Aymeric Laporte | D | 90 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.02 | 629% | 2 | 0.4 | 89.8 | 46.4 | 14 |
| Pau Cubarsí | D | 89 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 546% | 1 | 0.2 | 89.8 | 43.7 | 18 |
| Marcos Llorente | D | 90 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 375% | 0 | 0.4 | 91.7 | 40.0 | 21 |
| Unai Simón | G | 91 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 92.0 | 41.5 | 15 |
| Lamine Yamal | M | 42 | 1 | 0.50 | 0.25 | 101% | 2 | 2.0 | 96.5 | 45.9 | 18 |
| Mikel Oyarzabal | F | 81 | 1 | 0.99 | 0.30 | 224% | 2 | 1.8 | 93.3 | 54.8 | 13 |
| Ferran Torres | F | 70 | 1 | 1.08 | 0.21 | 423% | 3 | 1.4 | 89.3 | 65.5 | 13 |
| Team totals | 3 | 3.66 | | 15 | | 92.9 | |
Saudi Arabia — 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 |
|---|
| Mohammed Al-Owais | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 88.6 | 73.3 | 3 |
| Firas Al-Buraikan | F | 81 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.11 | 97% | 2 | 0.4 | 90.8 | 66.0 | 7 |
| Salem Al-Dawsari | M | 73 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 67% | 1 | 0.8 | 88.4 | 52.7 | 6 |
| Abdullah Al-Khaibari | M | 89 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.01 | ok | 1 | 0.4 | 74.6 | 65.2 | 5 |
| Mohamed Kanno | M | 89 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 43% | 2 | 0.8 | 88.1 | 59.1 | 8 |
| Abdullah Al-Hamdan | F | 3 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 92% | 1 | 0.3 | 65.1 | 43.2 | 6 |
| Moteb Al-Harbi | D | 85 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 87.9 | 68.1 | 7 |
| Abdulelah Al-Amri | D | 89 | 0 | 0.41 | 0.10 | 324% | 2 | 0.7 | 77.3 | 68.0 | 6 |
| Hassan Kadesh | D | 87 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 87.3 | 36.9 | 7 |
| Hassan Altambakti | D | 84 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 88.2 | 66.0 | 7 |
| Saud Abdulhamid | M | 81 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 313% | 1 | 0.2 | 81.4 | 40.4 | 8 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.66 | | 10 | | 83.4 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Home midfield dominates with ~55% possession expected (Lamine Yamal vs Saud Abdulhamid). Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.35, Away: 0.17. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Right Wingback vs Left Winger — Tracking Run Duel.
Midfield — possession 54.7% / 45.3%, dominance ratio 0.66, key duel: Lamine Yamal vs Saud Abdulhamid
Mikel Oyarzabal xG 0.43Rodri xG 0.16Ferran Torres xG 0.47Firas Al-Buraikan xG 0.00Abdullah Al-Khaibari xG 0.02Salem Al-Dawsari xG 0.02
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Spain vs Saudi Arabia. Most likely scoreline: 3-0. Lambdas derived from 4 home and 6 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 4-3-3 and 5-4-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Home midfield dominates with ~55% possession expected (Lamine Yamal vs Saud Abdulhamid). Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.35, Away: 0.17. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: Right Wingback vs Left Winger — Tracking Run Duel.
Generated 2026-09-04 22:27:55 UTC · Soccer prediction reporting