Soccer predictions: actual data vs predicted data
Slate 20260625 · 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 |
|---|
| Paraguay vs Australia FIFA World Cup | 1-1 | Draw | 39.6% / 29.1% / 31.2% | 37.9% | 44.6% | 0.71 | 1.19 / 1.02 | - | pending |
| Curaçao vs Côte d'Ivoire FIFA World Cup | 0-2 | Draw | 6.6% / 13.1% / 80.3% | 64.8% | 44.7% | 0.87 | 0.65 / 2.69 | - | pending |
| Ecuador vs Germany FIFA World Cup | 1-1 | Draw | 30.0% / 28.5% / 41.4% | 39.6% | 45.7% | 0.71 | 1.02 / 1.25 | - | pending |
| Tunisia vs Netherlands FIFA World Cup | 0-4 | Draw | 1.4% / 3.5% / 95.2% | 90.3% | 47.4% | 0.95 | 0.65 / 4.74 | - | pending |
| Japan vs Sweden FIFA World Cup | 1-1 | Draw | 28.3% / 23.7% / 47.9% | 57.8% | 59.3% | 0.76 | 1.28 / 1.73 | - | pending |
| Türkiye vs USA FIFA World Cup | 2-0 | Draw | 72.6% / 16.7% / 10.7% | 61.4% | 49.6% | 0.83 | 2.38 / 0.79 | - | pending |
Match detail
Paraguay vs Australia
FIFA World Cup · 20260625 · 4-4-2 vs 5-4-1
Predicted 1-1Winner: DrawConfidence 0.71λ home/away 1.19 / 1.02Most-likely P 13.4%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Paraguay λ | Australia λ |
|---|
| Pre-competitive-floor | 1.188 | 0.816 |
| Pre-calibration | 1.188 | 0.816 |
| Final λ | 1.188 | 1.020 |
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 | 13.4% |
| 1-0 | 13.0% |
| 0-1 | 11.1% |
| 0-0 | 11.1% |
| 2-1 | 7.9% |
| Home win | 39.6% |
| Draw | 29.1% |
| Away win | 31.2% |
| Over 2.5 | 37.9% |
| BTTS yes | 44.6% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Paraguay (39.6%), fair total 2.21, fair spread 0.17
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.
Paraguay — 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 |
|---|
| Julio Enciso | M | 85 | 1 | 0.15 | 0.14 | ok | 2 | 1.3 | 80.4 | 37.8 | 15 |
| Isidro Pitta | F | 53 | 0 | 0.19 | 0.15 | ok | 2 | 1.1 | 89.1 | 28.4 | 14 |
| Matías Galarza | M | 80 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.04 | 301% | 2 | 0.5 | 80.3 | 25.5 | 11 |
| Diego Gómez | M | 73 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.13 | ok | 2 | 1.3 | 79.6 | 42.0 | 9 |
| Andrés Cubas | M | 88 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100% | 2 | 0.1 | 80.8 | 38.3 | 9 |
| Mauricio | M | 43 | 0 | 0.22 | 0.04 | 427% | 2 | 0.5 | 84.2 | 36.5 | 13 |
| Junior Alonso | D | 89 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 783% | 0 | 0.3 | 88.4 | 44.5 | 11 |
| Omar Alderete | D | 89 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 526% | 1 | 0.2 | 84.7 | 45.0 | 9 |
| Gustavo Gómez | D | 90 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 447% | 0 | 0.2 | 88.6 | 38.9 | 14 |
| Juan Cáceres | D | 78 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 575% | 0 | 0.4 | 91.2 | 55.6 | 5 |
| Orlando Gill | G | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 68.9 | 47.1 | 9 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.19 | | 13 | | 83.3 | |
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 | 60 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 60% | 2 | 0.5 | 74.5 | 32.8 | 4 |
| Nestory Irankunda | F | 51 | 1 | 0.40 | 0.10 | 289% | 2 | 0.8 | 73.9 | 40.8 | 5 |
| Paul Okon-Engstler | M | 83 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 2 | 0.5 | 91.1 | 64.0 | 10 |
| Aiden O'Neill | M | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 | 0.2 | 76.8 | 34.3 | 6 |
| Connor Metcalfe | M | 67 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.03 | 144% | 2 | 0.9 | 76.0 | 51.2 | 8 |
| Jordan Bos | D | 88 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.07 | 62% | 1 | 1.3 | 75.7 | 48.6 | 7 |
| Cameron Burgess | D | 67 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 79.3 | 32.0 | 4 |
| Harry Souttar | D | 90 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 388% | 0 | 0.2 | 79.9 | 52.5 | 4 |
| Jason Geria | D | 30 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 87.7 | 33.8 | 4 |
| Patrick Beach | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 72.5 | 60.1 | 7 |
| Alessandro Circati | D | 90 | 0 | 0.32 | 0.08 | 324% | 1 | 0.3 | 78.4 | 60.1 | 7 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.02 | | 10 | | 78.7 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Home midfield dominates with ~52% possession expected (Diego Gómez vs Aiden O'Neill). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.68, Away: 0.53. Home danger zone: Central Mid vs Central Mid — Box-to-Box Midfield Contest. Away danger zone: Right Mid vs Left Back — Wide Channel.
Midfield — possession 52.5% / 47.5%, dominance ratio 0.59, key duel: Diego Gómez vs Aiden O'Neill
Julio Enciso xG 0.11Andrés Cubas xG 0.10Mauricio xG 0.16Mohamed Touré xG 0.03Connor Metcalfe xG 0.06Nestory Irankunda xG 0.33
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Paraguay vs Australia. Most likely scoreline: 1-1. Lambdas derived from 6 home and 4 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 4-4-2 and 5-4-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Home midfield dominates with ~52% possession expected (Diego Gómez vs Aiden O'Neill). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.68, Away: 0.53. Home danger zone: Central Mid vs Central Mid — Box-to-Box Midfield Contest. Away danger zone: Right Mid vs Left Back — Wide Channel.
Curaçao vs Côte d'Ivoire
FIFA World Cup · 20260625 · 5-4-1 vs 4-1-4-1
Predicted 0-2Winner: DrawConfidence 0.87λ home/away 0.65 / 2.69Most-likely P 12.8%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Curaçao λ | Côte d'Ivoire λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 0.674 | 2.425 |
| Pre-calibration | 0.674 | 2.425 |
| Final λ | 0.653 | 2.687 |
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 |
|---|
| 0-2 | 12.8% |
| 0-3 | 11.5% |
| 0-1 | 9.5% |
| 1-2 | 8.4% |
| 0-4 | 7.7% |
| Home win | 6.6% |
| Draw | 13.1% |
| Away win | 80.3% |
| Over 2.5 | 64.8% |
| BTTS yes | 44.7% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Côte d'Ivoire (80.3%), fair total 3.34, fair spread -2.03
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.
Curaçao — 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 |
|---|
| Jürgen Locadia | F | 74 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.04 | 54% | 2 | 0.3 | 85.5 | 64.7 | 3 |
| Juninho Bacuna | M | 81 | 0 | 0.09 | 0.07 | 36% | 1 | 1.5 | 75.7 | 67.5 | 6 |
| Leandro Bacuna | M | 89 | 0 | 0.15 | 0.13 | ok | 1 | 2.0 | 86.4 | 66.3 | 3 |
| Livano Comenencia | D | 67 | 0 | 0.09 | 0.03 | 177% | 2 | 0.7 | 68.7 | 39.1 | 7 |
| Tahith Chong | M | 79 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.04 | ok | 2 | 1.3 | 77.7 | 66.3 | 3 |
| Deveron Fonville | D | 84 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.03 | 456% | 0 | 0.2 | 88.1 | 65.0 | 5 |
| Sherel Constancio Floranus | D | 89 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.03 | 86% | 0 | 0.5 | 88.4 | 66.5 | 4 |
| Armando Obispo | D | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 79.5 | 38.4 | 5 |
| Jurien Gaari | D | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 0 | 0.7 | 86.8 | 42.3 | 3 |
| Joshua Brenet | D | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 88.4 | 35.7 | 6 |
| Eloy Room | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 89.4 | 72.0 | 3 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.65 | | 8 | | 83.2 | |
Côte d'Ivoire — projected line vs season baseline (4-1-4-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Emmanuel Agbadou | D | 87 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.02 | 266% | 0 | 0.5 | 86.0 | 61.6 | 8 |
| Odilon Kossounou | D | 51 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.00 | 1747% | 0 | 0.1 | 86.7 | 56.6 | 7 |
| Guéla Doué | D | 57 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 83.9 | 68.7 | 7 |
| Yahia Fofana | G | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 83.1 | 67.9 | 7 |
| Ghislain Konan | D | 89 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 173% | 1 | 0.9 | 78.9 | 58.3 | 7 |
| Ibrahim Sangaré | M | 44 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 84.1 | 50.9 | 14 |
| Franck Kessié | M | 84 | 1 | 0.86 | 0.11 | 665% | 2 | 0.7 | 87.2 | 71.0 | 6 |
| Amad Diallo | M | 65 | 1 | 0.60 | 0.13 | 356% | 2 | 1.2 | 94.4 | 46.9 | 11 |
| Ange-Yoan Bonny | F | 55 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 153% | 2 | 0.3 | 92.6 | 64.0 | 7 |
| Yan Diomande | F | 90 | 0 | 0.30 | 0.07 | 333% | 3 | 0.6 | 73.7 | 35.9 | 14 |
| Christ Inao Oulaï | M | 55 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.03 | 554% | 2 | 0.4 | 71.2 | 68.4 | 8 |
| Team totals | 2 | 2.69 | | 13 | | 83.8 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Away midfield dictates play with ~53% possession expected (Tahith Chong vs Amad Diallo). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.54, Away: 0.86. Home danger zone: Left Wingback vs Right Back — Overlapping Run. Away danger zone: Central Mid vs Central Mid — Box-to-Box Midfield Contest.
Midfield — possession 46.9% / 53.1%, dominance ratio 0.38, key duel: Tahith Chong vs Amad Diallo
Deveron Fonville xG 0.12Sherel Constancio Floranus xG 0.04Tahith Chong xG 0.04Amad Diallo xG 0.26Christ Inao Oulaï xG 0.09Franck Kessié xG 0.35
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Curaçao vs Côte d'Ivoire. Most likely scoreline: 0-2. Lambdas derived from 7 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 5-4-1 and 4-1-4-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Away midfield dictates play with ~53% possession expected (Tahith Chong vs Amad Diallo). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.54, Away: 0.86. Home danger zone: Left Wingback vs Right Back — Overlapping Run. Away danger zone: Central Mid vs Central Mid — Box-to-Box Midfield Contest.
Ecuador vs Germany
FIFA World Cup · 20260625 · 3-4-2-1 vs 4-2-3-1
Predicted 1-1Winner: DrawConfidence 0.71λ home/away 1.02 / 1.25Most-likely P 13.3%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Ecuador λ | Germany λ |
|---|
| Pre-competitive-floor | 1.002 | 1.250 |
| Pre-calibration | 1.002 | 1.250 |
| Final λ | 1.020 | 1.250 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Falsemismatch score pressure applied Falsecompetitive underdog floor applied Truestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 1-1 | 13.3% |
| 0-1 | 12.8% |
| 1-0 | 10.4% |
| 0-0 | 10.4% |
| 1-2 | 8.2% |
| Home win | 30.0% |
| Draw | 28.5% |
| Away win | 41.4% |
| Over 2.5 | 39.6% |
| BTTS yes | 45.7% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Germany (41.4%), fair total 2.27, fair spread -0.23
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.
Ecuador — 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 |
|---|
| Enner Valencia | F | 80 | 1 | 0.31 | 0.34 | ok | 2 | 2.2 | 82.6 | 67.0 | 9 |
| Gonzalo Plata | M | 90 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.11 | ok | 1 | 0.8 | 89.2 | 30.1 | 14 |
| John Yeboah | F | 73 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.06 | ok | 3 | 1.1 | 76.8 | 40.1 | 7 |
| Pervis Estupiñán | M | 72 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 85.7 | 25.5 | 8 |
| Moisés Caicedo | M | 92 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.02 | ok | 2 | 0.5 | 94.5 | 52.8 | 11 |
| Alan Franco | M | 73 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 1 | 0.0 | 85.0 | 35.7 | 15 |
| Ángelo Preciado | M | 34 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 2 | 0.0 | 81.4 | 17.2 | 15 |
| Piero Hincapié | D | 90 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.05 | 226% | 1 | 0.5 | 90.1 | 53.1 | 14 |
| Willian Pacho | D | 92 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 720% | 0 | 0.1 | 93.2 | 68.0 | 10 |
| Joel Ordóñez | D | 90 | 0 | 0.16 | 0.03 | 550% | 1 | 0.2 | 82.0 | 59.5 | 8 |
| Hernán Galíndez | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 81.2 | 49.9 | 7 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.02 | | 13 | | 85.6 | |
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 |
|---|
| Maximilian Beier | F | 86 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.05 | 158% | 0 | 0.4 | 85.8 | 39.4 | 9 |
| Nadiem Amiri | M | 42 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.25 | 66% | 2 | 1.2 | 88.3 | 37.2 | 8 |
| Jamie Leweling | M | 50 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 35% | 1 | 0.7 | 81.8 | 28.1 | 12 |
| Angelo Stiller | M | 92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.04 | 100% | 0 | 0.4 | 90.9 | 42.4 | 10 |
| Leon Goretzka | M | 24 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.08 | 56% | 2 | 0.7 | 88.9 | 40.5 | 14 |
| David Raum | D | 29 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.00 | 714% | 0 | 0.1 | 88.9 | 26.1 | 8 |
| Antonio Rüdiger | D | 44 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 161% | 0 | 0.2 | 92.8 | 38.4 | 16 |
| Malick Thiaw | D | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 85.1 | 29.5 | 13 |
| Joshua Kimmich | M | 88 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.06 | ok | 2 | 0.6 | 96.8 | 51.9 | 16 |
| Oliver Baumann | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 89.4 | 23.2 | 8 |
| Deniz Undav | F | 39 | 1 | 0.43 | 0.34 | ok | 2 | 2.0 | 88.2 | 57.9 | 10 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.25 | | 12 | | 88.8 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Midfield is evenly contested — Moisés Caicedo vs Angelo Stiller will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.79, Away: 0.66. Home danger zone: Shadow Striker vs CDM + CB — Zone 14 Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Midfield — possession 48.6% / 51.4%, dominance ratio 0.45, key duel: Moisés Caicedo vs Angelo Stiller
Ángelo Preciado xG 0.20Enner Valencia xG 0.38Gonzalo Plata xG 0.12Nadiem Amiri xG 0.07Joshua Kimmich xG 0.05Leon Goretzka xG 0.10
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Ecuador vs Germany. Most likely scoreline: 1-1. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 4 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 3-4-2-1 and 4-2-3-1. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Midfield is evenly contested — Moisés Caicedo vs Angelo Stiller will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.79, Away: 0.66. Home danger zone: Shadow Striker vs CDM + CB — Zone 14 Battle. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Tunisia vs Netherlands
FIFA World Cup · 20260625 · 3-4-2-1 vs 4-3-3
Predicted 0-4Winner: DrawConfidence 0.95λ home/away 0.65 / 4.74Most-likely P 9.8%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Tunisia λ | Netherlands λ |
|---|
| Pre-mismatch | 0.663 | 4.249 |
| Pre-calibration | 0.663 | 4.249 |
| Final λ | 0.650 | 4.744 |
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 |
|---|
| 0-4 | 9.8% |
| 0-5 | 9.3% |
| 0-3 | 8.3% |
| 0-6 | 7.4% |
| 1-4 | 6.4% |
| Home win | 1.4% |
| Draw | 3.5% |
| Away win | 95.2% |
| Over 2.5 | 90.3% |
| BTTS yes | 47.4% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Netherlands (95.2%), fair total 5.39, fair spread -4.09
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 (3-4-2-1)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Firas Chaouat | F | 19 | 0 | 0.10 | - | n/a | 2 | 0.0 | 89.5 | 64.7 | 3 |
| Anis Ben Slimane | M | 88 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 100% | 1 | 0.2 | 93.5 | 47.8 | 4 |
| Elias Achouri | M | 9 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 75% | 1 | 1.0 | 78.1 | 43.3 | 3 |
| Ali Abdi | D | 76 | 0 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 127% | 0 | 1.0 | 81.9 | 56.6 | 8 |
| Hannibal Mejbri | M | 86 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.05 | 54% | 1 | 1.0 | 91.1 | 59.6 | 7 |
| Ellyes Skhiri | M | 82 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 86.2 | 56.7 | 7 |
| Yan Valery | D | 80 | 0 | 0.12 | 0.04 | 209% | 0 | 0.2 | 77.0 | 56.2 | 8 |
| Omar Rekik | D | 87 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.04 | ok | 0 | 0.4 | 87.3 | 57.3 | 7 |
| Montassar Talbi | D | 90 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.04 | 188% | 0 | 0.4 | 79.4 | 66.2 | 5 |
| Amine Ben Hmida | D | 67 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 88.5 | 64.0 | 3 |
| Aymen Dahmen | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 89.3 | 42.7 | 3 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.65 | | 5 | | 85.6 | |
Netherlands — 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 |
|---|
| Cody Gakpo | M | 88 | 1 | 0.94 | 0.14 | 578% | 3 | 0.9 | 92.2 | 36.8 | 17 |
| Brian Brobbey | F | 49 | 3 | 2.24 | 0.30 | 660% | 2 | 1.1 | 84.3 | 39.2 | 11 |
| Crysencio Summerville | M | 69 | 0 | 0.11 | 0.03 | 313% | 2 | 0.5 | 84.4 | 45.7 | 10 |
| Tijjani Reijnders | M | 65 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.10 | ok | 2 | 1.3 | 92.6 | 41.9 | 11 |
| Frenkie de Jong | M | 68 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.01 | 100% | 0 | 0.1 | 94.4 | 31.8 | 11 |
| Ryan Gravenberch | M | 88 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.05 | 55% | 2 | 0.9 | 92.1 | 43.6 | 14 |
| Micky van de Ven | D | 92 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 308% | 1 | 0.3 | 88.8 | 37.7 | 12 |
| Jan Paul van Hecke | D | 92 | 0 | 0.50 | 0.11 | 360% | 0 | 0.4 | 87.4 | 40.0 | 11 |
| Virgil van Dijk | D | 91 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 223% | 1 | 0.4 | 97.4 | 47.2 | 14 |
| Denzel Dumfries | M | 90 | 0 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 273% | 0 | 0.3 | 91.7 | 20.2 | 14 |
| Bart Verbruggen | G | 92 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 85.1 | 36.5 | 11 |
| Team totals | 4 | 4.74 | | 13 | | 90.0 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Away midfield dictates play with ~55% possession expected (Hannibal Mejbri vs Ryan Gravenberch). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.41, Away: 1.80. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: LW vs CB.
Midfield — possession 45.3% / 54.7%, dominance ratio 0.37, key duel: Hannibal Mejbri vs Ryan Gravenberch
Ali Abdi xG 0.18Firas Chaouat xG 0.13Anis Ben Slimane xG 0.07Ryan Gravenberch xG 0.05Tijjani Reijnders xG 0.04Brian Brobbey xG 1.17
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Tunisia vs Netherlands. Most likely scoreline: 0-4. Lambdas derived from 5 home and 5 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 3-4-2-1 and 4-3-3. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Away midfield dictates play with ~55% possession expected (Hannibal Mejbri vs Ryan Gravenberch). Total antagonist xG — Home: 0.41, Away: 1.80. Home danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle. Away danger zone: LW vs CB.
Japan vs Sweden
FIFA World Cup · 20260625 · 3-4-2-1 vs 3-1-4-2
Predicted 1-1Winner: DrawConfidence 0.76λ home/away 1.28 / 1.73Most-likely P 11.0%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Japan λ | Sweden λ |
|---|
| Pre-competitive-floor | 1.277 | 1.726 |
| Pre-calibration | 1.277 | 1.726 |
| Final λ | 1.277 | 1.726 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Falsecompetitive underdog floor applied Falsestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 1-1 | 11.0% |
| 1-2 | 9.4% |
| 0-1 | 8.5% |
| 0-2 | 7.4% |
| 2-1 | 7.0% |
| Home win | 28.3% |
| Draw | 23.7% |
| Away win | 47.9% |
| Over 2.5 | 57.8% |
| BTTS yes | 59.3% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Sweden (47.9%), fair total 3.00, fair spread -0.45
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.
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 |
|---|
| Ayase Ueda | F | 85 | 1 | 0.22 | 0.18 | ok | 2 | 2.2 | 81.8 | 71.0 | 5 |
| Daizen Maeda | F | 72 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.27 | 33% | 2 | 1.3 | 85.6 | 45.8 | 11 |
| Junya Ito | M | 65 | 0 | 0.39 | 0.15 | 154% | 1 | 1.1 | 83.8 | 50.1 | 13 |
| Keito Nakamura | M | 85 | 0 | 0.05 | 0.04 | 36% | 2 | 1.2 | 83.4 | 72.0 | 4 |
| Kaishu Sano | M | 92 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 100% | 2 | 0.9 | 86.2 | 60.7 | 7 |
| Ritsu Doan | M | 77 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 100% | 2 | 0.7 | 88.6 | 55.6 | 7 |
| Junnosuke Suzuki | D | 17 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 72.7 | 32.5 | 4 |
| Takehiro Tomiyasu | D | 43 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.02 | 585% | 0 | 0.1 | 89.0 | 31.8 | 9 |
| Tsuyoshi Watanabe | D | 77 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 333% | 0 | 0.2 | 81.5 | 40.2 | 5 |
| Zion Suzuki | G | 91 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 81.4 | 43.5 | 10 |
| Daichi Kamada | M | 77 | 0 | 0.23 | 0.10 | 127% | 1 | 0.5 | 83.9 | 45.8 | 12 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.28 | | 12 | | 83.4 | |
Sweden — projected line vs season baseline (3-1-4-2)
| Player | Pos | Min | Proj G | Proj xG | Season xG/g | | Proj Sh | Season Sh/g | Proj Rtg | Season Rtg | Rec |
|---|
| Alexander Isak | F | 82 | 0 | 0.19 | 0.07 | 181% | 3 | 0.8 | 95.7 | 36.8 | 11 |
| Viktor Gyökeres | F | 87 | 1 | 0.53 | 0.19 | 175% | 3 | 1.6 | 94.4 | 57.7 | 18 |
| Gabriel Gudmundsson | D | 62 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.2 | 83.7 | 36.8 | 11 |
| Yasin Ayari | M | 78 | 0 | 0.20 | 0.02 | 716% | 2 | 0.7 | 82.3 | 45.9 | 12 |
| Lucas Bergvall | M | 27 | 0 | 0.09 | 0.01 | 544% | 2 | 0.4 | 83.8 | 41.0 | 13 |
| Anthony Elanga | F | 27 | 0 | 0.28 | 0.11 | 157% | 2 | 0.6 | 88.7 | 39.9 | 16 |
| Jesper Karlström | M | 72 | 0 | 0.08 | 0.01 | 517% | 1 | 0.5 | 81.5 | 47.2 | 10 |
| Victor Lindelöf | D | 89 | 0 | 0.19 | 0.02 | 1122% | 0 | 0.1 | 84.1 | 37.2 | 21 |
| Isak Hien | D | 89 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 1321% | 0 | 0.2 | 84.3 | 56.7 | 9 |
| Gustaf Lagerbielke | D | 89 | 0 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 515% | 0 | 0.4 | 76.5 | 62.4 | 16 |
| Kristoffer Nordfeldt | G | 89 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 78.0 | 37.0 | 7 |
| Team totals | 1 | 1.73 | | 13 | | 84.8 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Midfield is evenly contested — Kaishu Sano vs Lucas Bergvall will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.61, Away: 1.09. Home danger zone: LWB vs CB. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Midfield — possession 49.9% / 50.1%, dominance ratio 0.49, key duel: Kaishu Sano vs Lucas Bergvall
Junya Ito xG 0.43Kaishu Sano xG 0.19Ritsu Doan xG 0.14Yasin Ayari xG 0.16Lucas Bergvall xG 0.07Alexander Isak xG 0.14
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Japan vs Sweden. Most likely scoreline: 1-1. Lambdas derived from 7 home and 6 away individual player duels.
Tactical parity between 3-4-2-1 and 3-1-4-2. Match outcome driven primarily by individual player quality. Midfield is evenly contested — Kaishu Sano vs Lucas Bergvall will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.61, Away: 1.09. Home danger zone: LWB vs CB. Away danger zone: Striker vs Two Centre Backs — 1v2 Aerial/Physical Battle.
Türkiye vs USA
FIFA World Cup · 20260625 · 4-2-3-1 vs 4-2-3-1
Predicted 2-0Winner: DrawConfidence 0.83λ home/away 2.38 / 0.79Most-likely P 11.9%
Actual vs predicted: result not available yet (upcoming fixture).
Lambda decomposition (how the goal rates were built)
| Stage | Türkiye λ | USA λ |
|---|
| Pre-calibration | 2.377 | 0.792 |
| Final λ | 2.377 | 0.792 |
competition calibration scale 1.0competition observed total goals 0.0quality gap applied Truemismatch score pressure applied Falsecompetitive underdog floor applied Falsestage discount 1.0
Scoreline distribution & markets
| Top 5 scorelines | P |
|---|
| 2-0 | 11.9% |
| 1-0 | 10.0% |
| 3-0 | 9.4% |
| 2-1 | 9.4% |
| 1-1 | 7.9% |
| Home win | 72.6% |
| Draw | 16.7% |
| Away win | 10.7% |
| Over 2.5 | 61.4% |
| BTTS yes | 49.6% |
Pregame fair line — favorite Türkiye (72.6%), fair total 3.17, fair spread 1.58
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.
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 |
|---|
| Deniz Gül | F | 28 | 1 | 0.58 | 0.20 | 194% | 2 | 0.8 | 72.3 | 44.8 | 13 |
| Kenan Yıldız | F | 70 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.08 | 151% | 3 | 2.4 | 86.3 | 50.4 | 10 |
| Arda Güler | M | 88 | 1 | 0.24 | 0.10 | 127% | 2 | 1.4 | 88.3 | 48.0 | 17 |
| Can Uzun | M | 42 | 0 | 0.34 | 0.22 | 59% | 2 | 1.7 | 81.0 | 52.0 | 7 |
| İsmail Yüksek | M | 72 | 0 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 96% | 1 | 1.5 | 84.2 | 58.3 | 10 |
| Hakan Çalhanoğlu | M | 90 | 0 | 0.21 | 0.06 | 263% | 5 | 2.9 | 93.4 | 42.6 | 7 |
| Ferdi Kadıoğlu | D | 83 | 0 | 0.06 | 0.01 | 519% | 1 | 0.4 | 85.8 | 40.2 | 12 |
| Abdülkerim Bardakcı | D | 87 | 0 | 0.03 | 0.02 | 36% | 1 | 0.8 | 87.3 | 62.5 | 10 |
| Merih Demiral | D | 88 | 0 | 0.18 | 0.05 | 255% | 2 | 1.0 | 84.7 | 48.3 | 7 |
| Uğurcan Çakır | G | 91 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 86.4 | 64.4 | 9 |
| Mert Müldür | D | 49 | 0 | 0.23 | 0.04 | 419% | 1 | 0.4 | 80.7 | 53.8 | 9 |
| Team totals | 2 | 2.38 | | 21 | | 84.6 | |
USA — 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 |
|---|
| Sebastian Berhalter | M | 39 | 0 | 0.02 | 0.06 | 63% | 2 | 0.9 | 73.9 | 50.3 | 10 |
| Maximilian Arfsten | M | 87 | 0 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 100% | 1 | 0.1 | 91.0 | 15.4 | 9 |
| Auston Trusty | D | 28 | 0 | 0.13 | 0.07 | 78% | 0 | 0.7 | 80.8 | 47.8 | 9 |
| Mark McKenzie | D | 90 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 80.9 | 28.3 | 7 |
| Joe Scally | D | 30 | 0 | 0.01 | 0.00 | 208% | 0 | 0.1 | 80.9 | 40.7 | 8 |
| Matt Turner | G | 87 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 0 | 0.0 | 81.0 | 25.3 | 9 |
| Malik Tillman | M | 72 | 0 | 0.34 | 0.12 | 200% | 2 | 1.0 | 89.3 | 69.2 | 10 |
| Tim Weah | M | 40 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.01 | 198% | 2 | 0.4 | 83.7 | 17.6 | 11 |
| Alex Zendejas | M | 90 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.26 | 86% | 0 | 0.7 | 90.8 | 26.5 | 14 |
| Giovanni Reyna | M | 11 | 0 | 0.04 | 0.07 | 40% | 2 | 0.4 | 82.5 | 52.8 | 8 |
| Haji Wright | F | 3 | 0 | 0.00 | - | n/a | 2 | 0.0 | 74.4 | - | 7 |
| Team totals | 0 | 0.79 | | 12 | | 82.6 | |
Antagonist / tactical summary
Midfield is evenly contested — Arda Güler vs Malik Tillman will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.34, Away: 0.18. Home danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle.
Midfield — possession 52.0% / 48.0%, dominance ratio 0.55, key duel: Arda Güler vs Malik Tillman
Arda Güler xG 0.28Deniz Gül xG 0.50Can Uzun xG 0.26Sebastian Berhalter xG 0.03Giovanni Reyna xG 0.06Tim Weah xG 0.04
Summary
Antagonist matchup analysis for Türkiye vs USA. Most likely scoreline: 2-0. 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 — Arda Güler vs Malik Tillman will be the pivotal duel. Total antagonist xG — Home: 1.34, Away: 0.18. Home danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle. Away danger zone: Right Wing vs Left Back — Flank Battle.
Generated 2026-09-04 22:27:55 UTC · Soccer prediction reporting