Round of 32 · Match 10

BelgiumvsSenegal

2026-07-01·13:00 local·Lumen Field · SeattlePredictions finalised

Snapshot · 2026-07-14Model 1.0.0Final prediction · locked 1 Jul, 22:57 UTCBelgium·Senegal·
Full time · forecast gradedBelgium 3 2 SenegalThe locked pre-match forecast has been graded against this result.See the calibration recap →

Match signals

Factors that favour each side, from statistical models to group stage form and match conditions. Longer bars = stronger advantage.

BelgiumSignal balanceSenegal
97%3%

Belgium are strong favourites at 58% vs Senegal's 17%. Most signals point the same way. Senegal will need to outperform their rating.

📊What the Models Say

5 Belgium
46%Elo Rating Model32%
SlightSlight

Rates teams by a single strength number updated after every match. Simpler but fast to react. It rates Belgium at 46% to win vs Senegal at 32%.

49%Dixon-Coles Model23%
ModerateModerate

Simulates the goal-scoring process using attack and defence strength. The heaviest-weighted model. It rates Belgium at 49% to win vs Senegal at 23%.

52%Hierarchical Poisson21%
StrongStrong

Groups teams by confederation to share information. Helps for teams with fewer matches. It rates Belgium at 52% to win vs Senegal at 21%.

58%Final Ensemble17%
StrongStrong

The published probability after calibration and adjustments. This is what the model says. It rates Belgium at 58% to win vs Senegal at 17%.

3/3Model Agreement0/3
StrongStrong

All 3 models agree: Belgium is favoured. When models agree, the signal is stronger.

Tournament Form

3 Belgium
11pts (3W 2D 1L)Tournament Record3pts (1W 0D 3L)
StrongStrong

Belgium collected 11 points (3W 2D 1L) vs Senegal's 3 (1W 0D 3L). A stronger tournament record.

2.33/matchGoals Scored2.5/match
Even

Similar attacking output: Belgium 2.33 goals/match, Senegal 2.5.

1.17 conceded/matchDefence2.25 conceded/match
ModerateModerate

Belgium conceded just 1.17 goals/match vs Senegal's 2.25. Tighter at the back.

+7Goal Difference+1
StrongStrong

Belgium's goal difference of +7 is better than Senegal's +1. They outperformed opponents by more.

📈Momentum

2 Belgium
+19.5Tournament Rating Change-38.6
StrongStrong

Belgium's rating rose +19.5 during the tournament while Senegal's moved -38.6. The tournament has been kinder to Belgium.

+0.0046Player Form Trend-0.0007
ModerateModerate

Belgium's players improved their form ratings during the tournament (+0.0046) vs Senegal (-0.0007). Players trending upward.

🏆Team Quality

2 Belgium
1867Overall Strength (Elo)1878
Even

Very close in strength: Belgium 1867, Senegal 1878.

1.43 xGExpected Chance Creation0.91 xG
ModerateModerate

The model expects Belgium to create 1.43 expected goals vs Senegal's 0.91. More and better chances projected.

0.37Star Power0.34
Even

Similar star-player quality in both squads.

0.019Squad Familiarity0.003
SlightSlight

Belgium's starters play together at club level more often (0.019 cohesion) than Senegal's (0.003). More shared understanding on the pitch.

🌍Match Conditions

1 Belgium1 Senegal
7,980kmTravel Distance10,107km
ModerateModerate

Belgium traveled 7,980km vs Senegal's 10,107km. A shorter journey means less fatigue.

9h shiftTimezone Shift7h shift
SlightSlight

Senegal face a 7h timezone shift vs Belgium's 9h. Less jet lag disruption.

17 signals across 5 categories. Signal strength reflects how large the gap is between the two teams on each factor. Signals are descriptive, not prescriptive.

Die Prognose

Match-outcome probability

  • Belgium win
    44.8%
  • Draw
    28.7%
  • Senegal win
    26.5%

A clash of identities: Belgium's balanced approach meets Senegal's transition-heavy style in a fixture the model gives to Belgium at 58%.

Likeliest score1–113.3%
First goal0-15'32.2%
Both teams score46.1%
Over 2.5 goals41.3%
Top scorerDieng7.0%
Expected goals1.4 - 0.9
Loading pitch visualisation...

Tore & Spielstände

Likeliest score 1–1 (13.3%) · xG 1.4 - 0.9

Expected goals

Belgium
1.43
Senegal
0.91

Mean of the Dixon-Coles joint goal distribution. Same fit that produces the most-likely-scoreline list below.

Most likely scorelines

  • 1–1
    13.3%
  • 1–0
    13.1%
  • 0–0
    10.5%
  • 2–0
    9.8%
  • 2–1
    8.9%

From the Dixon-Coles joint Poisson with the low-score correction. Scorelines are listed in probability order; this is a description of the model's distribution, not a recommendation.

Most likely half-time scorelines

  • 0–0
    31.7%
  • 1–0
    21.6%
  • 0–1
    13.5%
  • 1–1
    10.7%
  • 2–0
    7.9%

Same Dixon-Coles fit as the full-time list above, with rates halved to a 45-minute window and the low-score correction applied to that 1st-half block. The 0-0 row sits higher here than at full-time because fewer minutes have elapsed.

Goal totals

  • More than 0.5 goals
    89.5%
  • More than 1.5 goals
    68.5%
  • More than 2.5 goals
    41.3%
  • More than 3.5 goals
    20.8%
  • More than 4.5 goals
    8.8%
  • More than 5.5 goals
    3.2%
  • Both teams score
    46.1%

Each row is the probability the match finishes with more than the listed number of goals. Both-teams-to-score is the probability each side scores at least once. All values are marginals of the Dixon-Coles joint goal grid that produces the scoreline list above — not market lines or any other operator construct.

Event-typed probabilities

  • Belgium clean sheetOpposing team scores zero40.3%
  • Senegal clean sheetOpposing team scores zero24.0%

Derived from the same Dixon-Coles joint distribution as the scoreline list. These are descriptive event probabilities — see CLAUDE.md §3/§4 (formerly COMPLIANCE.md §4.2.7) for the framing the project uses.

Win-margin probability

  • Belgium by 4+
    2.9%
  • Belgium by 3+
    9.3%
  • Belgium by 2+
    24.2%
  • Belgium by 1+
    48.3%
  • Draw
    28.5%
  • Senegal by 1+
    23.2%
  • Senegal by 2+
    8.1%
  • Senegal by 3+
    2.1%
  • Senegal by 4+
    0.4%

Each row is the probability the match ends with the listed margin or larger in that direction. Marginal of the Dixon-Coles joint goal grid; the “by 1+” rows plus the draw row sum to 1.

Wie das Spiel sich entwickelt

Over 2.5 goals 41.3% · BTTS 46.1%

Game state through the match

0%25%50%75%100%0'15'30'45'60'75'90'
  • Belgium ahead49.1%
  • Level26.9%
  • Senegal ahead24.0%

Probability of each game state at minutes 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90 — derived from two independent thinned-Poisson processes with the Dixon-Coles per-team rates. The three lines always sum to 1 at each minute. The right column shows the state at the match's closing minute.

When the first goal arrives

  • 0–15
    32.2%
  • 15–30
    21.8%
  • 30–45
    14.8%
  • 45–60
    10.0%
  • 60–75
    6.8%
  • 75–90
    4.6%
  • No goal
    9.7%

Probability the match's first goal arrives in each 15-minute window. Homogeneous Poisson with combined rate λ = λh + λa from the Dixon-Coles fit; the seven rows (six windows + no-goal tail) sum to 1.

Half-time / full-time grid

Joint probability of half-time and full-time results
HT ↓ / FT →HBelgium winDDrawASenegal win
HBelgium ahead31.0%4.5%1.1%
DLevel16.1%18.2%9.0%
ASenegal ahead1.9%4.5%13.8%

Each cell is P(half-time result, full-time result). All nine cells sum to 1. Derived from a halved-λ Dixon-Coles fit for the first half plus an independent-Poisson second-half convolution.

Comeback probability

  • Belgium trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT
    6.3%
  • Senegal trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT
    5.6%

Joint probability — P(side trailing at half-time AND avoiding defeat at full-time). NOT conditional on trailing at HT. Derived from the same half-time / full-time decomposition that produces the HT/FT grid above; a tied first half is neither a home nor an away comeback opportunity.

PK shootout simulator

If the match ends level after extra time, the model estimates the shootout outcome from each team's Bayesian-smoothed conversion / save rate (Model #15). The bracket simulator uses the symmetric (averaged) ordering; the two what-if scenarios below show how the win probabilities shift when conditioning on which team kicks first.

Symmetric (averaged over both orderings — used by the bracket simulator)
  • Belgium
    42.4%
  • Senegal
    57.6%
If Belgium kicks first
  • Belgium
    53.5%
  • Senegal
    46.5%
If Senegal kicks first
  • Belgium
    31.2%
  • Senegal
    68.8%
Expected paired rounds
4.8
Decided in regulation 5 kicks
74.0%

First-kicker advantage

The first kicker's per-kick conversion rate is scaled by ×1.050 (about +5.0%), stacked on the Markov chain's structural asymmetry. Real World Cup shootouts use a coin toss for kicker order, so on average the order is 50/50 — the symmetric path above is the relevant number for a single fixture. The ordering-conditioned probabilities are a descriptive what-if scenario.

Literature: first kickers win ≈ 60% historically (Apesteguia & Palacios-Huerta, American Economic Review 2010; Vandebroek et al. 2016).

Per-team posteriors: Belgium conv 71.4%, save 22.9%Senegal conv 72.5%, save 27.5%. Smoothed against the global prior with prior strength 20 — see /docs/methodology/.

Teams & Spieler

Top scorer: Dieng (7.0%)

Match detail

Belgium

Model-rated key players: Kevin De Bruyne (MF) — P(scores) 6.7%; Loïs Openda (FW) — P(scores) 3.3%; Leandro Trossard (FW) — P(scores) 2.1%.

How they play

Belgium under Rudi Garcia play a balanced game, holding 54% of the ball — among the highest in the tournament field. Their likely shape is a other, though they have also used 4-2-3-1. They apply moderate pressing intensity (PPDA 23.1) and build patiently through midfield with 7.7 passes per attacking sequence.

What they must execute

Belgium will need to leverage their strengths while managing the physical demands of a tournament spread across three host countries. Managing minutes for Axel Witsel across what could be seven matches will test the coaching staff's rotation planning.

Storylines
Strong in goal: Thibaut Courtois#2 starting-GK rating in the field — 0.99 on club-derived save metrics across 48 teams.
Last dance: Axel Witsel37 at kickoff with 136 caps — probably his final World Cup.
Touchline: Rudi GarciaFirst World Cup as head coach, appointed 2025.

Senegal

Model-rated key players: Bamba Dieng (FW) — P(scores) 7.0%; Nicolas Jackson (FW) — P(scores) 6.5%; Boulaye Dia (FW) — P(scores) 5.2%.

How they play

Senegal under Pape Thiaw play a transition heavy game with 47% possession. Their likely shape is a 4-2-3-1, though they have also used 4-3-3. They apply moderate pressing intensity (PPDA 21.2) and move the ball forward quickly at 5.3 passes per attack.

What they must execute

Senegal rely on defensive discipline and quick transitions — absorbing pressure and converting turnovers into attacking chances. Concentration and defensive organisation for full 90-minute stretches will determine whether the approach holds against top opposition. Managing minutes for Idrissa Gueye across what could be seven matches will test the coaching staff's rotation planning.

Storylines
Teen starter: wp-bara-sapoko-ndiaye-2007-12-3118 at kickoff — 0 caps — projected on the bench, the squad's youngest pick.
Last dance: Idrissa Gueye36 at kickoff with 130 caps — probably his final World Cup.
Form trend: Gained 56 international Elo points over the last 12 months — current rating 1928.
Workload going in

Senegal's predicted XI averages 1,712 club minutes over the 2024-25 season (light load).

Belgium coverage: 58.0% (10/11 XI matched against the FBref Big-5) · Senegal: 73.0% (10/11).

Set-piece outlook

Belgium historically converts 14.6% of xG from set-pieces, contributing 0.21 expected set-piece goals in this fixture. Senegal converts 8.1% from set-pieces (0.07 expected). Combined, the model expects 0.28 set-piece goals across the 90 minutes.

  • P(Belgium scores set-piece goal) 18.9%
  • P(Senegal scores set-piece goal) 7.0%
  • P(set-piece goal in match) 24.6%

Belgium: Kevin De Bruyne on corners (25 corners), Axel Witsel on free kicks (per fbref 2022 23) · Senegal: Pape Matar Sarr on corners (7 corners) (per fbref 2021 22)

Penalty outlook

If a penalty is awarded to Belgium, the model gives 71.4% conversion, 72.5% for Senegal. If this match goes to a shootout, the symmetric (coin-toss averaged) win probability is 42.4% Belgium / 57.6% Senegal.

Belgium primary PK: Kevin De Bruyne (2/3 in 2020-21, per fbref 2022 23) · Senegal primary PK: Boulaye Dia (5/5 in 2020-21, per fbref 2021 22).

Derived from the model's per-fixture forecast joint and supporting reference data (predicted squads, set-piece xG share, PK posteriors, club minutes). See /docs/methodology/ for the full methodology.

Squad depth

Most irreplaceable starters

Belgium

  1. Youri TielemansCentral midfieldNo natural backup0.41gap
  2. Romelu LukakuStrikerNo natural backup0.37gap
  3. Zeno DebastCentre-backCover: Brandon Mechele · 0.560.32gap

Senegal

  1. Sadio ManéWingerCover: Ibrahim Mbaye · 0.440.38gap
  2. Nicolas JacksonStrikerCover: Cherif Ndiaye · 0.520.34gap
  3. Édouard MendyGoalkeeperCover: Yehvann Diouf · 0.490.29gap

Gap = how far a side's rating at the position falls from the starter to his likely in-squad replacement (named under each name). Larger = harder to replace. Descriptive metric, does not feed the published probabilities. Methodology →

Match conditions

  • AltitudeNear sea level16 m
  • Avg temperatureFive-year mean over the tournament window18.0 °C
  • Avg humidity68%
  • Heat stressShade WBGT ~19.6 °CLow heat stress
  • Pitch surfacetemporary natural grass over artificial turf

Artificial-turf NFL stadium laying a temporary natural-grass pitch for the tournament.

Heat stress is a shade Wet-Bulb Globe Temperature proxy from the venue's climatology mean temperature and humidity; FIFA mandates cooling breaks at WBGT 32 °C. Afternoon kickoff (local time). These are long-window averages, not a match-day forecast, and they are not inputs to the forecast.

Top scorers · P(scores in this match)

Belgium
Senegal

Per-player scoring rate from Model #5 (`p_score_per_match`). Reflects each player's npxG/90, expected minutes, team xG share, and the average opposing-team defence. See /docs/methodology/.

Recent match form

Last match player ratings

Belgium

vs New Zealand · avg 8.0

9
Leandro TrossardAM
ATK
DEF
PAS
9
Kevin De BruyneCM
ATK
DEF
PAS
9
Romelu LukakuST
ATK
DEF
PAS
7
Thibaut CourtoisGK
ATK
DEF
PAS
6
Maxim De CuyperRB
ATK
DEF
PAS

Senegal

vs Iraq · avg 8.2

9
Sadio ManéLW
ATK
DEF
PAS
8
Lamine CamaraCM
ATK
DEF
PAS
8
Ismaïla SarrRW
ATK
DEF
PAS
8
Habib DialloST
ATK
DEF
PAS

Player scores from official highlight analysis of each team's most recent match. Observational, not a model input. Methodology →

Video analysis: player performance

Per-player ratings and event breakdowns from official highlights analysis. Tap a player to see their full match timeline.

Belgium
8
Thibaut Courtois7'–87'

Made multiple critical saves, keeping Belgium in contention despite conceding two goals.

3saves

Match timeline

7'Belgium goalkeeper #1 makes a crucial save from a close-range shot by Senegal #18.
84'Belgium goalkeeper #1 makes a save from a shot inside the box.
87'Belgium goalkeeper #1 makes another save from a subsequent shot.
8
Romelu Lukaku61'–61'

Scored a crucial header that sparked Belgium's comeback from a two-goal deficit.

1goals

Match timeline

61'Belgium #9 scores with a header, initiating their comeback.
8
Dodi Lukébakio

Delivered a crucial and accurate cross for Belgium's first goal, initiating the comeback.

Senegal
8
Ismaïla Sarr

Scored Senegal's second goal with excellent pace and finishing, and created an early chance.

7
Habib Diallo

Scored the opening goal for Senegal with a well-placed finish.

7
Sadio Mané

Scored an impressive individual goal, showcasing his dribbling and finishing skills.

3
El Hadji Malick Diouf90'–90'

Was involved in the incident that led to the decisive penalty conceded by Senegal.

1fouls

Match timeline

90'El Hadji Malick Diouf involved in incident leading to Belgium's penalty.

Match observations

  • The match was a thrilling encounter, with Senegal initially taking a commanding two-goal lead.
  • Belgium displayed remarkable resilience, fighting back to equalize with two goals in the second half.
  • The game's outcome was ultimately decided by a late penalty awarded to Belgium.

Hinter den Kulissen

Model-by-model comparison

Belgium vs Senegal

High disagreement (10.9%)
ModelWeightHomeDrawAway
EloRating-based strength estimate32%
45.7%
22.0%
32.3%
Dixon-ColesGoal-process model with low-score correction63%
48.8%
28.0%
23.2%
Hierarchical PoissonBayesian model with confederation pooling6%
52.4%
26.2%
21.4%
Bayesian stackingLearned-weight combination
50.8%
26.1%
23.1%
Ensemble (published)Uniform average + isotonic calibration
57.6%
24.9%
17.4%
Home spread: 6.7%
Draw spread: 6.0%
Away spread: 10.9%
How each model works
Elo
Each team carries a single strength rating updated after every match by a margin-aware K-factor. Match probabilities come from the logistic function of the rating gap. Elo is fast-adapting but coarse — it sees only who won and by how much, not how the goals were scored.
Dixon-Coles
A Poisson regression on team-level attack and defence parameters, fitted via maximum likelihood with an exponential time-decay weighting. The Dixon-Coles correction adjusts the four low-score cells (0-0, 1-0, 0-1, 1-1) where independent Poisson underestimates dependence. Produces full scoreline distributions, not just H/D/A.
Hierarchical Poisson
A Bayesian Poisson model fitted via MCMC (PyMC) with hierarchical priors that pool attack and defence parameters within confederations. Shrinks small-sample teams toward their confederation mean — helpful for nations with few recent competitive fixtures. Slower to fit but better-calibrated on the tails.
Bayesian stacking
Optimises simplex weights (w_elo, w_dc, w_hp) to maximise the leave-one-out log-score across a walk-forward backtest (Yao et al. 2018). The result is a weighted average of the three component models' probabilities, then isotonic-calibrated. Adds no extra features — just learns which component to trust more from historical accuracy.
Ensemble (published)
Equal-weight average of all three component models, followed by per-class isotonic regression calibration fitted on 24 months of walk-forward out-of-fold predictions. This is the probability published on the site. The uniform mean is deliberately simple — it avoids overfitting to the stacking weights' training window.

Three independent component models feed two combination strategies. The uniform ensemble is the published probability; Bayesian stacking uses learned weights. Amber bars flag >5pp divergence from the published number. Full methodology

Latest news & match context

Match conditions
Stage:
Round of 32 · Match 10
Date:
1 Jul
Venue:
Lumen Field, Seattle
Beyond the model

Ranked by likely importance. None of these feed the forecast: the probabilities rest on team strength, venue conditions and the style matchup.

  1. 1.Elimination stakes: A one-off elimination tie. Motivation, risk appetite and game management under tournament pressure are not model inputs; the forecast rests on team strength and the style matchup.
Availability

Belgium

Belgium come in at close to full strength.

Senegal

Senegal come in at close to full strength.

What it means

Belgium and Senegal both come in at close to full strength, so the forecast rests on baseline team strength rather than late team-news swings.

Availability from the predicted squads and injury feed; forecast adjustments from the model's own decomposition. See /docs/methodology/.

Standard Pass

Dieses Spiel ist eine kostenlose Vorschau

Sie sehen die vollständige Modellprognose für dieses Spiel kostenlos. Schalten Sie dieselbe Tiefe frei: Wahrscheinlichkeiten, erwartete Tore, Spielstandsverteilungen und spielerbezogene Torprognosen, für alle 104 Spiele mit einem Standard Pass, gültig für das gesamte Turnier.

Pass kaufen — $15

Every forecast graded against the real result, scored on 987 matches since 2014. See the scorecard.

24h money-back, no questions asked·No subscription, no auto-renewal·Access through 31 Dec 2026. See refund policy.