Group D · Matchday 1
AustraliavsTurkey
2026-06-13·21:00 localPredictions finalised
The forecast
Match-outcome probability
- Australia win35.4%
- Draw26.0%
- Turkey win38.6%
The model projects one of the most closely-contested fixtures of the round — Australia and Turkey are separated by fine margins across every outcome.
Why the model says this
Favoring Australia
- ·Expected goals 1.16 vs 1.09
Favoring Turkey
- ·Elo advantage of 119 points over Australia
- ·H2H record: 2W-0D-0L in 2 meetings
What the model can't fully price
- ·Squad availability: 1 carrying a fitness doubt across the two squads. The forecast does not adjust for who is missing: its lineup channel currently contributes zero, so this is context the probabilities do not include.
Form check
Australia
SteadyAustralia: 3W-0D-3L in their last 6 internationals.
3W-0D-3L in last 6
Turkey
ImprovingTurkey: 5W-1D-0L in their last 6 internationals.
5W-1D-0L in last 6
Analysis
How it plays out
Turkey's pragmatic setup will need to hold shape against Australia's direct transition game. The risk for Turkey: getting caught between attacking and defending. Turkey's aggressive press (PPDA 23.5) against Australia's deeper build-up (PPDA 37.0) creates a clear territory question: can Turkey force errors high up, or will Australia play through the press and find space behind it?
What decides it
Australia will concede possession willingly and attack in transition. Their defensive block needs to hold without fouling in dangerous areas. Turkey adjust shape to the opponent. That flexibility is an asset, but it takes longer to settle into a game. The scoring threat is evenly split: Brandon Borrello (4.6%) and Hakan Çalhanoğlu (7.4%).
Off the pitch
No major off-pitch asymmetries. This one is decided by the football.
The angle
A Group D fixture where the result matters more for the standings than the headlines.
▸Goals & scorelines
Likeliest score 1–1 (14.2%) · xG 1.1 - 1.1
Expected goals
Mean of the Dixon-Coles joint goal distribution. Same fit that produces the most-likely-scoreline list below.
Most likely scorelines
- 1–114.2%
- 0–011.8%
- 1–011.5%
- 0–111.2%
- 2–17.5%
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
- 0–033.8%
- 1–017.9%
- 0–117.5%
- 1–110.7%
- 2–05.2%
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 goals88.2%
- More than 1.5 goals65.6%
- More than 2.5 goals38.0%
- More than 3.5 goals18.3%
- More than 4.5 goals7.3%
- More than 5.5 goals2.5%
- Both teams score45.5%
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
- Australia clean sheetOpposing team scores zero33.6%
- Turkey clean sheetOpposing team scores zero32.7%
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
- Australia by 4+1.1%
- Australia by 3+4.6%
- Australia by 2+14.7%
- Australia by 1+35.3%
- Draw30.7%
- Turkey by 1+34.0%
- Turkey by 2+13.9%
- Turkey by 3+4.2%
- Turkey by 4+1.0%
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.
▸How the match unfolds
Over 2.5 goals 38.0% · BTTS 45.5%
Game state through the match
- Australia ahead36.1%
- Level29.0%
- Turkey ahead34.8%
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
- 0–1530.8%
- 15–3021.3%
- 30–4514.8%
- 45–6010.2%
- 60–757.1%
- 75–904.9%
- No goal11.0%
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
| HT ↓ / FT → | HAustralia win | DDraw | ATurkey win |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAustralia ahead | 21.7% | 4.7% | 1.4% |
| DLevel | 12.9% | 19.9% | 12.5% |
| ATurkey ahead | 1.5% | 4.7% | 20.8% |
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
- Australia trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT6.2%
- Turkey trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT6.1%
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.
Cards
- Expected yellow cardsMean of the Poisson on total yellow cards.3.45
- Total yellows over 2.567.0%
- Total yellows over 3.545.3%
- Total yellows over 4.526.5%
- Any red cardP(at least one red card in the match).9.5%
Referee not yet assigned. Using the 2026 pool-mean per-match rate as a placeholder; the model picks up the referee's personal rate once the assignment is published. Total yellow cards modelled as a Poisson with mean equal to two team baselines plus the referee's deviation from the pool mean. Reds are modelled the same way, independently. See /docs/methodology/.
▸Teams & players
Top scorer: Çalhanoğlu (7.4%)
Match detail
Australia
Model-rated key players: Brandon Borrello (FW) — P(scores) 4.6%; Mitch Duke (FW) — P(scores) 3.7%; Martin Boyle (FW) — P(scores) 3.4%.
Australia under Tony Popovic play a transition heavy game, with just 44% possession — among the lowest in the field. Their likely shape is a 4-4-2, though they have also used 4-2-3-1 and 4-3-3. They sit deeper and pick their moments to press (PPDA 37.0). They are selective in their shooting (8.0 per 90).
Australia 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.
Turkey
Model-rated key players: Hakan Çalhanoğlu (MF) — P(scores) 7.4%; Kenan Yıldız (FW) — P(scores) 5.8%; Kerem Aktürkoğlu (FW) — P(scores) 5.8%.
Turkey under Vincenzo Montella play a pragmatic game with 50% possession. They apply moderate pressing intensity (PPDA 23.5). They generate a high volume of shots (13.2 per 90) and rely heavily on set pieces (20% of their xG).
Turkey play a pragmatic, results-oriented game that adapts shape to the opposition. Tactical flexibility is their strength. The risk is inconsistency — without a default identity, a poor result can cascade if the team struggles to find a Plan B.
Turkey converts 20.5% from set-pieces (0.22 expected). Combined, the model expects 0.22 set-piece goals across the 90 minutes.
- P(Turkey scores set-piece goal) 20.1%
- P(set-piece goal in match) 20.1%
Australia: Ajdin Hrustić on free kicks (per fbref 2022 23) · Turkey: Hakan Çalhanoğlu on corners (28 corners) (per fbref 2022 23)
If a penalty is awarded to Australia, the model gives 71.4% conversion, 73.3% for Turkey.
Turkey primary PK: Hakan Çalhanoğlu (3/3 in 2021-22, per fbref 2022 23).
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.
Tactical forecast
- PPDA
- 37.0
- Possession
- 44%
- Directness (yds/pass)
- 7.2
- Long balls/90
- 46
- Set-piece xG
- —
- PPDA
- 23.5
- Possession
- 50%
- Directness (yds/pass)
- 5.5
- Long balls/90
- 33
- Set-piece xG
- 21%
Style profile per side from StatsBomb open-data aggregation across recent international tournaments (Euro 2020/2024, Copa America 2024, AFCON 2023, World Cup 2018/2022). The tactical-fingerprint badge maps each team’s observed style vector into one of eight canonical archetypes via a rule-based classifier; teams with fewer than three matches of qualifying coverage carry an “insufficient-data” label rather than being forced into a default. Sides outside the StatsBomb-open corpus use FotMob team match stats from recent qualifiers and friendlies instead (possession and shot volume only), marked as partial coverage. PPDA = passes the side allows per defensive action (lower = more intense press). Formation distributions are not yet produced — that head of the §2.7 classifier is pending its own data pull. See /docs/methodology/.
Squad depth
Most irreplaceable starters
Australia
- Mathew RyanGoalkeeperCover: Paul Izzo · 0.330.56gap
- Nestory IrankundaWingerCover: Nishan Velupillay · 0.090.36gap
- Connor MetcalfeCentral midfieldCover: Patrick Yazbek · 0.420.33gap
Turkey
- Orkun KökçüCentral midfieldNo natural backup0.59gap
- Ferdi KadıoğluFull-backCover: Eren Elmalı · 0.620.30gap
- Zeki ÇelikFull-backCover: Eren Elmalı · 0.620.15gap
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 level3 m
- Avg temperatureFive-year mean over the tournament window17.4 °C
- Avg humidity73%
- Heat stressShade WBGT ~19.5 °CLow heat stress
- Pitch surfacetemporary natural grass over artificial turf
Artificial-turf stadium with a retractable roof; a temporary natural-grass pitch is laid over the turf 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. Night 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)
- Brandon BorrelloFW4.6%
- Mitch DukeFW3.7%
- Martin BoyleFW3.4%
- Hakan ÇalhanoğluPKMF7.4%
- Kenan YıldızFW5.8%
- Kerem AktürkoğluFW5.8%
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
Australia
vs Egypt · avg 6.2
Turkey
vs United States · avg 5.5
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.
9Patrick BeachDelivered an outstanding performance in goal, making several crucial saves to maintain a clean sheet.
1saves▼
Delivered an outstanding performance in goal, making several crucial saves to maintain a clean sheet.
Match timeline
8Nestory Irankunda27'–60'Scored the opening goal for Australia, demonstrating pace and determination.
1goals▼
Scored the opening goal for Australia, demonstrating pace and determination.
Match timeline
8Connor Metcalfe74'–74'Secured Australia's second goal with a composed finish.
1goals▼
Secured Australia's second goal with a composed finish.
Match timeline
6Nishan Velupillay60'–60'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Jason Geria73'–73'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Jacob Italiano73'–73'Played for 73 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 73 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Tete Vengi73'–73'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Mohamed Touré73'–73'Played for 73 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 73 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Jackson Irvine83'–83'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Paul Okon-Engstler83'–83'Played for 83 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 83 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Aziz Behich83'–83'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Jordan Bos83'–83'Played for 83 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 83 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
7Abdülkerim Bardakcı29'–29'Came close to scoring for Türkiye, hitting the post with a powerful strike.
1shots▼
Came close to scoring for Türkiye, hitting the post with a powerful strike.
Match timeline
6Kenan Yıldız45'–45'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Barış Alper Yılmaz45'–45'Played for 45 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 45 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Orkun Kökçü61'–61'Played for 61 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 61 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Deniz Gül84'–84'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Kerem Aktürkoğlu84'–84'Played for 84 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 84 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Kaan Ayhan88'–88'Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
▼
Entered as a substitute but had no specific notable actions.
Match timeline
6Merih Demiral88'–88'Played for 88 minutes without any specific notable actions.
▼
Played for 88 minutes without any specific notable actions.
Match timeline
5Arda Güler34'–34'Showed flashes of talent but received a yellow card and his efforts were not converted.
1shots1 yellow▼
Showed flashes of talent but received a yellow card and his efforts were not converted.
Match timeline
4Yunus Akgün61'–85'Received a yellow card shortly after entering the match as a substitute.
1 yellow▼
Received a yellow card shortly after entering the match as a substitute.
Match timeline
Match observations
- Australia secured a 2-0 victory over Türkiye in a match marked by contrasting approaches.
- Australia's goals resulted from swift transitions and clinical finishing, while Türkiye generated numerous scoring opportunities but struggled to convert.
- The match featured a vibrant atmosphere, with supporters from both nations contributing to an intense environment.
▸Under the hood
Model-by-model comparison
Australia vs Turkey
| Model | Weight | Home | Draw | Away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EloRating-based strength estimate | 32% | 27.4% | 22.0% | 50.6% |
| Dixon-ColesGoal-process model with low-score correction | 63% | 36.0% | 29.9% | 34.0% |
| Hierarchical PoissonBayesian model with confederation pooling | 6% | 34.4% | 29.0% | 36.6% |
| Bayesian stackingLearned-weight combination | — | 31.7% | 29.1% | 39.2% |
| Ensemble (published)Uniform average + isotonic calibration | — | 34.5% | 27.0% | 38.5% |
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
Probability decomposition (transparency surface)
- Baseline ensemble — P(Australia win)35.4%
- + Lineup contribution0.0pp
- + Style-matchup contribution0.0pp
- Published P(Australia win)35.4%
Decomposition of the published P(Australia win) into the calibrated- baseline plus contributions from the §2.3 expected-XI lineup delta and the §2.7 style-matchup interaction. The §2.7 roadmap is explicit that style effects are second-order to team strength — single-digit-percentage P(win) shifts on extreme style matchups, near-zero on balanced ones. We surface the decomposition for transparency even when the contributions are small; the baseline carries the prediction. Methodology: /docs/methodology.
For this fixture both contributions round to under 0.05pp — the fitted style-matchup pair effect is in the small-magnitude regime the model expects to dominate.
Head-to-head history
| Date | Competition | Venue | Score | Result | xG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 Jun 2026 | FIFA World Cup | NVancouver | 2–0 | W | — |
| 24 May 2004 | Friendly | HMelbourne | 0–1 | L | — |
| 21 May 2004 | Friendly | HSydney | 1–3 | L | — |
Australia vs Turkey, every senior international meeting in the martj42 results dataset (score from Australia's perspective; H/A/N = home/away/neutral).
Latest news & match context
No recent headlines for Australia or Turkey.
- Stage:
- Group D · Matchday 1
- Date:
- 13 Jun
Australia
Australia come in at close to full strength.
Turkey
Turkey come in at close to full strength.
Australia and Turkey 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
This match is a free preview
You're seeing the model's full forecast for this fixture for free. Unlock the same depth: probabilities, expected goals, scoreline distributions, and per-player scoring, for all 104 matches with a Standard Pass, valid through the tournament.
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.