Group E · Matchday 2

CuraçaovsEcuador

2026-06-20·19:00 localPredictions finalised

Snapshot · 2026-07-14Model 1.0.0Final prediction · locked 20 Jun, 22:55 UTCCuraçao·Ecuador·Head-to-head →·
Full time · forecast gradedCuraçao 0 0 EcuadorThe locked pre-match forecast has been graded against this result.See the calibration recap →

The forecast

Match-outcome probability

  • Curaçao win
    5.8%
  • Draw
    19.6%
  • Ecuador win
    74.6%

A clash of identities: Curaçao's balanced approach meets Ecuador's transition-heavy style in a fixture the model gives to Ecuador at 80%.

Rank checkFIFA ranks Curaçao #82 in the world; the model ranks them #41 in this tournament field, 41 places higher than the FIFA list suggests. All 48 compared →
Likeliest score0–218.6%
First goal0-15'34.6%
Both teams score27.6%
Over 2.5 goals46.8%
Top scorerLocadia8.8%
Expected goals0.4 - 2.2
Loading pitch visualisation...

Why the model says this

Favoring Curaçao

  • ·Curaçao achieved two victories (7-0, 2-0) and two draws in their recent FIFA World Cup qualification campaign, demonstrating their capability to secure results.
  • ·Video analysis from their last match indicated Curaçao created several attacking opportunities, suggesting potential despite finishing struggles.

Favoring Ecuador

  • ·Ecuador holds a significant Elo gap of 497 points over Curaçao, indicating a substantial difference in team strength.
  • ·Ecuador's FIFA ranking of 23 is considerably higher than Curaçao's ranking of 82.
  • ·The model projects Ecuador to achieve 2.34 expected goals, significantly more than Curaçao's 0.39 expected goals.
  • ·Ecuador has shown strong defensive consistency, conceding only 4 goals across their last six matches.

What the model can't fully price

  • ·The model does not currently account for squad availability, with 3 players across both squads, including 1 projected starter, carrying fitness doubts.

Form check

Curaçao

Declining

Curaçao's recent form shows a decline, with two consecutive losses (1-5, 0-2) in the FIFA Series. Prior to this, they had a more positive run in World Cup qualification, securing two wins and two draws, including a dominant 7-0 victory.

Conceded 7 goals in their last two matches.

Ecuador

Steady

Ecuador enters this match undefeated in their last six outings, though five of these were draws in friendly fixtures. Their only win in this period was a 2-0 victory. They have shown defensive consistency, conceding only 4 goals across these six matches.

Remained undefeated in their last six matches.

Analysis

How it plays out

Curaçao's balanced setup will need to hold shape against Ecuador's direct transition game. The risk for Curaçao: getting caught between attacking and defending.

What decides it

Ecuador will concede possession willingly and attack in transition. Their defensive block needs to hold without fouling in dangerous areas. Jürgen Locadia's 9.2% scoring probability is the highest in this fixture. Containing that output is Ecuador's primary defensive task.

Off the pitch

No major off-pitch asymmetries. This one is decided by the football.

The angle

The model gives Curaçao just 6.1% to win. Every World Cup produces group-stage upsets; the question is whether this fixture is one of them.

Goals & scorelines

Likeliest score 0–2 (18.6%) · xG 0.4 - 2.2

Expected goals

Curaçao
0.37
Ecuador
2.18

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

Most likely scorelines

  • 0–2
    18.6%
  • 0–1
    16.7%
  • 0–3
    13.5%
  • 0–0
    8.2%
  • 0–4
    7.4%

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

  • 0–1
    30.2%
  • 0–0
    28.3%
  • 0–2
    16.6%
  • 0–3
    6.0%
  • 1–1
    5.9%

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
    91.8%
  • More than 1.5 goals
    72.6%
  • More than 2.5 goals
    46.8%
  • More than 3.5 goals
    25.2%
  • More than 4.5 goals
    11.5%
  • More than 5.5 goals
    4.5%
  • Both teams score
    27.6%

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

  • Curaçao clean sheetOpposing team scores zero11.3%
  • Ecuador clean sheetOpposing team scores zero69.3%

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

  • Curaçao by 4+
    <0.1%
  • Curaçao by 3+
    0.1%
  • Curaçao by 2+
    0.8%
  • Curaçao by 1+
    4.6%
  • Draw
    16.3%
  • Ecuador by 1+
    79.2%
  • Ecuador by 2+
    54.7%
  • Ecuador by 3+
    30.6%
  • Ecuador by 4+
    14.1%

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 46.8% · BTTS 27.6%

Game state through the match

0%25%50%75%100%0'15'30'45'60'75'90'
  • Curaçao ahead5.0%
  • Level15.5%
  • Ecuador ahead79.6%

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
    34.6%
  • 15–30
    22.6%
  • 30–45
    14.8%
  • 45–60
    9.7%
  • 60–75
    6.3%
  • 75–90
    4.1%
  • No goal
    7.8%

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 →HCuraçao winDDrawAEcuador win
HCuraçao ahead2.5%1.9%1.4%
DLevel2.1%11.7%20.7%
AEcuador ahead0.2%2.0%57.4%

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

  • Curaçao trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT
    2.2%
  • Ecuador trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT
    3.3%

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: Locadia (8.8%)

Match detail

Curaçao

Model-rated key players: Jürgen Locadia (FW) — P(scores) 8.8%; Brandley Kuwas (FW) — P(scores) 3.6%; Jearl Margaritha (FW) — P(scores) 3.6%.

How they play

Limited recent tournament data is available for Curaçao's tactical profile. Early indicators suggest a balanced approach.

What they must execute

Curaçao will need to leverage their strengths while managing the physical demands of a tournament spread across three host countries. With Fred Rutten appointed relatively recently (161 days before kickoff), building tactical cohesion in limited preparation time is the immediate challenge.

Storylines
Model bold: Model rates them #48 by tournament-winner probability — 34 places higher than FIFA #82.
Form trend: Gained 88 international Elo points over the last 12 months — current rating 1614.
Local-league core: Only 1 of 24 predicted-squad players played in a top-5 European league last season — the rest play home or in non-top-5 leagues.

Ecuador

Model-rated key players: Kevin Rodríguez (FW) — P(scores) 4.0%; Enner Valencia (FW) — P(scores) 3.3%; Nilson Angulo (FW) — P(scores) 2.0%.

How they play

Ecuador under Sebastián Beccacece play a transition heavy game with 47% possession. Their likely shape is a 4-3-3, though they have also used 4-4-2 and other. They press intensely (PPDA 16.5, top quartile (6th of 40)) and move the ball forward quickly at 5.2 passes per attack. They favour high-quality chances (xG/shot 0.140, among the best in the field).

What they must execute

Ecuador 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 Enner Valencia across what could be seven matches will test the coaching staff's rotation planning.

Storylines
Teen starter: wp-deinner-ordonez-2009-10-2916 at kickoff — 0 caps — projected on the bench, the squad's youngest pick.
Last dance: Enner Valencia36 at kickoff with 105 caps — probably his final World Cup.
Thin at GK: Top pool goalkeeper Hernán Galíndez rates only 0.44 on club save metrics (the field's top sides sit at 0.85+) — a thin position group going into the tournament.
Set-piece outlook

Ecuador converts 10.3% from set-pieces (0.22 expected). Combined, the model expects 0.22 set-piece goals across the 90 minutes.

  • P(Ecuador scores set-piece goal) 20.0%
  • P(set-piece goal in match) 20.0%

Curaçao: Juninho Bacuna on corners (16 corners) (per fbref 2018 19)

Penalty outlook

If a penalty is awarded to Curaçao, the model gives 75.0% conversion, 72.0% for Ecuador.

Curaçao primary PK: Jürgen Locadia (1/1 in 2021-22, per fbref 2018 19).

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

Curaçaobalanced

Partial coverage from FotMob match stats (recent qualifiers and friendlies): possession and shot volume only. Press and build-up metrics are not available for this side.

PPDA
Possession
51%
Directness (yds/pass)
Long balls/90
Set-piece xG
Ecuadortransition-heavy
PPDA
16.5
Possession
47%
Directness (yds/pass)
7.9
Long balls/90
43
Set-piece xG
10%

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

Curaçao

  1. Godfried RoemeratoeDefensive midfieldCover: Kevin Felida · 0.050.14gap
  2. Eloy RoomGoalkeeperCover: Trevor Doornbusch · 0.060.12gap

Ecuador

  1. Joel OrdóñezCentre-backCover: Jackson Porozo · 0.050.80gap
  2. Félix TorresCentre-backCover: Jackson Porozo · 0.050.57gap
  3. Moisés CaicedoDefensive midfieldNo natural backup0.32gap

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 level229 m
  • Avg temperatureFive-year mean over the tournament window25.8 °C
  • Avg humidity69%
  • Heat stressShade WBGT ~27.5 °CLow heat stress
  • Pitch surfacenatural grass

Natural-grass NFL stadium; FIFA-standard hybrid 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. Evening 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)

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

Curaçao

vs Ivory Coast · avg 5.5

6
Leandro BacunaCM
ATK
DEF
PAS
5
Tahith ChongAM
ATK
DEF
PAS

Ecuador

vs Mexico · avg 6.0

8
Hernán GalíndezGK
ATK
DEF
PAS
7
Yeboah ZamoraST
ATK
DEF
PAS
6
Jordy CaicedoST
ATK
DEF
PAS
3
Piero HincapiéCB
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.

Curaçao
Ecuador
8
Hernán Galíndez

Made a crucial, athletic save from a powerful shot, denying a clear goal-scoring opportunity and keeping his team level.

Match observations

  • Curacao, making their first appearance at a FIFA World Cup, created several attacking opportunities throughout the contest.
  • Despite their efforts, Curacao struggled with their finishing, failing to convert their chances into goals.
  • Ecuador's goalkeeper played a pivotal role, making a significant save to keep the score level in a tightly contested affair.

Under the hood

Model-by-model comparison

Curaçao vs Ecuador

Moderate (5.8%)
ModelWeightHomeDrawAway
EloRating-based strength estimate32%
0.0%
18.3%
81.7%
Dixon-ColesGoal-process model with low-score correction63%
4.6%
16.3%
79.2%
Hierarchical PoissonBayesian model with confederation pooling6%
5.8%
17.1%
77.1%
Bayesian stackingLearned-weight combination
0.0%
11.4%
88.6%
Ensemble (published)Uniform average + isotonic calibration
1.9%
18.5%
79.7%
Home spread: 5.8%
Draw spread: 2.1%
Away spread: 4.6%
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(Curaçao win)5.8%
  • + Lineup contribution0.0pp
  • + Style-matchup contribution0.0pp
  • Published P(Curaçao win)5.8%
Curaçao
5.8%
Draw
19.6%
Ecuador
74.6%

Decomposition of the published P(Curaçao 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

DateCompetitionVenueScoreResultxG
20 Jun 2026FIFA World CupNKansas City00D

Curaçao vs Ecuador, every senior international meeting in the martj42 results dataset (score from Curaçao's perspective; H/A/N = home/away/neutral).

Latest news & match context

Team news

No recent headlines for Curaçao or Ecuador.

Match conditions
Stage:
Group E · Matchday 2
Date:
20 Jun
Availability

Curaçao

Curaçao come in at close to full strength.

Ecuador

Ecuador come in at close to full strength.

What it means

Curaçao and Ecuador 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.

Get the Pass, $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.