Group J · Matchday 2
AlgeriavsJordan
2026-06-22·20:00 localPredictions finalised
The forecast
Match-outcome probability
- Algeria win52.3%
- Draw24.8%
- Jordan win22.9%
A clash of identities: Algeria's possession-dominant approach meets Jordan's balanced style in a fixture the model gives to Algeria at 69%.
Why the model says this
Favoring Algeria
- ·Algeria holds a significantly higher FIFA ranking at 35, compared to Jordan's 66.
- ·The Elo rating system identifies Algeria as the favoured side with a 53-point advantage over Jordan.
- ·Expected Goals (xG) projections indicate Algeria to score 2.0 goals, while Jordan is expected to score 0.77 goals.
- ·In two historical head-to-head encounters, Algeria has recorded 1 win and 1 draw, with no losses against Jordan.
Favoring Jordan
- ·The Elo model within the ensemble predicts a 31.4% chance for Jordan to win, which is notably higher than the overall ensemble's 22.9%.
- ·Jordan has scored 2 goals in each of their last two matches, both ending in 2-2 draws, demonstrating attacking capability.
- ·One of the two historical head-to-head matches between these teams resulted in a 1-1 draw.
What the model can't fully price
- ·Four players across both squads, all projected starters, are carrying fitness doubts. The model's lineup channel does not currently account for these potential absences.
Form check
Algeria
SteadyAlgeria's recent form shows four wins, one draw, and one loss in their last six fixtures. This includes a dominant 7-0 victory, though a recent 0-0 draw and a 0-2 loss indicate some variability in their performances.
A 7-0 victory in one of their last six matches.
Jordan
DecliningJordan has registered three wins, two draws, and one loss in their last six outings. Their most recent results are two consecutive 2-2 draws, highlighting both their ability to find the net and a susceptibility in defence.
Two consecutive 2-2 draws in their most recent matches.
Analysis
How it plays out
Algeria will dominate the ball. Whether Jordan can stay organised through long spells without it determines if Algeria's possession converts to chances. Algeria will expect to hold 68% possession. Jordan need their shape to stay compact without the ball and be clinical when they win it back.
What decides it
Algeria's possession game (68% avg) requires patience in the final third and quick ball recovery when they lose it. Amine Gouiri's 8.8% scoring probability is the highest in this fixture. Containing that output is Jordan's primary defensive task.
Off the pitch
No major off-pitch asymmetries. This one is decided by the football.
The angle
Likely the last World Cup for Riyad Mahrez. Tournament experience at this level is hard to quantify but hard to replace.
▸Goals & scorelines
Likeliest score 2–0 (12.6%) · xG 2.0 - 0.8
Expected goals
Mean of the Dixon-Coles joint goal distribution. Same fit that produces the most-likely-scoreline list below.
Most likely scorelines
- 2–012.6%
- 1–012.2%
- 1–110.3%
- 2–19.6%
- 3–08.3%
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
- 0–026.0%
- 1–024.5%
- 2–012.4%
- 1–110.2%
- 0–19.1%
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 goals93.0%
- More than 1.5 goals76.5%
- More than 2.5 goals51.6%
- More than 3.5 goals29.5%
- More than 4.5 goals14.3%
- More than 5.5 goals6.0%
- Both teams score46.6%
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
- Algeria clean sheetOpposing team scores zero46.6%
- Jordan clean sheetOpposing team scores zero13.8%
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
- Algeria by 4+8.5%
- Algeria by 3+20.5%
- Algeria by 2+40.8%
- Algeria by 1+65.3%
- Draw21.7%
- Jordan by 1+13.0%
- Jordan by 2+3.9%
- Jordan by 3+0.8%
- Jordan by 4+0.1%
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 51.6% · BTTS 46.6%
Game state through the match
- Algeria ahead65.9%
- Level20.5%
- Jordan ahead13.5%
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
- 0–1536.7%
- 15–3023.2%
- 30–4514.7%
- 45–609.3%
- 60–755.9%
- 75–903.7%
- No goal6.5%
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 → | HAlgeria win | DDraw | AJordan win |
|---|---|---|---|
| HAlgeria ahead | 45.0% | 3.8% | 0.7% |
| DLevel | 18.6% | 13.3% | 5.2% |
| AJordan ahead | 2.3% | 3.6% | 7.5% |
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
- Algeria trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT6.0%
- Jordan trail at HT, avoid defeat at FT4.5%
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: Gouiri (8.8%)
Match detail
Algeria
Model-rated key players: Amine Gouiri (FW) — P(scores) 8.8%; Riyad Mahrez (FW) — P(scores) 3.9%; Mohamed Amoura (FW) — P(scores) 3.1%.
Algeria under Vladimir Petković play a possession dominant game, holding 68% of the ball — among the highest in the tournament field. They press intensely (PPDA 11.1, highest in the field). They generate a high volume of shots (14.1 per 90) and rely heavily on set pieces (20% of their xG).
To succeed, Algeria must control tempo and territory in midfield — their possession-dominant approach depends on dictating the rhythm of each match. Managing minutes for Riyad Mahrez across what could be seven matches will test the coaching staff's rotation planning.
Jordan
Model-rated key players: Ahmad Ersan (FW) — P(scores) 4.1%; Ali Olwan (FW) — P(scores) 4.1%; Baha' Faisal (FW) — P(scores) 4.1%.
Limited recent tournament data is available for Jordan's tactical profile. Early indicators suggest a balanced approach.
Jordan will need to leverage their strengths while managing the physical demands of a tournament spread across three host countries.
Algeria historically converts 20.0% of xG from set-pieces, contributing 0.40 expected set-piece goals in this fixture. Combined, the model expects 0.40 set-piece goals across the 90 minutes.
- P(Algeria scores set-piece goal) 32.8%
- P(set-piece goal in match) 32.8%
Algeria: Ilan Kebbal on corners (30 corners), Nabil Bentaleb on free kicks (per fbref 2021 22)
If a penalty is awarded to Algeria, the model gives 71.4% conversion, 72.0% for Jordan.
Algeria primary PK: Amine Gouiri (3/5 in 2021-22, 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.
Tactical forecast
- PPDA
- 11.1
- Possession
- 68%
- Directness (yds/pass)
- 6.1
- Long balls/90
- 32
- Set-piece xG
- 20%
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
- 37%
- Directness (yds/pass)
- —
- Long balls/90
- —
- Set-piece xG
- —
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
Algeria
- Mohamed AmouraStrikerCover: Amin Chiakha · 0.160.64gap
- Amine GouiriStrikerCover: Amin Chiakha · 0.160.59gap
- Rayan Aït-NouriFull-backCover: Mehdi Dorval · 0.530.45gap
Jordan
- Musa Al-TaamariWingerCover: Mohammad Abu Zrayq · 0.110.49gap
- Yazan Al-ArabCentre-backCover: Mohammad Abualnadi · 0.060.23gap
- Noor Al-RawabdehCentral midfieldCover: Amer Jamous · 0.000.17gap
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 level4 m
- Avg temperatureFive-year mean over the tournament window19.6 °C
- Avg humidity62%
- Heat stressShade WBGT ~20.6 °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)
- Amine GouiriPKFW8.8%
- Riyad MahrezFW3.9%
- Mohamed AmouraFW3.1%
- Ahmad ErsanFW4.1%
- Ali OlwanFW4.1%
- Baha' FaisalFW4.1%
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
Algeria
vs Switzerland · avg 6.2
Jordan
vs Argentina · avg 6.4
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.
9Zidane12'–610'His exceptional goalkeeping performance was crucial in keeping Algeria in the match despite facing numerous shots.
10saves▼
His exceptional goalkeeping performance was crucial in keeping Algeria in the match despite facing numerous shots.
Match timeline
8BenrahmaScored the decisive winning goal with a moment of individual brilliance.
Scored the decisive winning goal with a moment of individual brilliance.
8Algeria #12Scored a crucial equalizer for Algeria, showcasing excellent aerial ability.
Scored a crucial equalizer for Algeria, showcasing excellent aerial ability.
7ChaibiShowed attacking intent and came very close to scoring, demonstrating his threat in the final third.
Showed attacking intent and came very close to scoring, demonstrating his threat in the final third.
6Moura212'–212'Had a scoring opportunity from a corner but failed to convert.
1headers▼
Had a scoring opportunity from a corner but failed to convert.
Match timeline
6Algeria #7Was a prominent figure for Algeria throughout the match, indicating involvement but without specific impactful actions.
Was a prominent figure for Algeria throughout the match, indicating involvement but without specific impactful actions.
8Jordan #21Scored the crucial opening goal for Jordan, giving his team an early lead.
Scored the crucial opening goal for Jordan, giving his team an early lead.
6ReijndersScored a disallowed goal and contributed to attacks with shots, but couldn't make a legal impact on the scoreboard.
Scored a disallowed goal and contributed to attacks with shots, but couldn't make a legal impact on the scoreboard.
6KluivertProduced a powerful shot that tested the goalkeeper, demonstrating his offensive capabilities.
Produced a powerful shot that tested the goalkeeper, demonstrating his offensive capabilities.
6Jordan #10Was an attacking presence for Jordan, actively seeking opportunities throughout the match.
Was an attacking presence for Jordan, actively seeking opportunities throughout the match.
5SommervilleShowed good attacking intent and got into scoring positions but lacked the clinical finish required.
Showed good attacking intent and got into scoring positions but lacked the clinical finish required.
5GakpoGenerated numerous shots and was involved in a disallowed goal, but ultimately failed to convert his chances.
Generated numerous shots and was involved in a disallowed goal, but ultimately failed to convert his chances.
4MalenMissed multiple clear-cut opportunities from inside the box, failing to convert despite good positioning.
Missed multiple clear-cut opportunities from inside the box, failing to convert despite good positioning.
Match observations
- The match was a tightly contested affair with both teams creating numerous scoring opportunities.
- The Netherlands dominated possession and generated a high volume of shots, but struggled with their finishing and were repeatedly denied by an outstanding goalkeeping performance from Algeria.
- Algeria, despite fewer chances, remained dangerous on the counter-attack and ultimately secured a victory with a moment of individual brilliance.
▸Under the hood
Model-by-model comparison
Algeria vs Jordan
| Model | Weight | Home | Draw | Away |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| EloRating-based strength estimate | 32% | 51.4% | 22.0% | 26.6% |
| Dixon-ColesGoal-process model with low-score correction | 63% | 65.7% | 21.2% | 13.1% |
| Hierarchical PoissonBayesian model with confederation pooling | 6% | 63.5% | 21.8% | 14.7% |
| Bayesian stackingLearned-weight combination | — | 69.1% | 20.0% | 10.9% |
| Ensemble (published)Uniform average + isotonic calibration | — | 69.2% | 21.6% | 9.3% |
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(Algeria win)50.9%
- + Lineup contribution0.0pp
- + Style-matchup contribution0.0pp
- Published P(Algeria win)50.9%
Decomposition of the published P(Algeria 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22 Jun 2026 | FIFA World Cup | NSanta Clara | 2–1 | W | — |
| 30 May 2004 | Friendly | HAnnaba | 1–1 | D | — |
| 29 Sep 1974 | Kuneitra Cup | NDamascus | 6–0 | W | — |
Algeria vs Jordan, every senior international meeting in the martj42 results dataset (score from Algeria's perspective; H/A/N = home/away/neutral).
Latest news & match context
No recent headlines for Algeria or Jordan.
- Stage:
- Group J · Matchday 2
- Date:
- 22 Jun
Ranked by likely importance. None of these feed the forecast: the probabilities rest on team strength, venue conditions and the style matchup.
- 1.Squad availability: 1 carrying a fitness doubt across the two squads, 1 of them projected starters. The forecast does not adjust for who is missing: its lineup channel currently contributes zero, so this is context the probabilities do not include.
Algeria
Algeria: 1 carrying a fitness doubt.
- DoubtAnthony Mandrea, the first-choice goalkeeper, is recovering from Shoulder injury and is a fitness watch item; if unavailable the projected XI shifts.
Jordan
Jordan come in at close to full strength.
Availability runs in Jordan's favour here: Algeria are managing a fitness concern over Anthony Mandrea, while Jordan's projected XI looks intact.
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.