🎯

Fixture360 only lists fixtures from a curated set of leagues, chosen specifically to keep our prediction model accurate.

📰

Shock result as Genk defy the odds to beat Antwerp 1-2.

📝 Match Report

How It Unfolded

Genk beat Antwerp 1-2 at Bosuilstadion, Conference League Group - 31, in the Jupiler Pro League. With the result on the board, the sections below measure it against everything the model and the numbers projected in advance.

The Model vs The Result

The Poisson model went into this projecting Antwerp 1.76 xG and Genk 1.67 xG, a combined 3.43. The scoreboard read 1-2 for 3 actual goals. Both sides finished within a goal of their individual projections, so the scoreline sat close to the model's expected shape. Those figures were built on strength ratings of Antwerp attack 0.93 / defence 0.95 against Genk attack 1.33 / defence 1.43, drawn from 60/60 games (CurrentSeason).

On the result, the model split it Antwerp 41% | Draw 23% | Genk 37%, with Antwerp to win its most likely call at 41%. The actual Genk win had been the model's second-ranked read at 37%, so the result diverged from the top call without being a shock.

Goals & Markets

The model rated Over 2.5 goals at 67%. The game delivered 3, so it went over — a call the model got right. Over 1.5 had been 86% and landed. Over 3.5 was 45% and did not. On both teams to score, the model sat at 67% and the match saw both sides score — another call in the model's favour. Historically the two sides average 52% Over 2.5 across their same-competition games (Antwerp 44%, Genk 60%), a base rate that agreed with today's over. Their combined BTTS history runs at 57%, which matched the both-scored outcome.

Trading Patterns vs Reality

Antwerp's trading profile (70 games, 35 home) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 53% of their matches — today it did.

Genk's trading profile (70 games, 35 away) set some clear expectations: BTTS lands in 61% of their matches — today it did.

Form vs Result

On form, Genk arrived the stronger side — 1.76 PPG against 1.24. That form edge translated into the three points.

Verdict

Grading the result against the stored data, 3 of 4 pre-match signals came in: result (miss), Over 2.5 (hit), BTTS (hit), form (hit). The model got the gist right while missing on the margins.

💡 Key Insights