Jupiler Pro League · Belgium · Relegation Round - 1

Charleroi–RWDM

0–0

HT 0–0

Kick-off: Saturday, 6 April 2024 at 14:00
Status: Match Finished
Venue: Stade du Pays de Charleroi, Charleroi

Match statistics

Match statistics
Charleroi		RWDM
14	Shots	10
3	Shots on target	3
9	Shots inside the box	8
3	Goalkeeper saves	3
10	Corners	6
2	Offsides	2
59%	Possession	41%
503	Passes	352
433	Accurate passes

What we expected, and what happened

Expected goals before kick-off: Charleroi 1.88 · RWDM 0.99. On the pitch: 0-0.
Shots Charleroi 14 · RWDM 10; on target 3 and 3.
Charleroi kept the ball more (59%).

Referee

W. De Cremer→

3.44

yellows per match

0.22

reds per match

matches of data

Model prediction

Why this prediction?

The model puts the most likely outcome at 53.8%: “Charleroi to win”. Second comes “a draw” at 26.9%.
Behind that distribution are the expected goals: 1.58 for Charleroi, 0.87 for RWDM.
The highest double chance value is 80.8% (1X — Charleroi win or draw).
These values were computed from 559 past matches.

This is a prediction, not a guarantee; a probability is not a certainty.

These sentences are built by a fixed template; every number in them comes straight from the model's computation, none invented while the text was written.

Charleroi to win53.8%

Draw26.9%

RWDM to win19.2%

When the model has said 50–55% in the past, 1,913 of 3,689 predictions were correct (51.9%). Accuracy record →

14	Fouls	12

1	Yellow cards	4

0	Red cards	0

Double chance

1X — Charleroi win or draw80.8%

12 — any result other than a draw73.1%

X2 — draw or RWDM win46.2%

These three values add up to 200%, not 100% — and that is not a mistake. The options are not mutually exclusive; every outcome is counted in two of them. For the same reason 1X plus X2 exceeds 100% by exactly the probability of a draw (26.9%).

First half

Actual: 0–0

Charleroi lead at half-time32.3%

Level at half-time42.5%

RWDM lead at half-time25.2%

First-half double chance

1X — Charleroi ahead or level74.8%

12 — not level at half-time57.5%

X2 — level or RWDM ahead67.7%

These values are not a fraction of the full-match prediction; they come from a separate model trained on the first-half scores of 559 matches. Its edge over the base rate is markedly smaller than the full-match model's — the measured figure is on the accuracy record. Read them more cautiously. First-half goal markets are not published because they failed to beat the base rate.

Expected fouls and corners

Fouls

Charleroi: at least 9Actual: 14
RWDM: at least 11Actual: 12

Corners

Charleroi: at least 5Actual: 10
RWDM: at least 3Actual: 6

These figures are set to hold in at least 60% of matches; in the rest the count comes in below them. No upper bound is stated — we make no "at most" claim. Yellow cards were measured and are not published: there our model did not beat the historical average.

What these probabilities rest on

Expected goals comes out of a team's attack weighed against its opponent's defence. A strong attack is damped when it meets a strong defence — which is why comparing the ratings on their own is misleading.

How many goals Charleroi score1.88

Attack: Charleroi score below the league average (22% fewer).

Opponent's defence: RWDM concede 49% more than the league average — the defence is the weakest link in this match.

Result: These two effects give an expectation of 1.88 goals (including home advantage).

How many goals RWDM score0.99

Attack: RWDM score below the league average (19% fewer).

Opponent's defence: Charleroi's defence is close to the league average (1.01×), so it doesn't move the expectation much.

Result: These two effects give an expectation of 0.99 goals (including the away penalty).

Most likely scorelines

1–113.6%1–013.0%2–011.0%

A single scoreline is always less likely than an outcome: “home win” is the sum of 1-0, 2-0, 2-1 and dozens more. So the most likely single score can be a draw while the most likely outcome is a home win; the two do not contradict each other.

Week 1 of the season. This prediction was computed from previous seasons. Summer transfers, budget changes and squad rebuilds aren't in the ratings yet — the model can only see that a team has been rebuilt once new results come in.

We measured this and we're not hiding it: in the opening week of past seasons the model came in 3.3 points below the accuracy it claimed (n=220) — for the rest of the season it beats its own claim. The tendency points this way, though it is not proof on its own: in the opening week it slightly over-calls home wins (said 42.7%, got 39.5%) and slightly under-calls draws (said 26.1%, got 28.2%).

This sample is small and not statistically established, which is why we do not correct the model for it. The correction we tried (pulling probabilities toward the league average) didn't win on holdout, so it wasn't added. Read opening-week predictions with a little more caution.