WC 2026 · Forecasting Oxford Football Forecasting
🇬🇭 Ghana CAF Elo 1,510 · world 94th
33 / 32 / 35 win · draw · win most likely 1–1
🇵🇦 Panama CONCACAF Elo 1,730 · world 32nd
Group
L
Date
Wednesday 17 June 2026
Kick-off
23:00 UTC
Venue
Toronto Stadium, Toronto

Fig. V7 Ensemble · Group L

Ghana v Panama — scoreline probabilities

0 Ghana 0–0 Panama · 13.31% 13 Ghana 0–1 Panama · 11.99% 12 Ghana 0–2 Panama · 6.97% 7.0 Ghana 0–3 Panama · 2.48% 2.5 Ghana 0–4 Panama · 0.66% 0.7 Ghana 0–5 Panama · 0.14% Ghana 0–6 Panama · 0.03% Ghana 0–7 Panama · 0.00% 36% 1 Ghana 1–0 Panama · 11.48% 11 Ghana 1–1 Panama · 14.57% (most likely) 15 Ghana 1–2 Panama · 7.22% 7.2 Ghana 1–3 Panama · 2.57% 2.6 Ghana 1–4 Panama · 0.69% 0.7 Ghana 1–5 Panama · 0.15% Ghana 1–6 Panama · 0.03% Ghana 1–7 Panama · 0.00% 37% 2 Ghana 2–0 Panama · 6.54% 6.5 Ghana 2–1 Panama · 6.98% 7.0 Ghana 2–2 Panama · 3.73% 3.7 Ghana 2–3 Panama · 1.33% 1.3 Ghana 2–4 Panama · 0.36% Ghana 2–5 Panama · 0.08% Ghana 2–6 Panama · 0.01% Ghana 2–7 Panama · 0.00% 19% 3 Ghana 3–0 Panama · 2.25% 2.3 Ghana 3–1 Panama · 2.41% 2.4 Ghana 3–2 Panama · 1.29% 1.3 Ghana 3–3 Panama · 0.46% Ghana 3–4 Panama · 0.12% Ghana 3–5 Panama · 0.03% Ghana 3–6 Panama · 0.01% Ghana 3–7 Panama · 0.00% 7% 4 Ghana 4–0 Panama · 0.58% 0.6 Ghana 4–1 Panama · 0.62% 0.6 Ghana 4–2 Panama · 0.33% Ghana 4–3 Panama · 0.12% Ghana 4–4 Panama · 0.03% Ghana 4–5 Panama · 0.01% Ghana 4–6 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 4–7 Panama · 0.00% 2% 5 Ghana 5–0 Panama · 0.12% Ghana 5–1 Panama · 0.13% Ghana 5–2 Panama · 0.07% Ghana 5–3 Panama · 0.03% Ghana 5–4 Panama · 0.01% Ghana 5–5 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 5–6 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 5–7 Panama · 0.00% 0% 6 Ghana 6–0 Panama · 0.02% Ghana 6–1 Panama · 0.02% Ghana 6–2 Panama · 0.01% Ghana 6–3 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 6–4 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 6–5 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 6–6 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 6–7 Panama · 0.00% 0% 7 Ghana 7–0 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 7–1 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 7–2 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 7–3 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 7–4 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 7–5 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 7–6 Panama · 0.00% Ghana 7–7 Panama · 0.00% 0%

Cells show P(exact scoreline); the right column and bottom row are the marginal totals P(Ghana scores k) and P(Panama scores k). Grid runs 0–7 goals per side; the 8–10-goal tail holds 0.00% of the mass and is omitted from the cells (not from the totals).

The grid makes Panama favourites at 34.9%, with a 32.1% draw. The single most-likely scoreline is 1–1 (14.6%), but no exact score clears 15% — the distribution is broad, as it should be.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model

Win · draw · loss

🇬🇭 Ghana 33% Draw 32.1% 🇵🇦 Panama 34.9%

Rounded values sum to exactly 100%.

Expected goals (λ)

🇬🇭Ghana 1.03
🇵🇦Panama 1.07

Poisson means feeding the grid; combined expected goals 2.10.

35.1% Over 2.5 goals P(3 or more goals in the match)
64.9% Under 2.5 goals complement of over-2.5
43.4% Both teams to score P(each side scores ≥ 1)
1–1 Most-likely scoreline modal exact score · 14.6%
BMO Field Toronto, Canada
Heat index 25°C apparent temperature (June–July)
Max temperature 25°C June–July daily high
Humidity 71% relative humidity
Altitude 81m above sea level

Source · Open-Meteo & venue records. Travel and time-zone exposure are per-team — see each side's dossier.

1,510 Elo rating 1,730
1.33 Recent NT form 1.67
€291M Squad value €38M
0.187 Squad form (global) 0.123
0.689 Fitness readiness 0.572
+0.34 Decoupling g −0.35

Panama carry the Elo edge (220 points). On the decoupling axis, Ghana is the side whose squad is valued higher relative to its record.

How a single-match forecast is built

The pairing is scored by the ensemble — Dixon-Coles bivariate-Poisson, the Bayesian hierarchical model and the global LightGBM-Poisson, log-pooled — yielding the 11×11 scoreline grid above. Win/draw/loss, expected goals (λ), over-2.5 and both-teams-to-score are all marginals of that one grid, so they are mutually consistent by construction. The strength inputs shown here feed the models; the forecast is their pooled output, not a manual weighting of these rows. The model matches the market out-of-sample (RPS 0.1891 vs 0.1905); it does not significantly beat it at n = 3. The ensemble, in full →