WC 2026 · Forecasting Oxford Football Forecasting
🇺🇿

Uzbekistan

AFC Group K
0.0% Champion probability ±0.00 MC-SE
Coach
Fabio Cannavaro foreign · Italian
Elo (model)
1,718 world 37th
Squad value
€58M
Power → Reality
36th 34th +0.01 pp · neutral draw

Fig. D1 Fixture-aware · 100k sims

Uzbekistan — stage progression

Round of 32: 36.41% (95% MC 36.11%–36.71%; MC-SE ±0.15 pts) Round of 32 reach 36.4% ±0.15 Round of 16: 8.44% (95% MC 8.26%–8.61%; MC-SE ±0.09 pts) Round of 16 reach 8.4% ±0.09 Quarter-final: 2.07% (95% MC 1.98%–2.16%; MC-SE ±0.04 pts) Quarter-final reach 2.1% ±0.04 Semi-final: 0.44% (95% MC 0.40%–0.48%; MC-SE ±0.02 pts) Semi-final reach 0.4% ±0.02 Final: 0.09% (95% MC 0.07%–0.11%; MC-SE ±0.01 pts) Final reach 0.1% ±0.01 Champion: 0.02% (95% MC 0.01%–0.03%; MC-SE ±0.00 pts) Champion reach 0.0% ±0.00

Uzbekistan is most likely eliminated before the knockout rounds: 36% to clear the group. Champion probability 0.02%.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model
Group K Confed Advance (top 2) Reach R32
1🇵🇹PortugalUEFA64.4%93.8%
2🇨🇴ColombiaCONMEBOL57.9%91.4%
3🇨🇩Congo DRCAF10.8%40.2%
4🇺🇿UzbekistanAFC8.4%36.4%

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model

Bracket position Half 1 · Quadrant 3

Earliest possible meetings

No collision rows recorded for this team.

Collision = the earliest round the bracket wiring could pit Uzbekistan against that side. Full bracket & collision matrix →

Match 24 · 2026-06-18 · Mexico City Stadium home
Uzbekistan Colombia
10.6% win 23.4% draw 66% loss
Most likely 0–1 (16.0%) λ 0.58–1.79 Over 2.5 42% · BTTS 37%
Match 47 · 2026-06-23 · Houston Stadium away
Uzbekistan Portugal
8.9% win 20.7% draw 70.4% loss
Most likely 0–2 (15.3%) λ 0.57–1.99 Over 2.5 47% · BTTS 38%
Match 72 · 2026-06-27 · Atlanta Stadium away
Uzbekistan Congo DR
32.4% win 35% draw 32.6% loss
Most likely 0–0 (17.6%) λ 0.90–0.91 Over 2.5 27% · BTTS 36%
How a match forecast is built

Each pairing is scored by the ensemble (Dixon-Coles bivariate-Poisson, the Bayesian hierarchical model and the global LightGBM-Poisson, log-pooled), producing an 11×11 scoreline grid that is marginalised into win/draw/loss, expected goals (λ), over/under 2.5 and both-teams-to-score. These are the same distributions the tournament simulator consumes, oriented here to Uzbekistan. Knockout fixtures are not shown — their occupants are still probabilistic, so there is no single pairing to forecast yet.

Fig. D2 Relative to the 48-team median

Uzbekistan vs the field

Elo rating: 1718 vs field median 1780 (0.97× the field) Elo rating 1718 med 1780 Recent NT form: 1.60 ppg vs field median 1.87 ppg (0.86× the field) Recent NT form 1.60 ppg med 1.87 ppg Squad value: €58M vs field median €286M (0.20× the field) Squad value €58M med €286M Squad form (global): 0.209 vs field median 0.211 (0.99× the field) Squad form (global) 0.209 med 0.211 Fitness readiness: 0.396 vs field median 0.707 (0.56× the field) Fitness readiness 0.396 med 0.707 Familiarity / chemistry: 0.040 vs field median 0.015 (2.60× the field) Familiarity / chemistry 0.040 med 0.015 Experience (mean caps): 31 vs field median 25 (1.26× the field) Experience (mean caps) 31 med 25

Read each row as a multiple of the field median: dots to the right of the dashed line are above-field, to the left below. Raw values are labelled on the right so the comparison is transparent.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model

Fig. D3 Bayesian projection residual g

Uzbekistan on the decoupling axis

aligned (0) ← record > squad price squad valued > record →

g = −0.51 ± 0.06: the record outruns the squad price — the team has achieved more than its comparatively modest squad value would predict.

Source · Oxford Football Forecasting model
What g means — and its limits

g is the residual from regressing a team’s current squad market value on its history-based strength in the Bayesian hierarchical model. Positive g means the squad is valued above what the team’s record predicts; negative means the record outruns the squad’s price (the side achieves more than its market value implies). Regressed on out-of-sample success the slope is positive — squad-rich sides go a touch further — but not statistically significant at n = 3 tournaments, so treat a single team’s g as a descriptive read, not a hard prediction. The full decoupling essay →

26players
25.9mean age
31mean caps
0%in a top-5 league
16distinct clubs
3largest club bloc
# Player Pos Club League Club min Gls Caps NT gls
1Utkir YusupovGKNavbahorno club data390
2Abdukodir KhusanovDFManchester CityPremier League +2.21z2,8170260
3Khojiakbar AlijonovDFPakhtakorSuper League −0.96z9090402
4Farrukh SayfievDFNeftchi Ferganano club data451
5Rustam AshurmatovDFEsteghlalPersian Gulf Pro League −0.98z1,2821481
6Akmal MozgovoyMFPakhtakorno club data241
7Otabek ShukurovMFBaniyasPro League −0.09z9530839
8Jamshid IskanderovMFNeftchi FerganaSuper League −0.96z7392374
9Odiljon HamrobekovMFTractorPersian Gulf Pro League −0.98z5400721
10Jaloliddin MasharipovMFEsteghlalno club data7412
11Oston UrunovMFPersepolisno club data4110
12Abduvohid NematovGKNasafno club data80
13Sherzod NasrullaevDFNasafno club data302
14Eldor Shomurodov (captain)FWİstanbul BaşakşehirSüper Lig +0.49z3,263239144
15Umar EshmurodovDFNasafSuper League −0.96z1,4870290
16Botirali ErgashevGKNeftchi FerganaSuper League −0.96z584020
17Dostonbek KhamdamovMFPakhtakorSuper League −0.96z3480335
18Abdulla AbdullaevDFDibbano club data170
19Azizjon GanievMFAl Bataehno club data190
20Azizbek AmonovFWDinamo Samarqandno club data122
21Igor SergeevFWPersepolisno club data8224
22Abbosbek FayzullaevMFİstanbul BaşakşehirSüper Lig +0.49z1,1654318
23Sherzod EsanovMFBukharano club data10
24Bekhruz KarimovDFSurkhon TermizSuper League −0.96z281120
25Avazbek UlmasalievDFAGMKSuper League −0.96z1,285200
26Jakhongir UrozovDFDinamo SamarqandSuper League −0.96z0130

Source · Official squad announcements · API-Football (global club coverage). 12 of 26 players have no club season matched in API-Football — shown as “— no club data”, not imputed. Form coverage for this squad: 50%.

Diaspora in the hosts

70,370

2.0 per 1,000 of home population

Host-language familiarity

Foreign

primary language Russian

Climate adaptation gap

°C

home-vs-venue heat differential

Venue extremes

47°C

peak heat index · altitude up to 2,287 m

Travel

12h

max time-zone shift · nearest venue 9,869 km

Source · UN DESA international migrant stock · US Census Bureau · Open-Meteo & venue records

Fig. D4 eloratings.net method · year-end values

Uzbekistan — Elo since 1992

1826 world #37
Uzbekistan Qualified-field median

Uzbekistan ends the series at 1826 Elo, the world’s 37th-ranked side — below the qualified-field median.

Source · eloratings.net
Which Elo is this?

This line is the public eloratings.net series (year-end ratings), which terminates exactly at the current rating and world rank shown on the marker. It is a different number from the Elo shown in the header band (a panel-normalised rating used inside the forecast); the two are ~0.99 correlated but on different scales. We keep them distinct rather than blend them.

50% Squad club-form coverage Share of this squad with a matched club season feeding the global form layer.
54% Fitness-readiness coverage Where below 100%, part of the fitness signal is imputed by the de-biasing layer.
n = 3 Out-of-sample tournaments The model is validated on three held-out World Cups; it matches the market, it does not beat it.

Validated on n=3 held-out tournaments; coverage below 1.0 means part of this squad's club-form/fitness is imputed (the global de-biasing layer). For Uzbekistan, 12 of 26 players are shown as “— no club data”. Full validation, calibration & conformal coverage →