Schoonbeek-Beverst 2-1 Zepperen-Brustem Prediction

Schoonbeek-BeverstSchoonbeek-Beverst
2 — 1FT
Zepperen-BrustemZepperen-Brustem

Updated

Match DNA · Predictions ↗

Open / transitional — model leans Schoonbeek-beverst

Estimated win chances: Schoonbeek-beverst 43.2%, draw 24%, Zepperen-brustem 32.7%. From 4 and 4 competition matches.

TempoHigh
VolatilityMedium
Expected goalsHigh
Tactical styleOpen / transitional
Upset potentialHigh
Draw riskMedium
Model confidenceMedium

Outcome model

Sportra's estimate from each team's season goal rates. It is a statistical guide, not betting advice.

Goal expectancy

1.63Expected goals1.39

From 4 and 4 competition matches

Likely scorelines (Poisson)

  • 1–111.5%
  • 2–19.4%
  • 1–08.3%
  • 1–28%
  • 0–17.1%

Form & momentum

Weighted momentum, recent result run, and form-window W–D–L — the live pulse before kickoff.

44MixedSchoonbeek-beverst
Weighted momentum

Schoonbeek-beverst carries the sharper recent run (+22 momentum).

22Cold spellZepperen-brustem
Schoonbeek-beverst · leaky defenseZepperen-brustem · High-risk / fragile

Schoonbeek-beverst

2W · 0D · 2L
Recent →LWLW
Momentum index

Zepperen-brustem

1W · 0D · 3L
Recent →LLWL
Momentum index

Form split comparison

Wins, draws, and losses across the sampled form window

Season record

League totals anchoring the snapshot — points, goal balance, and season shape vs opponent.

Table gapSchoonbeek-beverst +3

Schoonbeek-beverst

6 pts
50% wins

2W · 0D · 2L · 4 played

For
6
Against
8
Goal diff -2

Zepperen-brustem

3 pts
25% wins

1W · 0D · 3L · 4 played

For
6
Against
7
Goal diff -1

Season shape comparison

League table W–D–L, goal balance, and form-run counts from league profile signals

League depth signals

Extremes, discipline windows, and split stats from the full league profile.

Matchup edges

Attack vs opponent defense in the matchup comparison.

  • Schoonbeek-beverst offensive edge

    Schoonbeek-beverst faces a stingier defense than their attack rating suggests.

    -3
  • Zepperen-brustem offensive edge

    Zepperen-brustem's attack (50%) vs Schoonbeek-beverst's defense (47%).

    +3

Team comparison

Comparison indices from the match data partner.

Attack rating

Attacking threat in the final third.

Schoonbeek-beverst50
Zepperen-brustem50

Defense rating

How well each side limits chances.

Schoonbeek-beverst47
Zepperen-brustem53

Momentum

Weighted form score (recent results count more).

Schoonbeek-beverst44
Zepperen-brustem22

Matchup edge

Attack vs opponent defense (positive = favourable matchup).

Schoonbeek-beverst44
Zepperen-brustem56

Volatility

Higher = more swingy results (big losses, goals against).

Schoonbeek-beverst41
Zepperen-brustem37

Form index

Head-to-head form comparison from the model.

Schoonbeek-beverst67
Zepperen-brustem33

H2H pull

Historical dominance in recent meetings.

Schoonbeek-beverst75
Zepperen-brustem25
Schoonbeek-beverstleaky defense
Zepperen-brustemHigh-risk / fragile

H2H in this snapshot

From 5 meetings included in this prediction snapshot.

1Schoonbeek-beverst20%
3Draws
1Zepperen-brustem20%

Recent meetings