Ecuador and Türkiye have taken 101 shots for 10.1 location-based expected goals and scored zero player goals. That is the cleanest way into what this tournament's shot map is really saying.
Marian Dabrowski·25 Jun 2026·10 min read
Ecuador and Türkiye have combined for 101 shots and 10.1 location-based xG without a single goal scored by one of their own shooters. That is the World Cup shot map that should not exist.
That blank goal column flattens two very different stories. Ecuador’s drought is built on better looks and the biggest chances in the sample. Türkiye’s drought is built on accumulation: more attacks, more repeat pressure, and 32 attempts from outside the box.
Even the conservative version says the same thing. Strip out every headed shot, including corner-phase headers, and the drought is still 84 shots, 6.1 location-based xG and zero goals, roughly one in 450. The scoreboard is too harsh. The shot map may be generous in places. But even the conservative version says the zero is doing too much work. The snapshot is frozen through 25 Jun 2026, 01:00 UTC.
Matches
54
Teams
48
Mapped shots
1,334
All goals
161
Own goals
11
Location xG
150
Ecuador: 39 shots · 5.3 location-based xG
Türkiye: 62 shots · 4.7 location-based xG
Ecuador have the better locations; Türkiye have the larger pile of attempts. Outlined circles are headed shots, and the three biggest chances are labelled.
Drought stress test
Scenario
Shots
Location xG
Shooter goals
Zero-goal check
Ecuador + Türkiye
101
10.1
0
0.004% · 1 in 23,000
Without headed shots
84
6.1
0
0.228% · 1 in 450
Ecuador only
39
5.3
0
0.485% · 1 in 210
Türkiye only
62
4.7
0
0.881% · 1 in 110
Two Different Droughts
Ecuador and Türkiye have the same blank column, but not the same shot-map problem. Ecuador wasted quality: 39 shots, 5.3 location-based xG and 0.14 location-based xG per shot. Türkiye buried opponents in volume without the same precision: 62 shots, 4.7 location-based xG and 0.08 location-based xG per shot.
The top chances underline the split. Ecuador have the biggest chances on the board. Türkiye’s best looks are smaller, which is the point: the drought is built from volume, including 32 outside-box attempts, rather than a pile of tap-ins.
Top three chances for each drought team
Team
Player
Chance type
Opp.
Min
Location xG
Ecuador
Enner Valencia
Six-yard central, open play
Curaçao
66'
0.55
Ecuador
Piero Hincapié
Six-yard central, headed chance
Ivory Coast
90'+9'
0.36
Ecuador
Gonzalo Plata
Six-yard central, headed chance
Curaçao
59'
0.36
Türkiye
Deniz Gül
Six-yard central, open play
Paraguay
89'
0.25
Türkiye
Deniz Gül
Close box, headed chance
Paraguay
62'
0.23
Türkiye
Mert Müldür
Close box, headed chance
Paraguay
75'
0.21
This is where the numbers stop feeling abstract. Ecuador’s biggest look was Enner Valencia’s 0.55 location-based xG chance against Curaçao, and 2 of Ecuador’s top three chances were headed looks inside the box. Türkiye’s biggest opening was smaller at 0.25 location-based xG, which is why their drought reads differently: more attacks, more strain on the defence, less one-shot inevitability.
The Wider Map
The rest of the tournament is what makes the drought believable. Ecuador and Türkiye sit in the lower-right drought quadrant. Germany and Sweden are the mirror image above the line. Canada and England fill in around them, proof that clean process still shows up elsewhere in the sample.
Diagonal guide: above the line means finishing ahead of location-based xG; the lower-right quadrant is the drought territory where the scoreboard is harsher than the shot map.
Germany look like both signal and noise. The repeatable part is real: 42 shots, 5.0 location-based xG and 39 attempts from inside or around the box rather than pure long-range chasing. The volatile part is the finishing spike: 4 of their 9 shooter goals were worth less than 0.12 location-based xG, and Deniz Undav and Nathaniel Brown alone have pushed them well above the model. Sweden belong in the same warning bucket at 3.6 goals above location-based xG.
Canada and England, the clean process teams
Team
Matches
Shots
Location xG
Location xG/match
Location xG/shot
Canada
3
58
8.0
2.7
0.14
England
2
41
6.1
3.0
0.15
Full Shot Atlas
Canada and England tier
8.0 and 6.1 location xG created
Ecuador/Türkiye drought
101 shots, 10.1 location xG, 0 shooter goals
Germany finishing
9 shooter goals from 5.0 location xG
Click any shot to see who took it, its location-based xG and how far out it was. Goals carry a sun. Use the menus to switch team or shot type; it opens on Argentina because every team at once is a blur.
2 games · 21 shots · 2.7 location-based xG
Open playNon-corner headerCorner phasePenaltyDirect free kickOwn goalGoal
Raw shot-danger surfacelowerhigher
Attacking-half view with the goal at the top. Circle size follows location-based xG. The article sample is filtered to shots that can be placed on this map.
The full atlas puts every attempt into the same attacking frame, with the goal at the top. The raw coordinates are normalized to a 0-100 attacking frame, aligned toward one goal and then scored on that common scale.
This map also lives on its own page, refreshed through the tournament as new games come in: the live World Cup shot map.
What To Watch Next
The model earns its keep by being narrow: it prices where a shot came from, before the finish lands. That points it forward, toward what the next week might bring.
Watch Ecuador
Do the premium looks stay premium?
Valencia already owns the biggest drought chance at 0.55 location-based xG.
Watch Germany and Sweden
Does the finishing heat last?
4 Germany goals below 0.12 location-based xG, plus Sweden at 3.6 above the model.
Watch Canada and England
Can the clean process hold?
2.7 and 3.0 location-based xG per match keep them in the trust tier.
If Ecuador keep creating close-box looks, the zero should crack quickly. If Türkiye keep piling up shots while the average chance value stays low, the drought can linger even with the pressure. Germany and Sweden need the finishing heat to survive another week. Canada and England mostly need to keep producing the same process.
Methodology
Each row is treated as one shot with location, distance, angle to the posts, shot-type flags and a fixed penalty value. The formula does not see pressure, goalkeeper position, pass speed, defensive traffic, or whether the shooter was stretching.
Across this snapshot the raw formula totals 169.9 raw xG against 150 shooter goals, excluding own goals (1.13x). The article display scales those values by 0.88, producing 150.0 location-based xG. The constant multiplier only puts the location model on this tournament’s observed goal environment; it does not change team order, shot order, or any comparison inside the article.
Shot-type buckets are mutually exclusive. A headed shot after a corner is counted as corner phase, while the header bucket means non-corner headers. The harsher drought stress test goes further and removes every headed shot, including corner-phase headers. Open play has 111 goals; the non-corner header line is the clearest model warning at 14 goals from 34.3 location-based xG. By zone, Close box carries the most location-based xG, while the six-yard central band accounts for 32 of the 150 shooter goals.
Open play111 goals · 90.9 location xG
Non-corner header14 goals · 34.3 location xG
Corner phase16 goals · 19.5 location xG
Penalty6 goals · 4.7 location xG
Direct free kick3 goals · 0.6 location xG
Own goal11 goals · 0.0 location xG
Gold is goals, blue is location-based xG. Own goals have goals and no shooter xG by design.
Ecuador and Türkiye may not both be unlucky in the same way. But after 101 shots, the cleanest conclusion is this: the scoreboard is too harsh, the shot map may be too generous in places, and the zero is still the most misleading number in the picture.
Share
Join the conversation
Got a take on this one? We’d love to hear it — drop us a line.