New Zealand — Belgium 1:5: Thirty-Five Shots Tell It All

Belgium shot thirty-five times; New Zealand managed six attempts in reply. The 1:5 defeat surprises the model in one respect only — that the score was not heavier. xG 3.60 against 0.24 is a chasm, and the 56% anomaly score adds just one clarification: Belgium's finishing outran even that forecast.

35 Attempts, 23 From Inside The Box

Belgium's attack never idled: 35 efforts, 23 of them from inside the penalty area. Ten found the target and five became goals — while 12 shots were blocked, a protocol line of its own: New Zealand kept throwing bodies at the ball; there were simply too many waves. Another 12 Belgian attempts came from outside the box — not out of desperation, but because the second ball after every repelled attack kept landing at Belgian feet.

8 corners fed the pressure, but the most interesting thing about the flood is its source. At 55% possession Belgium never passed its opponent to death: 526 passes is an ordinary night's number. The volume came from decision speed in the final third — the ball reached the box before the defence reached its positions.

Passing accuracy of 462 from 526 at that tempo is an achievement in itself: Belgium managed to accelerate attacks without losing the ball in transitions. That speed without waste is what turned ordinary possession into a continuous siege. For comparison, the hosts' single blocked shot shows how rarely the visitors had to defend inside their own area at all.

Five Saves From New Zealand's Goalkeeper

The hosts' keeper is the only one owed no apology: 5 saves from 10 shots on target. He repelled half of everything aimed at his frame, behind a defence that by the end could not even foul in time — 10 infringements all match against that volume of attacks is not toughness, it is being a step late.

New Zealand did find its goal: of 6 attempts, 2 were on target and one finished in the net. An xG of 0.24 rates the hosts' attacking evening without malice, but honestly: one goal was the ceiling — and the ceiling was reached. The hosts' 5 corners are a surprisingly decent figure next to six shots: set pieces remained the only way to move the game to the other end even briefly.

Why 45% Possession Meant Nothing

On paper New Zealand held the ball nearly as much as its opponent: 45% against 55. But possession comes in kinds: 435 passes with 369 accurate is ball-rolling in safe zones, and it produced six attempts in ninety minutes. Belgium surrendered the ball willingly, knowing every recovery converted into an approach at the other end.

The visitors' discipline completes the contrast: 7 fouls and zero yellow cards — Belgium never needed to stop its opponent illegally, because the opponent barely moved in its direction. Even the offside line is symmetrical and empty: 1 apiece — runs in behind simply were not part of this plot. New Zealand's 2 yellow cards against zero for the visitors close the disciplinary contrast: the fouling falls to whoever is perpetually a step behind. The passing map completes the same picture: 435 host passes against 526 for the visitors at near-equal possession — the ball idled with one side and worked for the other.

What 1:5 Says About The Distance Between These Teams

The most eloquent distance of the night is between the teams' xG: 3.60 against 0.24. Belgium overshot even that plan by scoring five, but the model fully endorses the direction of the rout. For the hosts the conclusion is unpleasant but clear: six attempts a game wins no points at this level. For Belgium there are no worries at all — only the question of whether this rate of fire survives against defences that get back in time.

Numbers that didn't make the recap

New Zealand and Belgium split the ball 45% to 55%; on its own that number doesn't explain the result, but it frames the rest of the data. New Zealand completed 435 passes at 84.8% accuracy, Belgium 526 at 87.8%; raw pass volume alone doesn't correlate with chance quality in this game.

New Zealand were penalised 10 times, Belgium 7 times; the report doesn't break fouls down by zone, so it's hard to tie the number directly to chances conceded. The offside count (1-1) is modest, but it tends to move with the number of balls played over the top rather than total attacking volume.

New Zealand won 5 corners to Belgium's 8; inside the box it was 3-23 in shot attempts, generally a better read on chance quality than the 3-12 split from distance.

Belgium's defence blocked more efforts (12 in total) — a detail the final score doesn't show but the report does.

All figures above come from the official match report for New Zealand vs Belgium, with nothing estimated or rounded by eye.