Match ☆ 01 Mar 1995
ITL · UEFA Champions League · 1994 Quarter-final · Leg 1
ITA AC Milan
2–0
FT · Home win
POR SL Benfica
2nd leg: SL Benfica 0–0 AC Milan · 15 Mar 1995 · Agg 2–0 AC Milan advance
View head-to-head record →
The models what they said before kick-off
Draw predictor · this site's own figures
Figure AC Milan SL Benfica
N — no-draw runmatches in a row without a draw 2 1
Max Nthis team's longest run ever 13 12
E — draw debtexpected draws over the current run 0.67 0.24
p50 — last 50draw rate over its last 50 matches 36.0% 26.0%
p100 — last 100draw rate over its last 100 matches 32.0% 23.0%
Draw % — all timeshare of every match drawn 27.1% 24.3%
Σ Nboth sides' runs added 3
Σ Eboth sides' draw debt added 0.91

These are the figures that held before kick-off: each side's record over every match it had played before 1 Mar 1995, computed exactly as the predictor computes today's. Draw score and rank are left out: both place a team against the whole field, and the field can only be scored as it stands now.

Team strength · Elo
AC Milan 1,729 after: 1,745
SL Benfica 1,755 after: 1,738
Rating gap +39 home advantage included
Draws at this gap 26.3% 25–49 · 72,955 matches
Goals model · Dixon-Coles
Expected goals 1.06 – 0.79 home – away
Home win 40.7%
Draw 33.3% every level score added up
Away win 26.0%
Both together · the blend
Blended draw chance 31.5% 75% goals model · 25% Elo gap
Goals model said 33.3% form only
This Elo gap said 26.3% strength only

The mix is the one that scored best over 544,576 matches — the two are averaged on the log-odds scale, not simply added.

The regression · the logistic model
Logistic draw chance 28.2% five signals, then recalibrated
95% band 28.1% – 29.0% how unsure the fit is, not the match
The blend says 31.5% the older published reading

A regression over five signals — the goals model, the draw rate at this Elo gap, the expected goals in the fixture and the competition's own base draw rate — with an isotonic map on top to put the level back where reality is. Held out on a decade it never saw it beat the blend above, which is why both are shown here while one is chosen. Unlike the two readings above it, this one is not leak-free: the model was fitted on all of history, this match included, so for a played match it is a description rather than a prediction.

Both figures are what the models knew before this match — neither ever reads the result it is describing, so they can be compared with what actually happened. Measured over 160,869 priced matches the goals model is slightly worse than the bookmakers (how it is scored), so a high draw chance means an even, low-scoring match rather than value. Descriptive statistics, not betting advice.