
Europa Conference League · Matchday
2026-08-13 16:00:00 · 00:00

Prediction Result
AI Predicted: 0-1|Actual: 1-1
AI Prediction
Top AI Picks
Goal Probability
Odds Comparison
Polymarket Odds
Trading Strategy
Match Report
Ilves 1–1 Rijeka | Europa Conference League | Second Leg Review
A tense, hard-fought draw in Tampere saw Ilves and Rijeka share the spoils in the second leg of their Europa Conference League qualifier on August 13, 2026. The 1–1 result brought the tie to a climax that will require further context from the first leg to determine who advances, but on the night, neither side could claim a decisive advantage.
Match Analysis
Rijeka arrived at this second leg as the side with greater pedigree in the tie, and the statistics broadly reflect their control through much of the contest. Matjaž Kek's side enjoyed 55% possession to Ilves's 45%, registered 124 attacks compared to the hosts' 85, and edged the shots-on-target count 5 to 4. Yet football rarely rewards the more dominant team automatically, and Camilo Speranza's Ilves proved that axiom emphatically.
The match was largely uneventful until the final half-hour, when a flurry of substitutions and goals transformed its character. Stanislav Baranov, introduced from the bench just five minutes earlier at the 59th minute, broke the deadlock on 64 minutes, converting a fine assist from Teemu Hytönen to give Ilves the lead. It was precisely the kind of impact a substitute can have — fresh legs, clear intent, and a decisive finish.
Rijeka's response, however, was swift and clinical. Just six minutes later, on 70 minutes, Justas Lasickas levelled proceedings, finishing from a delivery by Ante Majstorović to restore parity. Notably, Lasickas was immediately withdrawn at 71 minutes, replaced by Amer Gojak, having done his job at the most critical moment.
Ilves pushed for a winner in the closing stages, making a triple substitution at the 81st minute — introducing Bamba Abdoul Goudouss, Hamidou Coulibaly, and Roope Riski simultaneously — but the final scoreline would not change. Rijeka's Mladen Devetak picked up a yellow card on 87 minutes for a foul as the visitors looked to manage the game out.
Despite their attacking dominance in terms of volume — 62 dangerous attacks to Ilves's 53 — Rijeka's 6 shots off target compared to Ilves's 2 suggests a degree of wastefulness in the final third when precision mattered most.
Prediction Review
Our pre-match forecast leaned toward a Rijeka victory, assigning a 46% probability to an away win against a 26% chance for the hosts. The confidence rating stood at 59/100, reflecting genuine uncertainty in the tie. Ultimately, that prediction proved incorrect — the match ended in a draw, which carried a 28% probability in our model. While Rijeka's statistical dominance on the night supports the underlying logic of favouring the Croatian side, football's unpredictability — particularly Baranov's impact as a substitute — meant the result defied the forecast.
Key Takeaways
- Stanislav Baranov's introduction was the defining moment, with the substitute scoring within five minutes of entering the pitch.
- Rijeka's volume of play didn't translate into dominance on the scoresheet, with 6 shots off target highlighting moments of imprecision.
- The 1–1 draw maintains balance heading into whatever tie-breaking mechanism applies, given this was the second leg.
- Ilves's resilience under Camilo Speranza — despite conceding possession and attacks — shows tactical discipline and a threat on the counter.
Ilves vs Rijeka — Frequently Asked Questions
Who will win Ilves vs Rijeka?
PredictNext's AI model favours Rijeka with a 46% win probability — Ilves 26%, draw 28%, Rijeka 46%.
What is the predicted score for Ilves vs Rijeka?
The AI forecasts a 0-1 scoreline for Ilves vs Rijeka, generated with 59% model confidence.
Will Ilves vs Rijeka have over 2.5 goals?
The model gives 40% for over 2.5 goals and 60% for under 2.5 goals in Ilves vs Rijeka.
How accurate was the Ilves vs Rijeka prediction?
PredictNext's AI predicted 0-1; the match finished 1-1. The winner call was incorrect.