Turkey operates with a system-spread tactical identity characterized by a balanced, mixed-tempo approach. With a possession share of 54.8% and an aggressive 8.7 PPDA, they prioritize high-intensity pressing while relying on Kerem Aktürkoğlu to provide a consistent focal point in the final third.

Playing identity · system ↔ individual × direct ↔ possession

Turkey is plotted from possession share and top-scorer concentration. PPDA and recent form are supporting context when present.

+Recent form8 · 5W 1D 2L

2026-06-26World Cup 2026HTUR 3-2 USAW

2026-06-20World Cup 2026HTUR 0-1 PARL

2026-06-14World Cup 2026ATUR 0-2 AUSL

2026-03-31World Cup 2026 qualifying · UEFAATUR 1-0 KVXxG 1.6-1.1W

2026-03-26World Cup 2026 qualifying · UEFAHTUR 1-0 ROUxG 0.9-0.7W

2025-11-18World Cup 2026 qualifying · UEFAATUR 2-2 ESPxG 1.4-3.1D

2025-11-15World Cup 2026 qualifying · UEFAHTUR 2-0 BULxG 2.5-0.3W

2025-10-14World Cup 2026 qualifying · UEFAHTUR 4-1 GEOxG 1.2-0.8W

International friendly matches are excluded

N2 · Scoring

open play 74%

How they score

Turkey relies heavily on open play to generate the bulk of their attacking output. While open play accounts for nearly three-quarters of their goals, their set-piece efficiency stands out significantly above the field average.

Goal source · share of play-type-classified goals

73.7%

23.7%

Open play73.7%Counter2.6%Corner23.7%

24% set piececorner + free kick

Effectiveness · conversion by source vs benchmark

Open play12%avg 20%-8 pts

29 goals from 243 shots.

Set piece11%avg 4.5%+7 pts

9 goals from 80 shots.

benchmark average higher than field by 3+ pts lower than field by 3+ pts

Goal-source shares use non-own-goal rows with source_class values; own goals are excluded.

+Top scorers · still a threat?100% intact

100% of listed scorer goals come from players still marked in the squad.

Kerem Aktürkoğlu	in squad	10 · 14%
Hakan Çalhanoğlu	in squad	6 · 8%
Arda Güler	in squad	5 · 7%
İrfan Can Kahveci	in squad	5 · 7%

N3 · Conceding

open play 81%

How they concede

Turkey is most vulnerable to goals originating from open play. With over 81% of their conceded goals occurring in open play, opponents may find success by prioritizing quick transitions and sustained movement. While set-piece conversion rates against them are relatively low, their reliance on open-play defensive structures remains a primary area for tactical exploitation.

Conceded goal source · share of play-type-classified goals

81.3%

Open play81.3%Corner12.5%Free kick6.3%

19% set piece concededcorner + free kick

Effectiveness · conceded conversion by source vs benchmark

Open play14%avg 20%-5 pts

26 conceded from 183 shots faced.

Set piece8.6%avg 4.5%+4 pts

6 conceded from 70 shots faced.

benchmark average lower than field by 3+ pts higher than field by 3+ pts

Conceded source shares use non-own-goal rows with source_class values.

N4 · Big moments

in line with ranking · -0.15 GD residual

Better than their rating?

Turkey's performance is currently in line with their Elo ranking. With a goal difference residual of -0.15, their output tracks closely with expectations. However, their higher-than-average volatility suggests a tendency for unpredictable results against both stronger and weaker opposition.

Over-performance DNA · beats-its-rating × reliability, the tournament field

TURTournament field · 48solid line = rating-neutral · dashed = field-median reliability100 Elo ~= -0.37 goals

+Biggest over- & under-performances41 matches

Residual = actual goal difference minus what the Elo gap predicted.

vs LTU · 2022-06-07	GD +6 vs exp +2.05	+3.95
vs BUL · 2025-10-11	GD +5 vs exp +1.45	+3.55
vs HUN · 2025-03-23	GD +3 vs exp +0.37	+2.63
vs ESP · 2025-09-07	GD -6 vs exp -1.11	-4.89
vs FRO · 2022-09-25	GD -1 vs exp +2.34	-3.34
vs MNE · 2024-11-19	GD -2 vs exp +1.22	-3.22