Before kick-off: define the sample first
| Outcome | matches | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Curaçao wins | 0 | — |
| Draws | 0 | — |
| Côte d'Ivoire wins | 0 | — |
FactUsing the explicit scope of completed 2026 World Cup matches before kick-off, the teams had met 0 times: 0 Curaçao wins, 0 draws and 0 Côte d'Ivoire wins. This is not presented as an all-time record.
FactThe comparison direction on this page is fixed: Curaçao is the recorded home side, Côte d'Ivoire the away side, and 0–2 is stored in that order. A later meeting would remain a separate event record.
Personnel: how the starting XI changed
FactCuraçao changed 0 starters from its previous match; Côte d'Ivoire changed 4 starters. Continuity is calculated from confirmed starters only.
FactCuraçao's new starters include no incoming starter; Côte d'Ivoire's new starters include Guéla Doué, Ousmane Diomande, Christopher Operi, Nicolas Pépé. The names connect the continuity count to specific personnel.
The result: 0–2 and the decisive sequence
FactThe final score was Curaçao 0–2 Côte d'Ivoire. The verified scoring sequence was 7′ Nicolas Pépé、64′ Nicolas Pépé. Score, sequence and line-up changes are facts; the mechanism inferred from them is labelled as analysis.
FactThe verification index for Curaçao versus Côte d'Ivoire fixes four fields: the 0–2 final score, the 2026 FIFA World Cup · Group E stage, the Lincoln Financial Field location and 2 scoring events. Together they identify this match without borrowing context from another fixture.
FactNode 1: Nicolas Pépé scored for Côte d'Ivoire in minute 7, setting the ledger at 0–1; Node 2: Nicolas Pépé scored for Côte d'Ivoire in minute 64, setting the ledger at 0–2
FactCuraçao's location key for this match is Lincoln Financial Field, shared by Côte d'Ivoire; Curaçao's 0 goals and Côte d'Ivoire's 2 goals belong only to this venue and kick-off record.
Why this result made sense
AnalysisCuraçao versus Côte d'Ivoire, 0–2: Côte d'Ivoire converted the lead into the result. Aggregated player data shows a shot gap of 4 and a pass-completion gap of 6.3 percentage points; game-state management mattered more than any single possession number.