Bayer Leverkusen created enough chances to win, outshot their opponents nearly two to one, and generated a net expected goal advantage of +0.61. They lost anyway. One match into the Bundesliga season, the defending champions sit bottom of CURSD's luck rankings with a Luck Index of 5, the lowest in the league.
One game is a small sample. But it is the only sample we have, and every number in it points the same direction.
The xPoints Gap
Leverkusen's expected points total after matchday one sits at 1.77. Their actual points total sits at zero. That delta of -1.77 is the single largest gap in the Bundesliga, which is precisely why they rank as the league's most cursed side. In a single match they have already burned through nearly two points of expected value. For context, some teams carry negative xPoints deltas of that magnitude across entire half-seasons before anyone notices. Leverkusen managed it in 90 minutes.
Finishing: Not the Problem
Here is where the data gets clarifying rather than damning. Leverkusen's finishing delta is +0.12, meaning they scored 2 goals from 1.88 xG worth of chances. That is almost perfectly efficient. They took 21 shots and converted their opportunities at a rate that sits right on the expected curve. There is no crisis of composure in front of goal. The forwards are doing their job. The job just isn't being rewarded.
Defense: Where the Curse Lives
The real damage is on the other side of the ball. Leverkusen conceded 3 goals from just 1.27 xGA, a defensive variance of +1.73. Opponents needed only 11 shots to score three times. That is a conversion rate that borders on the absurd, the kind of finishing efficiency you cannot plan for and cannot replicate. Leverkusen's defensive structure limited chances. It limited shot quality. It did not limit goals, because the goals that went in had no business going in based on the positions they were struck from.
Sometimes the ball just doesn't care about your expected goals model.
Health and Schedule
Leverkusen's injury burden of 20 sits dramatically below the league average of roughly 120, which means this is a fully healthy squad producing fully healthy results that happen to not show up on the table. There is no convenient alibi here. The roster is available. The schedule strength of 1.5 indicates a harder-than-average opening fixture, which adds context but not absolution. Plenty of teams face tough openers without hemorrhaging 1.77 expected points.
What This Is and What It Isn't
It would be dishonest to call Leverkusen a bad team based on this data. A side that generates a +0.61 net xG, takes twice as many shots as it concedes, and finishes at expected rates is doing the underlying work. The process is sound. The outcomes are not. That is the textbook definition of a cursed result rather than a flawed one.
But it is also one game. One game in which opponents converted at roughly 27% from 1.27 xGA worth of chances. Regression will come for that number. It always does.
What Regression Would Actually Buy Them
If Leverkusen's defensive variance corrects to neutral over the next several matches, they are looking at conceding roughly one goal fewer per game than they did on matchday one. Apply their current xG output of 1.88 per match against league-average opposition and you are projecting something in the range of 2.0 to 2.2 points per game, which is title-contending pace. The underlying model says this team is still very good. The table says they have zero points.
The gap between those two realities is the entire premise of CURSD. Leverkusen are Exhibit A.
Whether the footballing gods agree to return what they borrowed remains, as always, to be seen. The math says they will. The math said that last weekend, too.