Analysis based on ELO adjusted with Dixon-Coles, official FIFA EFI (Enhanced Football Intelligence) data, and actual results from the 83 matches played so far — group stage + round of 32.
We've reached the knockout stage, and the data is starting to tell a clearer story than the pre-World Cup predictions. Here we've gathered the numbers that truly matter: who leads in the real strength ranking, who is exceeding (or disappointing) model expectations, how each qualified team likes to play, and what official FIFA physical data reveals about tournament fatigue.
1. Real Strength Ranking (ELO after groups + round of 32)
Forget the pre-tournament FIFA ranking. After 83 matches, the ELO system —recalculated match by match, with home bonus and multiplier for victory margin— shows a well-defined order of strength at the top:
| # | Team | ELO |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | 🇫🇷 France | 2065 |
| 2 | 🇪🇸 Spain | 2024 |
| 3 | 🏴 England | 2007 |
| 4 | 🇦🇷 Argentina | 2003 |
| 5 | 🇧🇷 Brazil | 1980 |
| 6 | 🇵🇹 Portugal | 1940 |
| 7 | 🇳🇱 Netherlands | 1924 |
| 8 | 🇩🇪 Germany | 1906 |
| 9 | 🇨🇴 Colombia | 1901 |
| 10 | 🇳🇴 Norway | 1898 |
France clearly took the lead —not only did they win, but they did so dominantly (see point 2). What stands out is Norway in the top 10: with no recent tradition of excellence, but with one of the most productive attacks in the tournament (see below), led by the Haaland-Odegaard duo.
2. Who Leads in Attack
The tournament's average goals is 2.94 goals per game —a high figure for a World Cup, driven by a handful of teams that are consistently scoring goals:
| Team | Goals Scored | Matches |
|---|---|---|
| 🇫🇷 France | 13 | 4 |
| 🇳🇱 Netherlands | 11 | 4 |
| 🇩🇪 Germany | 11 | 4 |
| 🇳🇴 Norway | 10 | 4 |
| 🇺🇸 United States | 10 | 4 |
| 🇸🇳 Senegal | 10 | 4 |
And at the other end, the most solid defense of the tournament (by xG against, not just goals conceded —a more reliable metric because it doesn't depend on goalkeeper luck):
| Team | xGA/match |
|---|---|
| 🇪🇸 Spain | 0.50 |
| 🇦🇷 Argentina | 0.54 |
| 🇨🇦 Canada | 0.67 |
| 🇲🇽 Mexico | 0.75 |
| 🇬🇭 Ghana | 0.79 |
| 🇧🇷 Brazil | 0.80 |
It's interesting to note that Spain and Argentina appear as the most difficult defenses to break down according to the model, although they are not necessarily remembered for that.
3. Who Is Surprising (for Better or Worse)
This is where the data gets really interesting. We calculated delta_pts —the difference between the points each team actually obtained and the points the model (ELO + Dixon-Coles) expected them to obtain given the level of opponents faced. It's not pure luck, but it's the most honest portrayal of who is "playing above their weight" versus who is underperforming.
Surprising for the better:
| Team | delta_pts |
|---|---|
| 🇲🇽 Mexico | +2.67 |
| 🇫🇷 France | +2.67 |
| 🇳🇴 Norway | +2.17 |
| 🇵🇾 Paraguay | +1.95 |
| 🇬🇭 Ghana | +1.50 |
Mexico's case is doubly surprising: not only are they scoring above expectations, but they also have the advantage of playing at home (like the USA and Canada, co-hosts of this edition) —but that's already accounted for in the model, so the +2.67 is purely performance.
Disappointing (for now):
| Team | delta_pts |
|---|---|
| 🇺🇾 Uruguay | -2.93 |
| 🇸🇳 Senegal | -2.25 |
| 🇩🇪 Germany | -2.19 |
| 🇹🇳 Tunisia | -1.99 |
| 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan | -1.85 |
Germany's case is symptomatic: they have the 3rd highest number of goals scored in the tournament (11) but still disappoint in delta_pts —a sign that defense (involved in that fateful 4-5 penalty shootout against Paraguay, which was actually 1-1 in regular time) is costing them dearly. Teams that score a lot but also concede a lot tend to appear here, because the model weighs both sides.
4. How Each Qualified Team Likes to Play
Using official FIFA EFI (Enhanced Football Intelligence —tracking over 4,000 data rows per player/match) data, we were able to map the goal creation style of each team: where shots come from —combined play through passing, crosses, set pieces, individual dribbling, etc.
The most common tactical labels among teams (all calculated by actual percentile within the tournament, not opinion):
| Label | Number of Teams |
|---|---|
| Medium block | 30 |
| Set piece threat | 14 |
| Mean defense | 13 |
| Direct style | 13 |
| Possession-based | 12 |
| Dribbles a lot | 12 |
| Many crosses | 12 |
| Porous defense | 12 |
| Low block | 10 |
| High physical intensity | 9 |
| High press | 8 |
The tournament is clearly dominated by medium block teams (30 out of 48 teams) —the most common stance is to organize without fully committing to either a high press or a very low block. Only 8 teams genuinely press aggressively throughout the match.
A concrete example: Spain creates 50% of its shots via combined passing play, and has labels of "set piece threat" and "mean defense" —an almost complete profile. Egypt, on the other hand, is curiously the team with the lowest physical intensity in the entire tournament (last in sprints/match and in defensive pressure applied) and yet remains undefeated, relying on efficiency and set pieces.
5. The Penalty Shootout Dramas
Two round of 32 matches were decided by penalties —it's worth highlighting a technical detail: public databases (including football-data.org itself) often mix the penalty shootout score with the actual match result. We corrected this in our model because it directly affects the ELO, goal difference, and all derived metrics:
- Germany 1-1 Paraguay (regular time) —Paraguay won on penalties 4-3. In uncorrected databases, this incorrectly appeared as "4-5".
- Netherlands 1-1 Morocco (regular time) —Morocco won on penalties 3-2. It appeared as "3-4".
Without this correction, Germany would have 14 goals scored and 9 conceded in the statistics —in reality, it's 11 and 5. It makes a difference.
6. What's Next
With 10 teams already qualified for the round of 16 (Belgium, Brazil, Canada, United States, France, England, Morocco, Mexico, Norway, and Paraguay) and the rest of the round of 32 still ongoing, the next chapters of the tournament will test precisely the patterns already indicated by the data:
-
France and Spain remain clear favorites according to ELO, but the model also shows that no one is free from instability —the
delta_ptsdeviations indicate that recent results don't always reflect the actual level of play. - Teams labeled "porous defense" —12 in total— are natural candidates for upsets against opponents with quality attacks.
- The drama of penalties has already appeared twice in the round of 32; statistically, it's reasonable to expect more such deciders as the level of parity increases in the knockout rounds.
Methodology: ELO calculated sequentially (pre-match rating, not retroactive) with victory margin multiplier and home bonus for co-hosts (Mexico, USA, Canada). Probabilities via bivariate Poisson model with Dixon-Coles adjustment (ρ = -0.18). Physical and chance creation data via FIFA EFI (source: Bustami/efi-fifa-data-wc-2026). Result data via football-data.org, with manual correction for matches decided by penalties.