Analysis based on ELO adjusted by Dixon-Coles, official FIFA EFI (Enhanced Football Intelligence) data, and actual results from the 83 matches played so far — group stages + Round of 32.
We've reached the knockout stage, and the data is beginning to tell a clearer story than pre-World Cup forecasts suggested. Here, we've gathered the numbers that truly matter: who leads the power rankings, who is exceeding (or falling short of) model expectations, how each qualified team prefers to play, and what official FIFA physical data reveals about the tournament's wear and tear.
1. The actual power ranking (ELO post-group stage + Round of 32)
Forget the pre-World Cup FIFA ranking. After 83 matches, the ELO system — recalculated game by game, with home-field advantage bonus and a 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 took a comfortable lead — not only did they win, but they did so dominantly (see item 2). What stands out is Norway in the top 10: with no recent tradition of prominence, but with an attack that is among the most productive in the tournament (see below), driven by the Haaland-Odegaard duo.
2. Who dominates in attack
The tournament's average goals per game is 2.94 — a high number for a World Cup, driven by a handful of teams that are systematically scoring big:
| 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 tournament's most solid defense (by xGA against, not just goals conceded — a more reliable metric because it doesn't depend on the defending team's 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 hardest defenses to breach according to the model, even though they aren't necessarily known for it.
3. Who is surprising (for better and worse)
This is where the data gets really interesting. We calculated delta_pts — the difference between the points each team actually earned and the points the model (ELO + Dixon-Coles) expected them to earn given the level of the opponents faced. It's not pure luck, but it's the most honest portrayal of who is "playing above their weight class" vs. 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 is doubly surprising: not only are they scoring above expectations, but they also have the advantage of playing at home (as do USA and Canada, co-hosts of this edition) — but this is already factored into the model, so the +2.67 is purely about performance.
Disappointing (for now):
| Team | delta_pts | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 🇺🇾 Uruguay | -2.93 | ||
| 🇸🇳 Senegal | -2.25 | ||
| 🇩🇪 Germany | -2.19 | ||
| 🇹🇳 Tunisia | -1.99 | 🇺🇿 Uzbekistan | -1.85 |
The case of Germany is symptomatic: they have the 3rd highest number of goals scored in the tournament (11) but still disappoint in delta_pts — a sign that their defense (involved in that fateful 4-5 penalty shootout against Paraguay, which was actually 1-1 in regular time) is proving costly. 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 points per player/match), we were able to map each team's goal creation style: where shots come from — combined play through passes, crosses, set pieces, individual dribbling, etc.
The most common tactical labels among the teams (all calculated by actual percentile within the tournament, not opinion):
| Label | Number of teams |
|---|---|
| Mid block | 30 |
| Set-piece threat | 14 |
| Miserly defense | 13 |
| Direct style | 13 |
| Possession-based | 12 |
| Dribbles a lot | 12 |
| Many crosses | 12 |
| Leaky defense | 12 |
| Low block | 10 |
| High physical intensity | 9 |
| High press | 8 |
The tournament is clearly dominated by mid-block teams (30 out of 48 teams) — the most common approach is to organize themselves without committing to either high pressure or a very low block. Only 8 teams genuinely press aggressively all the time.
A concrete example: Spain creates 50% of its shots through combined passing play, has a "set-piece threat" and a "miserly defense" — an almost complete profile. Egypt, interestingly, is the team with the lowest physical intensity in the entire tournament (last in sprints/match and defensive pressure applied) and is still undefeated, relying on efficiency and set pieces.
5. The drama of penalties
Two Round of 32 matches were decided by penalties — and it's worth highlighting a technical detail: public databases (including football-data.org itself) often mix the penalty shootout score with the actual match score. We corrected this in our modeling because it directly affects ELO, goal difference, and all derived metrics:
- Germany 1-1 Paraguay (regular time) — Paraguay won on penalties 4-3. In raw 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, England, France, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, and Paraguay) and the rest of the Round of 32 still in progress, the next chapters of the tournament will test exactly the patterns that the data already points to:
-
France and Spain remain clear favorites by ELO, but the model also shows that no one is free from instability — the
delta_ptsdeviations show that recent results do not always reflect the real level of play. - Teams with "leaky defense" marked in their tactical profile — 12 in total — are natural candidates to suffer 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 decisions as the level of balance rises in the knockout stages.
Methodology: ELO calculated sequentially (pre-match rating, not retroactive) with a victory margin multiplier and home-field advantage bonus for 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.