Things are well underway at the end of the FIFA World Cup, with the conclusion of the round of 16 and quarter-finals (the quarter-finals are completed). While some all-time favorites, such as Brazil, Germany and the Netherlands, have been dropped, a few of the usual favorites – defending champions Argentina, recent World Cup runners-up France, Spain and England – remain in contention. France will face Morocco in the first match of the quarter-finals on Friday (India time: 12:30 am).
The table below takes a look at the teams that made it to the quarterfinals and how they performed compared to their pre-tournament rankings measured in terms of Elo ratings. The Elo system, similar to the method used in chess, evaluates teams by looking at their relative records against other teams. It is useful as a standardized ranking and a better tool for analysis than the FIFA rankings, whose methodologies have changed over time.
The top four teams, in terms of Elo ratings, at the start of the tournament, Spain, Argentina, France and England – in that order – are still in contention. All four have improved their Elo rankings, thanks to their record, with France having the highest increase – 80 points. Despite this increase, France remains in third place in Elo, with Argentina narrowly ahead in second place. Among the four remaining teams in the quarter-finals, namely Morocco, Belgium, Switzerland and Norway, the North African team made the largest jump with 94 points, jumping 12 places in the rankings to 12th in the world today. The other three also recorded jumps.
In Elo alone, Spain, Argentina, France and England will be the favorites to lift the trophy.
While Elo ratings are measured on relative performance, it is useful to look at actual football performance in terms of goals scored and conceded to analyze the performance of the quarter-finalists.
A look at the raw numbers in the table above shows that it is France that has set the pace, scoring 14 goals in all matches and conceding just two goals, a goal difference of +12 and recording a goal difference of 2.4 per match. Spain and Argentina followed with 1.8, in varying ways. Spain were credited with an excellent defense that ensured a clean sheet in every match – and no team had scored past La Furia Roja throughout the tournament. Argentina scored as many goals as France, 14, but also conceded five goals (two against Egypt which almost upset the defending champions). The average goal difference in Belgium was 1.6, while the average goal difference between England and Morocco was 1.2. Norway had the lowest average goal difference of 0.6, conceding nine goals in five matches.
While Elo ratings and actual goals are useful in ranking the quarterfinalists by relative strength and scores respectively, it is also necessary to consider how well the team is actually playing. This can depend on key criteria such as the quality of the chances created or denied and also on how those opportunities are converted into goals. This is where ‘expected goals’ or xG, a new metric, helps. It assigns each scoring chance a value between 0 and 1 – the probability that a shot will be converted from that position and position, on average – taking into account other factors such as where the shot was taken, the type of pass or movement it created and the defensive pressure the defender puts on the shot taker. During a match, a team’s xG is the total number of goals the chances are worth. The difference between this number and the actual result is a good way to measure the quality of the finish.
The xG is designed and different agencies – Opta, FIFA itself and other independent trackers build their models based on different data and assumptions and therefore the xG values differ for each tracker. In the table below, we use RealGM’s expected goals tracker. XGoals(Sum) gives the total xG for all matches for each team, XGoals(Ave), the average and XGoalsA(Ave), the average for the opposite team. XGoalsDiff = XGoals(Ave) – XGoalsA(Ave).
In terms of xG, Spain move to the top of the list with an expected goals difference of +1.69, thanks in large part to their excellent defense which has limited opponents to an expected goals figure of just 0.31, the lowest in the tournament for any team. Spain does this in an unconventional way, and their game is not necessarily based on defending or defensive tactics such as “stopping the bus” (i.e. deploying all their players in defensive positions in their own half). The team maintained a strong defense thanks to their dominance of possession (65.8% according to FbRef.com) and rarely allowing the opposition to have possession of the ball, limiting scoring chances. Argentina (+1.59) and France (+1.33) round out the top three, with Albiceleste leading the XGoals total (10.94), thanks in large part to his talisman Lionel Messi who has scored eight goals – the highest – in the tournament. Kylian Mbappe’s France are not far behind in XGoals (10.3). Belgium also created significantly more goal scoring chances with 10.68 XGoals, but also allowed the opposition more space to score.
In short, France made the most of the chances they created in the tournament, while Spain performed admirably in defense but were somewhat lacking in quality in converting chances into actual goals. Argentina’s defense was second only to Spain, but the fact that they conceded more goals speaks to some of the exceptional goals that were scored against them (Sydney Cabral’s strike for Cabo Verde and Zico’s goals from the winger for Egypt’s strikers come to mind). RealGM data shows that the Argentina vs. Egypt match had an xGoals rating of 2.8 for Argentina and just 0.98 for Egypt (the actual score was 3-2).
The three teams – Spain, France and Argentina are clearly the favorites based on their strong play in the tournament, with Switzerland, England, Morocco and Belgium competing almost as well as XGoalsDiff but in different ways (Morocco has the strongest defense in this group). Norway’s defense makes them the weak link in the quarter-finals but they also have a lethal striker in Erling Haaland who has helped create chances.
(With inputs from Devyanshi Bihani. Expected goals data thanks to RealGM.com)
Published – 09 July 2026 at 07:59 PM IST
