World Cup 2026: Estimated vs Actual Goals, xG Rankings

The group stage produced 216 goals across 72 matches, exactly three per game. But raw goals only tell you what happened, not whether a team earned it. Expected goals (xG) estimates how many goals a team should have scored from the quality of its chances; expected goals against (xGA) does the same for the chances it allowed. Put the two together and you can see which teams were genuinely good, which were clinical or lucky, and which were frustrated and unable to break down defences.

This piece does three things. First, it ranks all 48 teams by how far their actual goals beat or fell short of their xG. Second, it does the same for goals conceded against xGA, the defensive mirror image. Third, it rebuilds all 12 group tables as if every team had simply scored its xG, to show how the tournament would look in a world without finishing luck or goalkeeping heroics.

One source, kept consistent. Both xG and xGA come from a single match-by-match tracker covering all 72 group fixtures, totalled per team across their three games. A team’s xGA in a match is simply its opponent’s xG, so the two metrics line up exactly. Using one provider keeps the comparison fair, since xG models differ slightly between data companies.

 

Part 1a: Attack – goals vs expected goals

How to read it: a positive difference means a team scored more than its chances warranted, through clinical finishing or good fortune. A negative difference means it created plenty and came up short.

 

xG (Attack)

Rank	Team	xG	Goals	Difference
1	France	5.67	10	+4.33
2	Sweden	2.98	7	+4.02
3	Netherlands	5.24	9	+3.76
4	United States	4.49	8	+3.51
5	Germany	6.76	10	+3.24
6	Senegal	5.27	8	+2.73
7	Austria	3.56	6	+2.44
8	Mexico	3.68	6	+2.32
9	Croatia	2.76	5	+2.24
10	Portugal	3.77	6	+2.23
11	Bosnia and Herzegovina	2.78	5	+2.22
12	Algeria	3.87	6	+2.13
13	Argentina	5.98	8	+2.02
14	Japan	4.03	6	+1.97
15	Norway	6.33	8	+1.67
16	New Zealand	2.73	4	+1.27
17	Egypt	3.79	5	+1.21
18	Jordan	1.92	3	+1.08
19	Tunisia	0.95	2	+1.05
20	Paraguay	1.03	2	+0.97
21	Switzerland	6.41	7	+0.59
22	England	5.48	6	+0.52
23	Saudi Arabia	1.54	2	+0.46
24	DR Congo	3.54	4	+0.46
25	Uzbekistan	1.61	2	+0.39
26	Canada	7.66	8	+0.34
27	Australia	1.67	2	+0.33
28	Morocco	5.78	6	+0.22
29	Qatar	1.96	2	+0.04
30	Haiti	2.10	2	-0.10
31	Cote d'Ivoire	4.21	4	-0.21
32	Colombia	4.23	4	-0.23
33	Brazil	7.25	7	-0.25
34	Czechia	2.30	2	-0.30
35	Ghana	2.37	2	-0.37
36	Curacao	1.39	1	-0.39
37	Spain	5.45	5	-0.45
38	Iraq	1.51	1	-0.51
39	South Africa	2.56	2	-0.56
40	Cape Verde	2.70	2	-0.70
41	Belgium	6.79	6	-0.79
42	Panama	1.88	1	-0.88
43	Uruguay	4.06	3	-1.06
44	Iran	4.09	3	-1.09
45	South Korea	3.53	2	-1.53
46	Scotland	2.69	1	-1.69
47	Turkiye	6.21	3	-3.21
48	Ecuador	5.35	2	-3.35

 

France (+4.33) top the attacking chart with 10 goals from 5.67 xG, helped by Dembele’s hat-trick against Norway. Sweden (+4.02) are the bigger outlier: seven goals from under three xG is the kind of hot streak that flatters a group-stage run. Germany (+3.24) also scored 10 but produced the chances to back it up, while the United States (+3.51) and Netherlands (+3.76) round out a ruthless top five.

At the other end, Ecuador (-3.35) and Turkiye (-3.21) were the wasteful ones, each creating well over five xG and converting a fraction of it. Belgium and Spain also left goals on the pitch, Spain most glaringly in a goalless draw with Cape Verde where they posted 2.29 xG. Brazil sit almost exactly on expectation.

 

Part 1b: Defence – goals conceded vs expected goals against

How to read it: here a negative difference is good – the team conceded fewer goals than the chances it allowed, usually a sign of strong goalkeeping or good luck with opposition finishing. A positive difference means it shipped more than it should have, the mark of a leaky keeper or a string of elite finishing from oppositions.

 

xG (Defence)

Rank	Team	xGA	Conceded	Difference
1	Cape Verde	5.01	2	-3.01
2	Scotland	6.66	4	-2.66
3	Brazil	2.89	1	-1.89
4	Portugal	2.70	1	-1.70
5	Egypt	4.56	3	-1.56
6	Cote d'Ivoire	3.42	2	-1.42
7	Mexico	1.23	0	-1.23
8	Colombia	2.23	1	-1.23
9	Iran	3.87	3	-0.87
10	France	2.86	2	-0.86
11	Ecuador	2.81	2	-0.81
12	Australia	2.65	2	-0.65
13	Ghana	2.45	2	-0.45
14	South Africa	3.43	3	-0.43
15	Saudi Arabia	5.36	5	-0.36
16	Panama	4.34	4	-0.34
17	Paraguay	4.07	4	-0.07
18	Belgium	1.95	2	+0.05
19	Switzerland	2.65	3	+0.35
20	Spain	0.65	1	+0.35
21	Curacao	8.58	9	+0.42
22	Argentina	1.57	2	+0.43
23	Qatar	9.56	10	+0.44
24	United States	3.53	4	+0.47
25	Japan	1.44	2	+0.56
26	Morocco	2.40	3	+0.60
27	South Korea	2.39	3	+0.61
28	Canada	2.27	3	+0.73
29	Netherlands	2.22	3	+0.78
30	Croatia	4.07	5	+0.93
31	Czechia	5.02	6	+0.98
32	Germany	2.90	4	+1.10
33	Austria	4.82	6	+1.18
34	DR Congo	1.82	3	+1.18
35	Uruguay	2.73	4	+1.27
36	England	1.63	3	+1.37
37	Bosnia and Herzegovina	4.33	6	+1.67
38	Turkiye	3.15	5	+1.85
39	Senegal	4.03	6	+1.97
40	Haiti	5.87	8	+2.13
41	Jordan	5.68	8	+2.32
42	Sweden	4.20	7	+2.80
43	New Zealand	7.02	10	+2.98
44	Norway	3.97	7	+3.03
45	Algeria	3.26	7	+3.74
46	Iraq	7.92	12	+4.08
47	Uzbekistan	6.40	11	+4.60
48	Tunisia	5.34	12	+6.66

 

Cape Verde (-3.01) top the defensive chart in remarkable fashion, conceding just two goals from over five xGA. Their goalkeeper, more than anything, is why they qualified. Scotland (-2.66) were similarly protected in goal, though it was not enough to rescue their toothless attack. Among the contenders, Brazil (-1.89) and Portugal (-1.70) look genuinely miserly, and Spain barely allowed a chance all group (0.65 xGA).

The opposite end is ugly. Tunisia (+6.66) conceded 12 goals from just 5.34 xGA, a goalkeeping nightmare, with Uzbekistan and Iraq close behind. Most striking among the teams that progressed is Algeria (+3.74) , who reached the knockouts despite shipping seven goals from barely three xGA, and Norway (+3.03) , whose defending undercut a strong attack.

 

Part 2: How the Groups Would Look on xG Alone

The method: for every match, each team’s xG is rounded to the nearest whole number to produce a deserved scoreline. So Spain’s 2.29 xG against Cape Verde’s 0.30 becomes a 2-0 win, and a 1.49 against a 1.24 becomes a 1-1 draw. Points are then awarded as normal, and teams are ranked by points, then xG goal difference, then xG goals scored. It is a simplification – real football has variance, and rounding is blunt – but it strips out finishing luck and shows who created and conceded like a qualifier.

Reading the tables: the top two on xG would automatically qualify. The final column shows where each team actually finished and whether they really advanced (Q) or went out. With seven of the twelve groups sending a different pair through.

Group A

Finish	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	South Korea	2	1	0	+2	7	3 (out)
2	Mexico	2	0	1	+2	6	1 (Q)
3	South Africa	0	2	1	-1	2	2 (Q)
4	Czechia	0	1	2	-3	1	4 (out)

Analysis: Group A produced one of the biggest divergences between xG and reality. South Korea topped the expected standings, but it was Mexico who won the group in reality. The biggest surprise was South Africa, who progressed despite ranking only third on expected points, suggesting they were particularly clinical in both boxes.

Group B

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Canada	2	1	0	+6	7	2 (Q)
2	Switzerland	2	0	1	+3	6	1 (Q)
3	Bosnia and Herzegovina	1	1	1	-1	4	3 (Q)
4	Qatar	0	0	3	-8	0	4 (out)

Analysis: This was one of the closest matches between expected and actual results. Canada and Switzerland simply swapped first and second, while Bosnia and Herzegovina remained third in both tables. Overall, xG suggests the group played out largely as expected.

Group C

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Morocco	2	1	0	+3	7	2 (Q)
2	Brazil	2	0	1	+4	6	1 (Q)
3	Scotland	0	2	1	-3	2	3 (out)
4	Haiti	0	1	2	-4	1	4 (out)

Analysis: Morocco edged Brazil on expected points despite finishing second in reality, as they would’ve been awarded the win vs Brazil. The Atlas Lions generated the better underlying performances across the group stage, although Brazil’s superior finishing was enough to secure top spot.

Group D

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Turkiye	2	1	0	+3	7	4 (out)
2	United States	2	0	1	+1	6	1 (Q)
3	Australia	1	1	1	+0	4	2 (Q)
4	Paraguay	0	0	3	-4	0	3 (Q)

Analysis: No group was more dramatic than this one. Türkiye topped the xG table but finished bottom after repeatedly failing to convert dominance into points, including their defeat to Australia despite controlling large spells. Paraguay experienced the opposite, reaching the knockout stages despite ranking last on expected points.

Group E

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Germany	2	1	0	+5	7	1 (Q)
2	Ecuador	1	1	1	+2	4	3 (Q)
3	Cote d'Ivoire	1	1	1	+0	4	2 (Q)
4	Curacao	0	1	2	-7	1	4 (out)

Analysis: Germany were deserved winners in both tables after dominating opponents throughout the group stage. Behind them, Ecuador’s chance creation slightly outperformed Côte d’Ivoire’s, although the Ivorians were more clinical when it mattered.

Group F

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Netherlands	2	1	0	+3	7	1 (Q)
2	Japan	1	2	0	+2	5	2 (Q)
3	Sweden	1	1	1	-1	4	3 (Q)
4	Tunisia	0	0	3	-4	0	4 (out)

Analysis: The Netherlands, Japan and Sweden finished exactly where their underlying performances suggested they should. Unlike several other groups, there were few fortunate or unfortunate teams, making this one of the tournament’s most predictable sections.

Group G

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Belgium	2	1	0	+5	7	1 (Q)
2	Iran	2	0	1	+1	6	3 (out)
3	Egypt	1	1	1	+0	4	2 (Q)
4	New Zealand	0	0	3	-6	0	4 (out)

Analysis: Belgium comfortably justified top spot in both standings. In case they needed more misfortune, Iran were perhaps the tournament’s unluckiest eliminated side, producing enough chances to finish second on expected points but missing out on qualification, while Egypt made the most of their opportunities to advance.

Group H

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Spain	3	0	0	+5	9	1 (Q)
2	Uruguay	2	0	1	+1	6	3 (out)
3	Cape Verde	1	0	2	-1	3	2 (Q)
4	Saudi Arabia	0	0	3	-5	0	4 (out)

Analysis: Spain’s perfect nine-point campaign was fully deserved according to the xG data. The real surprise came behind them, with Cape Verde reaching the knockout stages despite Uruguay generating the stronger underlying numbers across the three group matches. Goalkeeping and clinical finishing proved decisive. What is encouraging however is that Cape Verde would’ve likely still qualified as a best 3rd place team due to their low GD.

Group I

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	France	2	1	0	+2	7	1 (Q)
2	Norway	1	2	0	+2	5	2 (Q)
3	Senegal	1	1	1	+2	4	3 (Q)
4	Iraq	0	0	3	-6	0	4 (out)

Analysis: The underlying data and final standings aligned almost perfectly. France, Norway and Senegal all finished exactly where their performances suggested they should, making this one of the cleanest examples of xG accurately reflecting the group. Although naturally France’s goal tally is a lot smaller.

Group J

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Argentina	3	0	0	+4	9	1 (Q)
2	Algeria	2	0	1	+1	6	3 (Q)
3	Austria	1	0	2	-2	3	2 (Q)
4	Jordan	0	0	3	-3	0	4 (out)

Analysis: Argentina’s flawless group campaign was backed up by the analytics, with nine deserved points. Algeria’s expected numbers were also strong enough to merit second place, being denied a would be win against Austria, although Austria’s results ensured the qualification race remained close until the final matchday.

Group K

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	Colombia	3	0	0	+3	9	1 (Q)
2	Portugal	1	1	1	+1	4	2 (Q)
3	DR Congo	1	1	1	+1	4	3 (Q)
4	Uzbekistan	0	0	3	-5	0	4 (out)

Analysis: Colombia dominated both the actual and expected standings, confirming they were among the most complete teams of the group stage. Portugal and DR Congo remained almost inseparable on both points and expected points, reflecting just how evenly matched they were. As far as xG is concerned, Portugal were very lucky to escape with a point against Colombia, with 1.63 vs 0.73.

Group L

#	Team	W	D	L	GD	Pts	Actual finish
1	England	2	1	0	+3	7	1 (Q)
2	Ghana	1	1	1	+0	4	3 (Q)
3	Croatia	1	0	2	-2	3	2 (Q)
4	Panama	0	2	1	-1	2	4 (out)

Analysis: England’s group victory was fully supported by the underlying numbers. Ghana, however, produced enough chances to rank second on expected points despite finishing third, suggesting Croatia benefited from superior finishing and game management in the decisive moments.

The biggest talking points

Turkiye were robbed. Bottom of Group D and out in reality, they created enough to top it. A combination of dreadful finishing (-3.21 on attack) and leaky defending (+1.85) turned a deserving campaign into an early flight home.

Three more would-be qualifiers went out: Uruguay (Group H), Iran (Group G) and South Korea (Group A) all created and conceded like teams that belonged in the knockouts, but the scoreboard sent them home.

Two of the feel-good stories were riding their luck. South Africa and especially Cape Verde reached the last 32 with xG profiles that say they should have finished third. Cape Verde’s heroic goalkeeping, the best defensive overperformance in the tournament, is the single biggest reason the gap between merit and reality stayed in their favour.

But xG is not destiny. Finishing and goalkeeping are real, repeatable skills as well as sources of variance, and a deserved chance missed is still a chance missed. The xG table is a guide to who controlled matches, not a verdict on who deserved to win them. It is at its most useful now, as a pointer to which knockout teams may regress – and which, like Brazil, are built on solid ground.

Methodology: xG and xGA totalled per team across all three group games from a single match-by-match tracker (RealGM 2026 FIFA World Cup xG Tracker). xG group tables use each team’s match xG rounded to the nearest whole goal, with points then xG goal difference then xG goals scored as tiebreakers; the eight-best-third-place qualification rule is not modelled, so the tables show automatic top-two places only. Figures are accurate as of the conclusion of the group stage.

 

Check out our World Cup section for more Statistical Insights.