Mexico vs England
Match 92: total tournament xG, group-stage baseline and Round of 32 receipts from the current knockout path.
World Cup 2026 results & xG — match center
Latest available post-match xG · updated 30 July 2026, 12:26 ET · 104 of 104 matches with xG. Not live.
Every finished match with expected goals and a one-line verdict on how the score matched the chances — lucky wins, harsh swings, and knockout results backed by chance quality.
Quick answers
- Latest resultWhat is the latest World Cup 2026 xG result?
- Spain 1–0 Argentina: Spain advanced with an xG edge (2.29–0.22 xG), winning 1–0.
- Latest xG resultsWhat are the latest World Cup 2026 results with xG?
- 19 July has 1 World Cup 2026 result with xG: Spain 1–0 Argentina.
- Biggest robberyWhat is the biggest xG robbery at the World Cup 2026?
- Turkiye 0–1 v Paraguay is the biggest xG robbery so far: 0 points from 2.57 xPts after 2.17–0.32 xG.
- Luckiest resultWho had the luckiest World Cup 2026 result by xG?
- Paraguay 1–0 v Turkiye had the biggest positive points-vs-xPts swing: 3 points from 0.28 xPts.
- Round of 16Who has advanced to the World Cup 2026 Round of 16?
- Canada, Morocco, Paraguay, France, Brazil, Norway, Mexico, England, Portugal, Spain, the USA, Belgium, Argentina, Egypt, Switzerland and Colombia have advanced to the Round of 16.
- Still aliveWhich teams are still alive in the World Cup 2026 knockout bracket?
- Spain are still alive in the World Cup 2026 knockout bracket.
- EliminatedWhich teams have been eliminated from the World Cup 2026 knockout stage?
- Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brazil, Canada, Cape Verde, Colombia, Croatia, DR Congo, Ecuador, Egypt, England, France, Germany, Ghana, Ivory Coast, Japan, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Paraguay, Portugal, Senegal, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland and USA have been eliminated from the World Cup 2026 knockout stage.
19 July World Cup 2026 results with xG
| Match | Score | xG | Verdict |
|---|---|---|---|
| Spain vs Argentina | 1–0 | 2.29–0.22 | Spain advanced with an xG edge (2.29–0.22 xG), winning 1–0. |
Next after the result
Current quarter-final guides
4 confirmed quarter-final guides with total tournament xG and prior knockout receipts.
Current Round of 16 guides
8 confirmed Round of 16 guides with total tournament xG, group-stage baseline and prior knockout receipts.
All knockout form guides
16 confirmed Round of 32 matchups with group-stage xGF, xGA, xPts and luck context.
Follow the knockout path
Full Round of 32 bracket with every confirmed matchup and xG guide.
Updated tables with xPts
Official group tables beside expected points, luck, xGF and xGA.
19 July xG recap
The latest matchday results, biggest swings, and match-by-match xG context.
Turkiye xG swing
Turkiye 0 points from 2.57 xPts after 2.17–0.32 xG.
What changed the tournament picture?
Spain 1–0 Argentina
Spain advanced with an xG edge (2.29–0.22 xG), winning 1–0.
Brazil eliminated despite 2.61-1.05 xG edge
Norway beat Brazil 2-1; Brazil had the stronger chance profile, but Norway advanced from a lower-xG night.
USA advanced, and FIFA cleared Balogun for Belgium
USA beat Bosnia and Herzegovina 2–0 with a 0.88-0.25 xG edge; Balogun scored, saw red, then had the automatic ban suspended before Belgium.
Belgium advanced despite Senegal's 3.58-1.74 xG edge
Belgium won 3–2; Senegal created 3.58 xG to Belgium's 1.74. Late-game heroics for Belgium, brutal xG exit for Senegal.
Go deeper: knockout bracket · knockout xG verdicts · biggest xG robberies · stat leaders · published FIFA rankings · by confederation · daily recaps · unluckiest teams.
19 July
Spain
xG 2.29 – 0.22 · Knockout stage
Spain advanced with an xG edge (2.29–0.22 xG), winning 1–0.
Fair result: Yes. Spain won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
18 July
France
xG 2.88 – 2.88 · Knockout stage
England advanced from a balanced knockout game 4–6 (2.88–2.88 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
15 July
xG 0.53 – 1.59 · Knockout stage
Argentina advanced with an xG edge (1.59–0.53 xG), winning 1–2.
Fair result: Yes. Argentina won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
14 July
xG 0.31 – 1.63 · Knockout stage
Spain advanced with an xG edge (1.63–0.31 xG), winning 0–2.
Fair result: Yes. Spain won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
11 July
xG 1.94 – 0.47 · Knockout stage
Argentina advanced with an xG edge (1.94–0.47 xG), winning 3–1.
Fair result: Yes. Argentina won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
NorwayxG 0.68 – 1.04 · Knockout stage
England advanced from a balanced knockout game 1–2 (0.68–1.04 xG).
Fair result: Yes. England won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
10 July
xG 1.96 – 0.34 · Knockout stage
Spain advanced with an xG edge (1.96–0.34 xG), winning 2–1.
Fair result: Yes. Spain won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
9 July
xG 3.69 – 0.14 · Knockout stage
France advanced with an xG edge (3.69–0.14 xG), winning 2–0.
Fair result: Yes. France won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
7 July
xG 0.39 – 1.09 · Knockout stage
Switzerland advanced on penalties after a balanced knockout game 0–0 (4–3 pens) (0.39–1.09 xG).
Fair result: No by chance quality. Switzerland advanced on penalties, but Colombia had the stronger xG profile.
xG 2.84 – 0.89 · Knockout stage
Argentina advanced with an xG edge (2.84–0.89 xG), winning 3–2.
Fair result: Yes. Argentina won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
6 July
USAxG 0.63 – 2.01 · Knockout stage
Belgium advanced with an xG edge (2.01–0.63 xG), winning 1–4.
Fair result: Yes. Belgium won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
PortugalxG 0.63 – 1.69 · Knockout stage
Spain advanced with an xG edge (1.69–0.63 xG), winning 0–1.
Fair result: Yes. Spain won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
5 July
MexicoxG 1.88 – 1.61 · Knockout stage
England advanced from a balanced knockout game 2–3 (1.88–1.61 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
BrazilxG 2.61 – 1.05 · Knockout stage
Brazil had the stronger chance profile (2.61–1.05 xG) but were knocked out 1–2; Norway advanced against the xG run.
Fair result: No. Norway won the scoreboard, but Brazil had the stronger xG profile.
Was it fair by xG?Round of 16 verdictBREAKING: Brazil eliminated despite 2.61-1.05 xG edge5 July recap
4 July
ParaguayxG 0.13 – 1.45 · Knockout stage
France advanced with an xG edge (1.45–0.13 xG), winning 0–1.
Fair result: Yes. France won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
CanadaxG 0.84 – 0.82 · Knockout stage
Morocco advanced from a balanced knockout game 0–3 (0.84–0.82 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
3 July
xG 2.04 – 0.27 · Knockout stage
Colombia advanced with an xG edge (2.04–0.27 xG), winning 1–0.
Fair result: Yes. Colombia won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.26 – 0.47 · Knockout stage
Argentina advanced with an xG edge (2.26–0.47 xG), winning 3–2.
Fair result: Yes. Argentina won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
AustraliaxG 0.84 – 1.32 · Knockout stage
Egypt advanced on penalties after a balanced knockout game 1–1 (2–4 pens) (0.84–1.32 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Egypt won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
2 July
xG 2.45 – 0.74 · Knockout stage
Switzerland advanced with an xG edge (2.45–0.74 xG), winning 2–0.
Fair result: Yes. Switzerland won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.20 – 1.34 · Knockout stage
Portugal advanced with an xG edge (2.20–1.34 xG), winning 2–1.
Fair result: Yes. Portugal won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.80 – 0.32 · Knockout stage
Spain advanced with an xG edge (2.80–0.32 xG), winning 3–0.
Fair result: Yes. Spain won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
1 July
xG 0.88 – 0.25 · Knockout stage
USA advanced from a balanced knockout game 2–0 (0.88–0.25 xG).
Fair result: Yes. USA won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
Was it fair by xG?Round of 32 verdictUPDATE: USA advanced, and FIFA cleared Balogun for Belgium1 July recap
xG 1.74 – 3.58 · Knockout stage
Senegal had the stronger chance profile (3.58–1.74 xG) but were knocked out 3–2; Belgium advanced against the xG run.
Fair result: No. Belgium won the scoreboard, but Senegal had the stronger xG profile.
Was it fair by xG?Round of 32 verdictBREAKING: Belgium advanced despite Senegal's 3.58-1.74 xG edge1 July recap
xG 2.16 – 0.77 · Knockout stage
England advanced with an xG edge (2.16–0.77 xG), winning 2–1.
Fair result: Yes. England won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
30 June
xG 1.05 – 0.75 · Knockout stage
Mexico advanced from a balanced knockout game 2–0 (1.05–0.75 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Mexico won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
Was it fair by xG?Round of 32 verdictUPDATE: Mexico finished 10-3 on goals from 6.66-3.87 xG30 June recap
xG 3.24 – 0.70 · Knockout stage
France advanced with an xG edge (3.24–0.70 xG), winning 3–0.
Fair result: Yes. France won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
Ivory CoastxG 1.49 – 1.90 · Knockout stage
Norway advanced from a balanced knockout game 1–2 (1.49–1.90 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Norway won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
29 June
NetherlandsxG 0.24 – 1.38 · Knockout stage
Morocco created far more (1.38–0.24 xG), and Morocco advanced on penalties after 1–1 (2–3 pens).
Fair result: Yes. Morocco won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
Was it fair by xG?Round of 32 verdictShootout story Morocco advanced on penalties with a 1.38-0.24 xG edge29 June recap
GermanyxG 1.57 – 0.35 · Knockout stage
Germany had the stronger chance profile (1.57–0.35 xG) but were knocked out 1–1 (3–4 pens); Paraguay advanced against the xG run.
Fair result: No by chance quality. Paraguay advanced on penalties, but Germany had the stronger xG profile.
Was it fair by xG?Round of 32 verdictBREAKING: Germany eliminated despite 1.57-0.35 xG edge29 June recap
xG 2.07 – 0.33 · Knockout stage
Brazil advanced with an xG edge (2.07–0.33 xG), winning 2–1.
Fair result: Yes. Brazil won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
28 June
South AfricaxG 0.14 – 1.38 · Knockout stage
Canada advanced with an xG edge (1.38–0.14 xG), winning 0–1.
Fair result: Yes. Canada won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
27 June
JordanxG 0.76 – 2.13 · Group J table
Argentina backed up their xG edge (2.13–0.76 xG), winning 1–3.
Fair result: Yes. Argentina won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.67 – 1.49 · Group J table
An even contest (1.67–1.49 xG) finished 3–3.
Fair result: Yes. The scoreline and xG both point to an even match.
xG 2.18 – 0.20 · Group K table
DR Congo backed up their xG edge (2.18–0.20 xG), winning 3–1.
Fair result: Yes. DR Congo won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.70 – 0.93 · Group K table
An even contest (1.70–0.93 xG) finished 0–0.
Fair result: Not fully. Colombia had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
PanamaxG 0.66 – 1.56 · Group L table
England backed up their xG edge (1.56–0.66 xG), winning 0–2.
Fair result: Yes. England won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.42 – 0.64 · Group L table
Croatia edged a balanced game 2–1 (0.42–0.64 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
Was it fair by xG?Group L story Croatia finished second despite a negative xG profile27 June recap
26 June
New ZealandxG 0.24 – 3.64 · Group G table
Belgium backed up their xG edge (3.64–0.24 xG), winning 1–5.
Fair result: Yes. Belgium won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.84 – 1.97 · Group G table
Iran created far more (1.97–0.84 xG) but were held to a 1–1 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Iran had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
UruguayxG 0.20 – 0.86 · Group H table
Spain edged a balanced game 0–1 (0.20–0.86 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Spain won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.39 – 0.39 · Group H table
Cape Verde created far more (1.39–0.39 xG) but were held to a 0–0 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Cape Verde had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
Was it fair by xG?Group H story FIFA #20 Uruguay missed the Round of 3226 June recap
xG 3.01 – 0.14 · Group I table
Senegal backed up their xG edge (3.01–0.14 xG), winning 5–0.
Fair result: Yes. Senegal won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.70 – 1.50 · Group I table
France edged a balanced game 1–4 (1.70–1.50 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
25 June
TurkiyexG 3.05 – 2.13 · Group D table
Turkiye backed up their xG edge (3.05–2.13 xG), winning 3–2.
Fair result: Yes. Turkiye won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.24 – 0.55 · Group D table
An even contest (0.24–0.55 xG) finished 0–0.
Fair result: Not fully. Australia had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
TunisiaxG 0.62 – 1.85 · Group F table
Netherlands backed up their xG edge (1.85–0.62 xG), winning 1–3.
Fair result: Yes. Netherlands won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.21 – 0.64 · Group F table
An even contest (1.21–0.64 xG) finished 1–1.
Fair result: Not fully. Japan had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
xG 1.27 – 0.65 · Group E table
Ecuador edged a balanced game 2–1 (1.27–0.65 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Ecuador won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
Was it fair by xG?Group E story Ecuador finished third despite 5.51 xPts25 June recap
CuracaoxG 0.50 – 1.31 · Group E table
Ivory Coast backed up their xG edge (1.31–0.50 xG), winning 0–2.
Fair result: Yes. Ivory Coast won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
24 June
xG 1.16 – 0.90 · Group A table
South Africa edged a balanced game 1–0 (1.16–0.90 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
Was it fair by xG?Group A story South Korea finished third despite 5.09 xPts24 June recap
CzechiaxG 0.53 – 1.74 · Group A table
Mexico backed up their xG edge (1.74–0.53 xG), winning 0–3.
Fair result: Yes. Mexico won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
ScotlandxG 1.04 – 4.33 · Group C table
Brazil backed up their xG edge (4.33–1.04 xG), winning 0–3.
Fair result: Yes. Brazil won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 3.76 – 1.22 · Group C table
Morocco backed up their xG edge (3.76–1.22 xG), winning 4–2.
Fair result: Yes. Morocco won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.11 – 1.66 · Group B table
Switzerland edged a balanced game 2–1 (1.11–1.66 xG).
Fair result: No. Switzerland won the scoreboard, but Canada had the stronger xG profile.
xG 0.68 – 0.77 · Group B table
Bosnia and Herzegovina edged a balanced game 3–1 (0.68–0.77 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
23 June
xG 0.98 – 0.37 · Group K table
Colombia edged a balanced game 1–0 (0.98–0.37 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Colombia won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.55 – 1.65 · Group L table
Croatia backed up their xG edge (1.65–0.55 xG), winning 0–1.
Fair result: Yes. Croatia won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.36 – 0.17 · Group L table
England created far more (1.36–0.17 xG) but were held to a 0–0 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. England had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
Was it fair by xG?Story England let Ghana off the hook in a 0–0 draw the xG tilted hard23 June recap
xG 2.61 – 0.24 · Group K table
Portugal backed up their xG edge (2.61–0.24 xG), winning 5–0.
Fair result: Yes. Portugal won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
22 June
xG 0.63 – 1.89 · Group J table
Algeria backed up their xG edge (1.89–0.63 xG), winning 1–2.
Fair result: Yes. Algeria won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.20 – 1.72 · Group I table
Norway edged a balanced game 3–2 (2.20–1.72 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Norway won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.67 – 0.63 · Group I table
France backed up their xG edge (2.67–0.63 xG), winning 3–0.
Fair result: Yes. France won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.36 – 0.53 · Group J table
Argentina backed up their xG edge (2.36–0.53 xG), winning 2–0.
Fair result: Yes. Argentina won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
Was it fair by xG?Story Argentina 2–0 Austria: a measured win the chances back up22 June recap
21 June
xG 1.24 – 1.87 · Group G table
Egypt edged a balanced game 1–3 (1.24–1.87 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Egypt won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.32 – 0.88 · Group H table
Uruguay created far more (2.32–0.88 xG) but were held to a 2–2 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Uruguay had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
xG 1.79 – 0.62 · Group G table
Belgium created far more (1.79–0.62 xG) but were held to a 0–0 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Belgium had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
xG 2.30 – 0.14 · Group H table
Spain backed up their xG edge (2.30–0.14 xG), winning 4–0.
Fair result: Yes. Spain won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
20 June
xG 0.05 – 2.13 · Group F table
Japan backed up their xG edge (2.13–0.05 xG), winning 0–4.
Fair result: Yes. Japan won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.84 – 0.50 · Group E table
Ecuador created far more (2.84–0.50 xG) but were held to a 0–0 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Ecuador had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
Was it fair by xG?Story Ecuador out-chanced Curacao by a distance — and still drew 0–020 June recap
xG 1.89 – 1.22 · Group E table
Germany edged a balanced game 2–1 (1.89–1.22 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Germany won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 2.61 – 1.01 · Group F table
Netherlands backed up their xG edge (2.61–1.01 xG), winning 5–1.
Fair result: Yes. Netherlands won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
19 June
xG 2.17 – 0.32 · Group D table
Turkiye dominated the chances (2.17–0.32 xG) but lost 0–1 — a full-point xPts robbery.
Fair result: No. Paraguay won the scoreboard, but Turkiye had the stronger xG profile.
Was it fair by xG?Group D story Turkiye finished fourth despite 5.94 xPts19 June recap
xG 1.75 – 0.23 · Group C table
Brazil backed up their xG edge (1.75–0.23 xG), winning 3–0.
Fair result: Yes. Brazil won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.51 – 0.99 · Group C table
Morocco edged a balanced game 0–1 (0.51–0.99 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Morocco won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.08 – 0.35 · Group D table
USA edged a balanced game 2–0 (1.08–0.35 xG).
Fair result: Yes. USA won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
18 June
xG 0.53 – 0.91 · Group A table
Mexico edged a balanced game 1–0 (0.53–0.91 xG).
Fair result: No. Mexico won the scoreboard, but South Korea had the stronger xG profile.
xG 4.60 – 0.22 · Group B table
Canada backed up their xG edge (4.60–0.22 xG), winning 6–0.
Fair result: Yes. Canada won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
Was it fair by xG?Story Canada 6–0 Qatar: a rout the expected goals fully back up18 June recap
xG 2.06 – 0.23 · Group B table
Switzerland backed up their xG edge (2.06–0.23 xG), winning 4–1.
Fair result: Yes. Switzerland won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.02 – 1.38 · Group A table
An even contest (1.02–1.38 xG) finished 1–1.
Fair result: Not fully. South Africa had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
17 June
xG 1.16 – 1.61 · Group K table
Colombia edged a balanced game 1–3 (1.16–1.61 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Colombia won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.25 – 0.73 · Group L table
Ghana edged a balanced game 1–0 (1.25–0.73 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Ghana won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 3.20 – 0.70 · Group L table
England backed up their xG edge (3.20–0.70 xG), winning 4–2.
Fair result: Yes. England won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.65 – 0.87 · Group K table
An even contest (0.65–0.87 xG) finished 1–1.
Fair result: Yes. The scoreline and xG both point to an even match.
16 June
xG 1.69 – 0.46 · Group J table
Austria backed up their xG edge (1.69–0.46 xG), winning 3–1.
Fair result: Yes. Austria won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.26 – 0.32 · Group J table
Argentina backed up their xG edge (1.26–0.32 xG), winning 3–0.
Fair result: Yes. Argentina won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.80 – 2.52 · Group I table
Norway backed up their xG edge (2.52–0.80 xG), winning 1–4.
Fair result: Yes. Norway won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.79 – 0.53 · Group I table
France backed up their xG edge (1.79–0.53 xG), winning 3–1.
Fair result: Yes. France won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
15 June
xG 1.50 – 1.24 · Group G table
An even contest (1.50–1.24 xG) finished 2–2.
Fair result: Yes. The scoreline and xG both point to an even match.
xG 0.66 – 1.72 · Group H table
Uruguay created far more (1.72–0.66 xG) but were held to a 1–1 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Uruguay had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
xG 1.35 – 1.08 · Group G table
An even contest (1.35–1.08 xG) finished 1–1.
Fair result: Yes. The scoreline and xG both point to an even match.
xG 2.10 – 0.20 · Group H table
Spain created far more (2.10–0.20 xG) but were held to a 0–0 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Spain had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
14 June
xG 1.33 – 0.28 · Group F table
Sweden backed up their xG edge (1.33–0.28 xG), winning 5–1.
Fair result: Yes. Sweden won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.52 – 1.01 · Group E table
Ivory Coast edged a balanced game 1–0 (1.52–1.01 xG).
Fair result: Yes. Ivory Coast won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 0.78 – 0.59 · Group F table
An even contest (0.78–0.59 xG) finished 2–2.
Fair result: Yes. The scoreline and xG both point to an even match.
xG 4.22 – 0.41 · Group E table
Germany backed up their xG edge (4.22–0.41 xG), winning 7–1.
Fair result: Yes. Germany won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
13 June
xG 1.18 – 1.36 · Group D table
Australia edged a balanced game 2–0 (1.18–1.36 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
xG 1.05 – 1.05 · Group C table
Scotland edged a balanced game 0–1 (1.05–1.05 xG).
Fair result: Mostly. The winner was not clearly ahead on xG, but the chance gap was small enough that this was a close result rather than a robbery.
xG 1.26 – 1.37 · Group C table
An even contest (1.26–1.37 xG) finished 1–1.
Fair result: Yes. The scoreline and xG both point to an even match.
xG 0.60 – 3.20 · Group B table
Switzerland created far more (3.20–0.60 xG) but were held to a 1–1 draw.
Fair result: Not fully. Switzerland had the better xG profile, but only took one point.
12 June
xG 1.42 – 0.54 · Group D table
USA backed up their xG edge (1.42–0.54 xG), winning 4–1.
Fair result: Yes. USA won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.23 – 0.96 · Group B table
An even contest (1.23–0.96 xG) finished 1–1.
Fair result: Yes. The scoreline and xG both point to an even match.
11 June
xG 2.30 – 0.83 · Group A table
South Korea backed up their xG edge (2.30–0.83 xG), winning 2–1.
Fair result: Yes. South Korea won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.
xG 1.46 – 0.07 · Group A table
Mexico backed up their xG edge (1.46–0.07 xG), winning 2–0.
Fair result: Yes. Mexico won both the scoreboard and the xG battle.