What expected goals actually measures
Every shot a team takes has a probability of becoming a goal. A tap-in from two yards might be worth 0.9 xG; a speculative effort from 30 yards might be worth 0.03. Expected goals adds those probabilities together to estimate how many goals a team should have scored from the chances it created — regardless of whether the ball actually went in.
The model is built from hundreds of thousands of historical shots, weighing variables like distance, angle, body part, assist type and defensive pressure. The output is deliberately simple: a single number per shot, summed across a match, that captures the quality of chances rather than the luck of the finish.
Why the scoreline can lie
A team can win 2-0 while being comprehensively outplayed. They can dominate for 90 minutes, rack up 2.8 xG, and lose to a deflected free-kick. Over a single match, finishing variance and goalkeeping can completely detach the result from the performance. Over a tournament, those swings start to even out — which is exactly why xG is so valuable at a World Cup.
Goals tell you what happened. Expected goals tell you what was likely to happen — and what is likely to happen next.
This is the lens we apply to favourites like France and Spain. A side that consistently creates 2.0+ xG per match is building chances that will, eventually, be converted. A side overperforming its xG is often riding a hot streak that the data warns may not last into the knockout rounds.
Contenders by chance quality
The chart below ranks pre-tournament favourites by average xG created per match in recent competitive fixtures. France and Spain lead on volume of high-value chances, while Croatia rank lower on creation but historically overperform through knockout-round resilience.
Over- and under-performance
The gap between goals scored and xG is where the stories hide. A positive gap (more goals than xG) can mean elite finishing — or simple good fortune. A negative gap can flag a profligate attack due a correction. The table tracks that gap for several 2026 qualifiers.
| Nation | Goals | xG | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|
| Norway | 21 | 16.4 | +4.6 |
| Türkiye | 16 | 13.1 | +2.9 |
| Germany | 19 | 18.8 | +0.2 |
| Switzerland | 18 | 19.5 | -1.5 |
| Croatia | 14 | 16.9 | -2.9 |
Where xG stops being useful
xG is a tool, not a verdict. It says nothing about who took the chances, ignores game state and red cards unless you adjust for them, and struggles with rare events like long-range specialists or chaotic goalmouth scrambles. We always read it alongside context — the same discipline that runs through every page on this site.
To see these ideas play out across a hundred years of finals, read The Long Read, or test the contenders' form for yourself in the interactive tables.