Played: 

            ·    Argentina_2x0_Mexico

· France_2x1_Denmark

· Poland_2x0_Saudi Arabia

· Tunisia_0x1_Australia

Game analysis according to Artificial Intelligence

Argentina_2x0_Mexico

Argentina had 56% of the performance of a champion team and Mexico had 37%.

Relative intensity in the game:

- 60% Argentinian

- 40% Mexico

Finishes:

- A game with only 10 finishes in total.

- Despite 2 goals, only 3 shots by Argentina went in the direction of the goal. 2 right finishes were from Messi.

- Mexico had only one shot in the right direction

Tackles

- The two teams neutralized about 11% of their opponents' actions

- Hector Moreno, Mexico defender and Nicolas Otamendi, Argentine defender were the highlights.

Passes:

- Both teams had a pass accuracy rate of champions, above 90%.

- Argentina played a game more than touches, using only 6% of the passes to launches and crosses

- The Argentines Nicolas Otamendi, defender and Rodrigo de Paul, defensive midfielder, were the ones who hit the most passes

what to keep

- Argentina: pass success rate

- Mexico: no champion highlights

what to improve

- Argentina: intensity

- Mexico: intensity

The tireless of the game were:

- Argentina: Nicolas Otamendi - ZAG

-     Argentina: Rodrigo de Paul - VOL

The best performances:

- Nicolas Otamendi, ZAG of Argentina

Worst performance:

- Hirving Lozano, ATA Mexico

France_2x1_Denmark

France played 60% of what is expected of a winning team and Denmark 55%.

Relative game intensity:

- 52% France

- 48% Denmark

Finishes:

- With 19 finals, France surpassed the ideal of a winning team, but needs to improve in the hit rate, which was regular. Striker Kylian Mbappe was the one who finished the most correctly.

- Denmark finished less than ideal and had a regular strike rate

Tackles

- France neutralized 12% of Denmark's shares, which in turn neutralized France's 9%. Rasmus Kristensen, full-back from Denmark and Adrien Rabiot, midfielder from France, were the most effective

Passes:

- Both teams had pass accuracy rates above 90%. Both used about 10% in longer range passes. The highlights were Andreas Christensen, defender and Victor Nelsson, defender, both from Denmark.

what to keep

- France: passing and finishing success rate

- Denmark: pass success rate

what to improve

- France: directing rate of submissions

- Denmark: number of submissions

The tireless ones in the match were:

            -    Denmark: Victor Nelsson-ZAG

- Denmark: Rasmus Kristensen-LAT

- Denmark: Andreas Christensen-ZAG

Top performers:

- Victor Nelsson, ZAG of Denmark

- Theo Hernández, LAT from France

- Andreas Christensen, ZAG of Denmark

Worst Performances:

- Olivier Giroud, ATA France

Poland_2x0_Saudi Arabia

Despite the defeat, Arabia, according to the AI, performed better than Poland. In relation to the performance of the champion, it had 59% of intensity and Poland with 29%.

Relative game intensity:

- 67% Saudi Arabia

- 33% Poland

Finishes:

- Despite an ideal number of shots, the goal-direction rate was low.

- Poland had a lower number of shots, but also hit the goal direction.

Tackles

- Saudi neutralized 18% of Poland's shares, which only neutralized 6%

Passes:

- Arabia had a good number of successful passes and Poland regular.

- 10% of Arabia's passes were longer range. Poland, on the other hand, was at 20%. Perhaps therein lies the explanation of his victory.

what to keep

- Both teams lacked the qualities of champions

what to improve

- saudi: goal direction rate

- Poland: number of submissions

The tireless of the game were:

- Saudi Arabia: Abdulelah Al Amri-ZAG

- Saudi Arabia: Mohamed Kanno-MEI

Top performers:

- Abdulelah Al Amri, ZAG Saudi Arabia

- Salem Al Dawsari, Saudi Arabia ATA

- Ali Al Bulayhi, ZAG of Saudi Arabia

Worst performance:

- Abdulrahman Al Obud, MEI of Saudi Arabia

Tunisia_0x1_Australia

Australia had 34% of the performance of a winning team and Tunisia 45%

Relative game intensity:

- 43% Australia

- 57% Tunisia

Finishes:

- Tunisia finished close to ideal, while Australia was well below. Both teams had regular driving hit rate.

Disarms:

- Both teams neutralized each other's plays in equal proportions.

Passes:

- Both teams had poor passing accuracy

- Likewise, both teams use nearly 20% on long-range passes, which is when the game increases in vulnerability.

what to keep

- There are no champion traits

what to improve

- Pass hit rate on both teams

The tireless of the game were:

- Tunisia-Yassine Meriah-ZAG

Top performers:

- Yassine Meriah, ZAG Tunisia

- Montassar Talbi, ZAG of Tunisia

worst performance                    

- Taha Yassine Khenissi, ATA Tunisia

Team Ranking – 2nd Round

Team

Comparison with 1st Place

England

100.0%

France

97.2%

Saudi Arabia

95.5%

Argentina

91.8%

Senegal

91.6%

Denmark

89.2%

Netherlands

84.8%

Wales

81.0%

Tunisia

74%

United States

71.4%

Ecuador

66.3%

Qatar

64.1%

Mexico

60.1%

Australia

55.0%

Poland

47.6%

Iran

44.1%

Ranking Players 2nd Round - Top 10

 ZAG

Harry Maguire, Inglaterra

Theo Hernandez, França

LAT

Nicolas Otamendi, Argentina

Luke Shaw, Inglaterra

VOL

Frenkie de Jong, Holanda

Mohamed Kanno, Arábia Saudita

MEI

Auralien Tchouamani, França

Alexis Mac Allister, Argentina

 ATA

 Salem Al Dawsari, Arábia Saudita

Antoine Griezmann, França

Artificial Intelligence does not understand football, but it reveals relevant patterns and details for professionals, specialists and executives who want to identify key points for consistent improvement in their businesses. This is a post game analysis, but it can be done in real time or even deepened on demand. One of the great advantages of AI is the capacity for in-depth analysis in real time, keeping the business in question at a high level of dynamism.

(*) FIF-AI: Football Intensity Factor, developed with the application of AI - Artificial Intelligence applied to football data generated from high-performance games and updated with continuous learning techniques.