Saudi Arabia: 1      

Mexico: 2      

Saudi Arabia had 20% of performance relative to a high performance team and Mexico had 42%.

Relative intensity in the game:            

         Saudi Arabia: 32%

         Mexico: 68%

Finishes:  

         Excellent number of submissions in the match, 34.

         Saudi Arabia: had a good number of finishes compared to a high performance team. Goal drive rate was 20% which is a bad rate

         Mexico: had an excellent number of finishes compared to a high performance team. The goal-direction rate was 46%, which is a good rate.

         Who had the most successful finishes: Mexico-Luis Chavez, midfielder, finishing 4 times.

Disarms:      

         Saudi Arabia: neutralized 10% of the opponent's moves.

         Mexico: Neutralized 15% of the opponent's plays, an above average rate.

         Saudi Arabia-Abdulelah Al Amri, defender and Mexico-Edson Alvarez, midfielder were the ones who disarmed the most.

Passes:

         Saudi Arabia: needs to evolve. Mistakes in passes can mean a defeat. Used 20% of long passes as resources.

         Mexico: needs to evolve. Mistakes in passes can mean a defeat. Used 17% of long passes as resources.

         Mexico-Héctor Moreno, defender was the one who hit the most passes.

What to keep:           

         Saudi Arabia: no high performance standouts

         Mexico: number of shots and tackle rate

What to improve:        

         Saudi Arabia: intensity

         Mexico: goal direction rate

The tireless of the game were:         

         Mexico-Luis Chavez, midfielder

         Mexico-Edson Alvarez, midfielder

The best performances:  

         Edson Alvarez, Mexico midfielder

         Cesar Montes, Mexico defender

         Hector Moreno, Mexico defender

Worst performance:     

         Feras Al Brikan, Saudi Arabia midfielder

Australia: 1    

Denmark: 0 

Australia had 22% of performance relative to a high performance team and Denmark had 70%. 

Relative intensity in the game:            

         Australia: 24%

         Denmark: 76%

Finishes:  

         Regular number of submissions in the game, 21.

         Australia: had a regular number of submissions. The drive to goal rate was 50%, which is a good rate.

         Denmark: had a good number of finishes compared to a high performance team. The goal-direction rate was 23%, which is a bad rate.

         Most successful finishers: Australia-Mitchell Duke, forward, 2 submissions.

Disarms:      

         Australia: Neutralized 7% of opponent plays, which is below average.

         Denmark: Neutralized 17% of the opponent's moves, above average.

         Denmark-Joachim Andersen, defender and Australia-Milos Degenek, defender were the ones who disarmed the most.

Passes:

         Australia: needs to evolve. Mistakes in passes can mean a defeat. Used 11% of long passes as resources.

         Denmark: had a good rate. Used 10% of long passes as resources.

         Denmark-Joachim Andersen, defender was the one who hit the most passes.

What to keep:           

         Australia: no high performance standouts

         Denmark: rate of tackles

What to improve:        

         Australia: intensity

         Denmark: rate of shots on target

The tireless of the game were:         

         Denmark-Joachim Andersen, defender

         Denmark-Andreas Christensen, defender

         Denmark-Pierre Hojbjerg, steering wheel

The best performances:  

         Joachim Andersen, Denmark defender

         Andreas Christensen, Denmark defender

         Pierre Hojbjerg, Denmark midfielder

Worst performance:     

         Andreas Cornelius, Denmark striker

Argentina: 2  

Poland: 0      

Argentina had 96% of performance relative to a high performance team and Poland had 30%. 

Relative intensity in the game:            

         Argentina: 76%

         Poland: 24%

Finishes:  

         Good number of submissions in the match, 28.

         Argentina: had an excellent number of submissions compared to a high performance team. The goal-direction rate was 54%, which is a good rate.

         Poland: had a number of poor finishes. The goal drive rate was 0%, which is a bad rate.

         Who scored the most correct finishes: Argentina-Lionel Messi, striker, finishing 4 times.

Disarms:      

         Argentina: neutralized 15% of the opponent's moves, above average.

         Poland: Neutralized 5% of the opponent's moves, below average.

         Poland-Kamil Glik, defender and Poland-Matty Cash, full-back were the ones who disarmed the most.

Passes:

         Argentina: had a high performance rate. Used 5% of long passes as resources.

         Poland: needs to evolve. Mistakes in passes can mean a defeat. Used 14% of long passes as resources.

         Argentina-Rodrigo de Paul, defensive midfielder was the one who hit the most passes.

What to keep:           

         Argentina: almost everything

         Poland: there was no highlight of high performance

What to improve:        

         Argentina: no negative highlights

         Poland: intensity, initially.

The tireless of the game were:         

         Argentina-Rodrigo de Paul, midfielder

         Argentina-Nicolas Otamendi, defender

         Argentina-Lionel Messi, striker

The best performances:  

         Rodrigo de Paul, midfielder for Argentina

         Nicolás Otamendi, Argentina defender

         Enzo Fernández, Argentina midfielder

Worst performance:     

         Robert Lewandowski, Poland striker

France: 0        

Tunisia: 1       

France had 64% of performance relative to a high performance team and Tunisia had 29%.     

Relative intensity in the game:            

         France: 69%

         Tunisia: 31%

Finishes:  

         Regular number of finishes in the game, 16.

         France: had a good number of finishes compared to a high performance team. The goal-direction rate was 40%, which is regular

         Tunisia: had a number of poor finishes. The drive to goal rate was 50%, which is a good rate.

         Most successful finishers: France-Kylian Mbappe, striker, finishing twice.

Disarms:      

         France: neutralized 24% of the opponent's moves. Above average rate.

         Tunisia: neutralized 11% of the opponent's moves.

         France-Eduardo Camavinga, midfielder and France-Axel Disasi, defender were the ones who most disarmed.

Passes:

         France: had a good rate. Used 7% of long passes as resources.

         Tunisia: needs to evolve. Mistakes in passes can mean a defeat. Used 12% of long passes as resources.

         France-Aurélien Tchouaméni, defensive midfielder was the one who hit the most passes.

What to keep:           

         France: rate of tackles.

         Tunisia: no high performance highlights.

What to improve:        

         France: number of shots on goal and rate of direction

         Tunisia: intensity

The tireless of the game were:         

         France-Eduardo Camavinga, midfielder

         France-Aurélien Tchouaméni, steering wheel

         France-Axel Disasi, defender

The best performances:  

         Eduardo Camavinga, France midfielder

         Ibrahima Konate, France defender

         Aurélien Tchouaméni, midfielder for France

Worst performance:     

         Issam Jebali, Tunisia striker

Artificial Intelligence does not understand football, but it reveals patterns and important details for professionals, specialists and executives who want to identify key points for consistent improvement in their businesses.

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.