Group I
FRA

France

Coach: Didier Deschamps
Group rank
1
Points
9
Played
3
Goal diff.
8
Status
Qualified from group
Fixtures
By date
Fixtures / results
Tue, Jun 16
FrancevsSenegal
FT 3-1
Group I
Mon, Jun 22
FrancevsIraq
FT 3-0
Group I
Fri, Jun 26
NorwayvsFrance
FT 1-4
Group I
Tue, Jun 30
FrancevsSweden
FT 3-0
Round of 32
Sat, Jul 4
ParaguayvsFrance
FT 0-1
Round of 16
Thu, Jul 9
FrancevsMorocco
FT 2-0
Quarter-final
Tue, Jul 14
FrancevsSpain
FT 0-2
Semi-final
Sat, Jul 18
FrancevsEngland
FT 4-6
Third-place playoff
Countries
Groups overview
Group I
1FRAQ
PL 33-0-0GF 10-2GD 8PTS 9
2NORQ
PL 32-0-1GF 8-7GD 1PTS 6
3SENQ
PL 31-0-2GF 8-6GD 2PTS 3
4IRQOut
PL 30-0-3GF 1-12GD -11PTS 0
#TeamPLWDL+/-GDPTSStatus
1France330010-289Qualified
2Norway32018-716Qualified
3Senegal31028-623Qualified
4Iraq30031-12-110Out
Nation lens
Identity1 / 4
N1 · Identity
balanced · mixed-tempo

How they play

France maintains a balanced tactical identity defined by high possession and a reliance on Kylian Mbappé. With 63.6% possession and a measured pressing approach, they prioritize control while funneling a significant share of their attacking output through their primary forward. This mixed-tempo style allows them to dictate the rhythm of play against a wide range of opponents.

Playing identity · system ↔ individual × direct ↔ possession
SystemIndividualPossessionDirectSystem-builtpossessionStar-ledpossessionPress-and-transitionStar-ledcounter-attackersFRA

France is plotted from possession share and top-scorer concentration. PPDA and recent form are supporting context when present.

+Recent form8 · 6W 0D 2L
2026-07-18World Cup 2026HFRA 4-6 ENGL
2026-07-14World Cup 2026HFRA 0-2 ESPL
2026-07-09World Cup 2026HFRA 2-0 MARW
2026-07-04World Cup 2026AFRA 1-0 PARW
2026-06-30World Cup 2026HFRA 3-0 SWEW
2026-06-26World Cup 2026AFRA 4-1 NORW
2026-06-22World Cup 2026HFRA 3-0 IRQW
2026-06-16World Cup 2026HFRA 3-1 SENW
International friendly matches are excluded
N2 · Scoring
open play 81%

How they score

France relies heavily on open play to generate their scoring output. With 81% of their goals originating from open play, the team demonstrates a consistent ability to break down defenses through structured attacking sequences. While set pieces contribute less frequently, their efficiency in those situations remains notably higher than the field average.

Goal source · share of play-type-classified goals
81%
Open play81%Counter6.9%Corner6.9%Free kick5.2%
12% set piececorner + free kick
Effectiveness · conversion by source vs benchmark
Open play16%avg 20%-4 pts
51 goals from 319 shots.
Set piece7.5%avg 4.5%+3 pts
7 goals from 93 shots.
benchmark average higher than field by 3+ pts lower than field by 3+ pts
Goal-source shares use non-own-goal rows with source_class values; own goals are excluded.
+Top scorers · still a threat?65% intact

65% of listed scorer goals come from players still marked in the squad.

Kylian Mbappéin squad18 · 16%
Kylian Mbappé Lottinin squad14 · 13%
Olivier Giroudout9 · 8%
Randal Kolo Muaniout8 · 7%
N3 · Conceding
open play 84%

How they concede

France is most vulnerable to sustained pressure during open play. With over 84% of conceded goals originating from open play, opponents may find success by prioritizing fluid attacking transitions. While set-piece efficiency remains relatively contained, the higher-than-average conversion rate allowed in open play suggests a potential opening for clinical finishers.

Conceded goal source · share of play-type-classified goals
84.4%
Open play84.4%Counter3.1%Corner3.1%Free kick9.4%
13% set piece concededcorner + free kick
Effectiveness · conceded conversion by source vs benchmark
Open play22%avg 20%+3 pts
28 conceded from 126 shots faced.
Set piece8.0%avg 4.5%+4 pts
4 conceded from 50 shots faced.
benchmark average lower than field by 3+ pts higher than field by 3+ pts
Conceded source shares use non-own-goal rows with source_class values.
N4 · Big moments
beats ranking · +0.96 GD residual

Better than their rating?

France consistently outperforms their Elo-based expectations, delivering a positive goal difference residual of 0.96. While their performance remains highly effective, their output shows greater volatility than the field median, suggesting a tendency for both dominant displays and occasional lapses.

Over-performance DNA · beats-its-rating × reliability, the tournament field
Beats rating -><- Falls shortVolatile ^Reliable vHigh-ceilingwildcardVolatileunderachieverReliablyoverdeliversReliablybelow par-1.7-0.90+0.9+1.70.81.41.92.5Beats its Elo rating by (goals/match) ->ESPNORHAICODFRA
FRATournament field · 48solid line = rating-neutral · dashed = field-median reliability100 Elo ~= -0.37 goals
+Biggest over- & under-performances62 matches
Residual = actual goal difference minus what the Elo gap predicted.
vs GIB · 2023-11-18GD +14 vs exp +3.00+11.00
vs NED · 2023-03-24GD +4 vs exp -0.72+4.72
vs UKR · 2025-11-13GD +4 vs exp +0.28+3.72
vs CRO · 2025-03-20GD -2 vs exp -0.03-1.97
vs TUN · 2022-11-30GD -1 vs exp +0.89-1.89
vs ITA · 2024-09-06GD -2 vs exp -0.22-1.78