Group I
NOR

Norway

Coach: Staale Solbakken
Group rank
2
Points
6
Played
3
Goal diff.
1
Status
Qualified from group
Fixtures
By date
Fixtures / results
Tue, Jun 16
IraqvsNorway
FT 1-4
Group I
Tue, Jun 23
NorwayvsSenegal
FT 3-2
Group I
Fri, Jun 26
NorwayvsFrance
FT 1-4
Group I
Tue, Jun 30
Côte d'IvoirevsNorway
FT 1-2
Round of 32
Sun, Jul 5
BrazilvsNorway
FT 1-2
Round of 16
Sat, Jul 11
NorwayvsEngland
FT 1-2
Quarter-final
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
individual-led · mixed-tempo

How they play

Norway operates as an individual-led side that balances possession with a heavy reliance on Erling Haaland. With Haaland responsible for nearly half of their scoring output, the team's tactical identity centers on funneling play toward their primary finisher. This reliance creates a high-stakes dynamic where their offensive efficiency is closely tied to his ability to convert chances.

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

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

+Recent form8 · 6W 0D 2L
2026-07-11World Cup 2026HNOR 1-2 ENGL
2026-07-05World Cup 2026ANOR 2-1 BRAW
2026-06-30World Cup 2026ANOR 2-1 CIVW
2026-06-26World Cup 2026HNOR 1-4 FRAL
2026-06-23World Cup 2026HNOR 3-2 SENW
2026-06-16World Cup 2026ANOR 4-1 IRQW
2025-11-16World Cup 2026 qualifying · UEFAANOR 4-1 ITAxG 1.4-0.9W
2025-11-13World Cup 2026 qualifying · UEFAHNOR 4-1 ESTxG 2.5-0.7W
International friendly matches are excluded
N2 · Scoring
open play 90%

How they score

Norway relies heavily on open play to generate their scoring output. With nearly 90% of their goals originating from open play, the team demonstrates a high conversion efficiency that consistently outperforms the field average. This tactical reliance is anchored by a clinical finishing profile that drives their high-volume attacking rhythm.

Goal source · share of play-type-classified goals
89.6%
Open play89.6%Counter2.1%Corner8.3%
8% set piececorner + free kick
Effectiveness · conversion by source vs benchmark
Open play22%avg 20%+3 pts
44 goals from 199 shots.
Set piece7.3%avg 4.5%+3 pts
4 goals from 55 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?80% intact

80% of listed scorer goals come from players still marked in the squad.

Erling Haalandin squad35 · 50%
Alexander Sørlothout11 · 16%
Antonio Nusain squad5 · 7%
Thelo Aasgaardin squad4 · 6%
N3 · Conceding
open play 89%

How they concede

Norway's defensive structure is most vulnerable to sustained pressure in open play. With 89% of classified goals originating from open-play sequences, opponents may find success by prioritizing quick transitions and fluid movement. While their overall conversion rate against remains relatively low, the high volume of open-play shots faced suggests a susceptibility to breakdown in organized defensive phases.

Conceded goal source · share of play-type-classified goals
88.9%
Open play88.9%Corner11.1%
11% set piece concededcorner + free kick
Effectiveness · conceded conversion by source vs benchmark
Open play8.5%avg 20%-11 pts
8 conceded from 94 shots faced.
Set piece4.3%avg 4.5%0 pts
1 conceded from 23 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 · +0.66 GD residual

Better than their rating?

Norway consistently outperforms their Elo-based expectations by a margin of 0.66 goals per match. While their performance shows higher volatility than the field median, their ability to exceed goal difference projections suggests a tactical identity that frequently disrupts standard rating models.

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) ->ESPHAICODNOR
NORTournament field · 48solid line = rating-neutral · dashed = field-median reliability100 Elo ~= -0.37 goals
+Biggest over- & under-performances34 matches
Residual = actual goal difference minus what the Elo gap predicted.
vs MDA · 2025-09-09GD +10 vs exp +1.94+8.06
vs ISR · 2025-10-11GD +5 vs exp +1.02+3.98
vs KAZ · 2024-11-17GD +5 vs exp +1.47+3.53
vs AUT · 2024-10-13GD -4 vs exp +0.16-4.16
vs ESP · 2023-03-25GD -3 vs exp -0.44-2.56
vs FRA · 2026-06-26GD -3 vs exp -0.79-2.21