In the competition rules on FIFA official pages it says the following tie-brakers decide on who advances:  
1) number of points  
2) goal difference  
2) goals scored  
4) direct encounter  
5) drawing lots  
 

A.) As long as there is no draw in the group matches, the following three special cases are theoretically possible (it depends on the particular results who beats who): 

 -1) A team with 6 points (2 wins, 1 loss) could finish only third because there are three teams with 6 points. 
 The famous A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A while all three beat D. 
>> the past/france98 

 -2) A team with 3 points (1 win, 2 losses) could make it to the second round because three teams finish with 3 points. 
 A beats B, B beats C, and C beats A while all three lose to D. 
>> the past/france98 

 -3) The Group is already decided after two matches played, when two teams that meet themselves in the third encounter already have collected six points from their first two matches. 
(decided refers to who advances) 
 To avoid a disappointing situation, the African Cup Of Nations has tried a new mode: The succession of the matches had not been determined by the draw but it had been fixed that the two top seeds would meet in the first match. This created an exciting discourse with a favorite behind from the start and an outsider from the other opening match with a good position and indeed kept all four groups open. 
>> the past/france98 

 -4) The 3-point-regulation implies a new problem: A team can not only be qualified after their first two matches but also can have clinched the first place for sure. This happens if the other two results have been draws. This might lead to a let-down in the third match and might give an advantage to the team who meet this favorite in the third match. 
 This situation in reverse to the one before seems less likely to be avoided by the mode of the last African Cup Of Nations: Here it is the 3 point rule to blame although it seems to do good work elsewhere. 
>> the past/france98 

B.) In reverse - if there is a draw the group will not be completely decided before the third match as a team that has gained one point has always a theoretical possibility to advance. Also it can be said that a team with two wins here in all cases will advance, a team with two losses in any case will have to go home. 
>> the past/france98 

C.) Unbeaten but out When there have been draws some special cases are possible in which an undefeated team has to walk home or a winningless team may go through: 

 -1) Three teams finsish with 5 points (1 wins, 2 draws) 
 A draws with B, B with C, and C with A while all three beat D. 
>> the past/france98 

 -2) Three teams finsish with 2 points (1 loss, 2 draws) 
 A draws with B, B with C, and C with A while all three lose to D. 
>> the past/france98 

 -3) One team draws with all the other three. This leaves the following options for the remaining three matches between the other teams: 

 -3a) The most spectacular case: All matches end with a draw - all teams finish with 3 points, 2 go home, 2 advance, all unbeaten, all winningless. 
>> the past/france98 

 -3b) The other matches see 2 draws and one sole win. This leaves 2 teams with 3 draws=3points. The other 2 teams have 2 and 5 points. So of the unbeaten teams with 3 points one advance, the other one goes home. 
 example: A draws with B, C with D. A draws with D, B and C draw too. A draws with C, and B beats D. This results as follows: B 5pts., A 3pts., C 3pts., D 2pts. 
>> the past/france98 

 -3c) One team draws with all three opponents while the other matches see exactly one more draw: Two cases are possible, in the first one the team with the three draws advances in the other they have to go home. 
 i) A draws with B, C, D. B and C draw also. B and C both beat D. B and C advance. ii) A draws with B, C, D. B and C draw also. B and C both lose to D. A and D advance. 
>> the past/france98 

 -3d) One team draws with all three, but the other matches all have a winner. This in any case means the drawing team is out. 
 The final table is either 7-4-3-1 or 4-4-4-3. 
>> the past/france98 

 
D.) The closest table of all other options is when each team has one win, one draw, and one loss. 
This is only possible if the 2 draws happen on the same gameday (means in both 1st, or both 2nd, or both 3rd matches) while the other two gamedays see only wins/losses.  
>> the past/france98 
 

THE PAST 

 this part of the document will be completed later (latest in time for the World Cup 2002). 
If you want to be notified of the completion of the document mail this message 
 

A.1) Was there a team with 6 points (2 wins, 1 loss) finish only third? 
-After the first matches it had still been possible in group C, F, G, H, but after the second matches this szenario had been eliminated from the possible 

A.2) Did a team with 3 points (1 win, 2 losses) finish second? 
-Same as A.1) because it requires a similar situation after two matches played 

A.3) Was there be a group decided before the third match? 
(decided refers to who advances, not on the complete succession) 
-still possible in group C, H, after the first matches (it is the case when the two teams that win their first matches do not meet each other before the third one) finally it was group H that was decided after the second match for each team 

A.4) Did a team clinch first place after two matches and was there a let-down effect giving an advantage to the third opponent 
-no doubt, definitively yes when Brazil and Nigeria (groups A and D) did not play 100% and helped Norway and Paraguay to the second round on the expense of Morocco and Spain 

B) Which winningless teams still had a chance to turn it around before the third match? 
- the surprising result: in 5 of 8 groups alltogether 11 winningless teams still had a shot at advancing to the second round! Knowing the results it had been an illusion for 4. Remain 7. 
- in group A Morocco and Scotland had a chance going into their direct encounter in the last match with only 1 point but it turned to an illusion when the also before winningless (2 points) Norwegians were able to beat Brazil 
- in group B also three winningless teams went into the last match. Cameroon had a good shot at it with only 1 point but could not overcome Chile who advanced to the second round as the only winnigless team (3 draws). 
- in group C South Africa went into the third match with only 1 point but were too weak to beat Saudi Arabia ata ll when they had needed a victory with a three goal margin 
- in group D three winning less teams went into the last match in a similar situation to group A. The outcome was the same when the Paraguayan victory deprived Spain that had beat Bulgaria by 6:1. 
- in group E Belgium (2  draws) needed a victory against Korea by a 2 goal margin but failed to win at all 
- in group F, G, H only teams that had won a match went into the third with a possibility to advance 
 
 

C.1) Did an unbeaten team (5 point case) become eliminated after the group matches? 
-this had been possible in group E but it had required a Belgian victory over Korea which did not take place 

C.2) Did a winningless team (2 point case) advance? 
-before the last matches this had been still possible in groups D and E, but the outcome was completely different 

C.3a) Was there a case of all four teams finish with 3 draws (2 out, 2 advance)? 
-no (after the first matches still possible in group B, but not any later) 

C.3b) Was there a case of two teams finish with 3 draws (1 out, 1 advances)? 
-no 

C.3c and d) Was there a case of one team finish with 3 draws and will this mean in or out? 
-this happened in group B and E: Chile advanced while Belgium had to go home. The fate of those teams depends on the outcome of the other matches 

C.4) Was there a case of a close table in which all three teams finish with 4 points? 
-no 

the psychological traps of the group matches

  THE PAST 

 this part of the document will be completed later (latest in time for the World Cup 2002). 
If you want to be notified of the completion of the document mail this message 
 

 The different cases of match successions (who are the favorites was determined by the betting offices odds) 

(as expected the discourse most preferable is the one in which the favorites encounter the first match while an encounter in the third match can create a boring group like group H) 

i) favorites meet in first match applies to: 
-group B: Italy vs. Chile 
after the draw in that first match Chile profited from an Italian team under pressure to win their next two and so was able to advance by only drawing with the other opponents as well.  
Plus: Group remained undecided until the last match.  
Result: Exactly as expected 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 0 

-group D: Nigeria vs. Spain 
this match put Spain in a must come from behind situation. Paraguay benefitted when drawing against the nervous Spaniah and beating let-down, already qualified Nigerians.  
Plus: undecided before 3rd match. 
Minus: Nigeria already clinched first place after the second match and relaxed 
Result: Unexpected go-home for Spain and advance for Paraguay 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 0 (although for 2 it was an illusion) 

-group E: Netherlands vs. Belgium 
the draw between the two favorites put Mexico in a confident situation. the loser of the outsiders encounter, Korea, on the other hand, was in a desperate mood immediately. 
Plus: undecided before third match. Winner of Outsiders match helped a bit 
Minus: loser of the outsiders match practically out immediately 
Result: Second place for Mexico had not been expected 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 1  

ii) favorites meet in second match: 
-group F: Germany vs. Yugoslavia 
both favorites won the first match, but because they meet already in the second, the group had not been decided before the third one. 
Plus: At least an illusion of suspense 
Minus: Had the favorites clashed in the first match, the winner of the other match (Iran) might have had attacked with more courage, at least against Yougoslavia. But this remains speculation 
Result: Exactly as expected 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 1 

-group G: Romania vs. England 
similar to group F. 
Plus: Some kind of final for the second place 
Result: As expected, but in a reverse succession. The outcome represented the FIFA seeding rather than the betting offices expectations 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 1 

iii) favorites meet in third match: 
-group A: Brazil vs. Norway 
Norway profited from a Brazilian team already clinched their first place after the second match. 
Minus: Because of already having beat weaker opponents Brazil had clinched the first place before the Norway encounter and so did not play concentrated. This manipulated the outcome of the group. 
Result: Exaclty as expected 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 0 (although for 2 it was an illusion) 

-group C: France vs Danmark 
The group might be decided before the third match or Danmark might face only medium effort by France because France needs only a draw to finish first. Typical favorites meet in third match situation. 
Minus: Because of already having beat weaker opponents France needed exactly the same result (draw) to secure first place as Denmark did to advance. Fortunately (maybe because of being the home team they played to win and did. 
Result: Exaclty as expected 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 1 

-group H: Argentina vs Croatia 
Both favorites had won their matches and only played out first and second place 
Minus: Group was decided after 2 matches. For example, had Japan already lost in the first match agains Jamaica, they might have taken more chances against Argentina, not only seeking a draw 
Result: Exaclty as expected 
Teams that played for nothing but pride in the third match: 2 

the critical 3rd match

 That the third match can be critical from a different point of view you can read in the analysis of the second phase of the tournament, the play-off matches. A team that is in a must-win situation in the third match will have to play five (or six) consecutive play-off matches if they want to win the World Cup. This seems quite unlikely to achieve.   
 

 THE PAST 

 this part of the document will be completed later (latest in time for the World Cup 2002). 
If you want to be notified of the completion of the document mail this message 
 

Who might have to defend an advantage in the third match?  

the situations noticed at tha African Cup Of Nations did not repeat as the favorites displayed a concentrated performance and in some matches the gap seemed to big. Also it did play a bigger role to clinch the first place, so that favorites like Netherlands did not seek only a draw but a victory. 

-group B: Chile did not know before the match, a draw would be enough and pressured by strong fighting players of Cameroun they hardly had another chance than defending and seeking the counter-play. This did not represent the prototypical situation entirely. 
-group C: Danmark needed a draw but was pressured by France and assured by the radio that there was a big margin between them and South Africa. Not the typical situation looked for here. 
-group E: Netherlands only needed a draw but wanted also a first place and do not play as flexible as some other teams anyway. They always play their attacking style depending on fast ball-circulation. 
-group F: Exactly that critical third match situation thought of, as Germany defended its place against iran. But it looked like the other way round as the Germans attacked concentrated (to assure first place in the group) while the Iranians happy keeping the match open refused to take any risks and waited for the Germans to score their goals 
-group G: Exactly that critical third match play-off like situation with one team at advantage as England defended the second place against Colombia. England played concentrated, dynamic, attacking football against weak Colombians, but this weakness was also the result of an English squad never letting down the pressure. 

the 9 points curse

 1994 Italy qualified as group third for the second round. 1996 at the Euro 96 they reached the same number of points and the same position in their group.  
 1994 they became vice World Champion and 1996 they had to go home after the first round, labelled as the best team (or the team that played the most sophisticated football) of the tournament by many experts, among them Berti Vogts, the German coach. But that did not help them. 
 This example shows how close the gap might be between success and failure and how tricky some situations might become. The case of teams doing mediocre in the first round and then come back (Argentina 1990, Belgium 1986, Italy 1982 and 94) is only one side of the same medal: A team that wins all its three first round matches almost never wins the World Cup. There is one exception: Brasil 1970. 
 Here are all the cases: 
winner of three first round matches 

1930	Argentina	Final
1950	Spain	4th
1966	Portugal	3rd
	USSR	4th
1970	Brasil	Champion
	Germany	3rd
1974	Poland	3rd
1978	Italy	4th
1982	England	2nd round (final12)
	Brazil	2nd round (final12)
1986	Brazil	1/4F
	Danmark	1/8F
1990	Italy	3rd
	Brazil	1/8F
1994	-	-

  

Those two won all three first round matches. Let's see if that spell appplies also for the 32-format: 

France 
Argentina 

On the 'safe side' (only those who qualified for quarter-finals: 

Italy (2-2 vs. Chile, 1st match)*  
Brazil (1-2 vs. Norway, 3rd match)* 
Danmark (1-1 vs. RSA 2nd match, 1-2 vs France 3rd match)* 
Netherlands (0-0 vs. Belgium 1st match) 
Germany (2-2 vs. Yugoslavia 2nd match)* 
Croatia (0-1 vs. Argentina 3rd match) 
England (1-2 vs. Romania 2nd match)* 

*But as you see from the next 2 tables, it seems better to win the first match or at leats draw it 0-0, if lose, lose the third one by a score of 0-1, to win at least 2 matches or (the exception) draw all 3, and draw either 0-0 or 1-1... 
 

how did the Champion begin? 

1930	Uruguay	1:0 vs. Peru
1934	Italy	7:1 vs. USA (playoff)
1938	Italy	2:1 aet vs Norway (playoff)
1950	Uruguay	8:0 vs. Bolivia (quasi-pl.off)
1954	Germany	4:1 vs. Turkey
1958	Brazil	2:0 vs. USSR
1962	Brazil	2:0 vs. Mexico
1966	England	0:0 vs. Uruguay
1970	Brazil	4:1 vs. CSSR
1974	Germany	1:0 vs. Chile
1978	Argentina	2:1 vs. Hungary
1982	Italy	0:0 vs. Poland
1986	Argentina	3:1 vs. South Korea
1990	Germany	4:1 vs. Yugoslavia
1994	Brazil	2:0 vs. Russia

>>you must not lose match #1 ?  

which first round match they not won 

1930	Uruguay	only 2 matches
1934	Italy	(playoff)
1938	Italy	(playoff)
1950	Uruguay	only 1 match (quasi-pl.off)
1954	Germany	2nd: match 3:8 vs. Hungary (diff.system)
1958	Brazil	2nd: 0:0 vs. England
1962	Brazil	2nd: 0:0 vs. CSSR
1966	England	1st: 0:0 vs. Uruguay
1970	Brazil	-
1974	Germany	3rd: 0:1 vs. East-Germany
1978	Argentina	3rd: 0:1 vs. Italy
1982	Italy	all 3 matches: 0:0 Poland, 1:1 Peru, 1:1 Cameroon
1986	Argentina	2nd: 1:1 vs. Italy
1990	Germany	3rd: 1:1 vs. Colombia
1994	Brazil	3rd: 1:1 vs. Sweden

>>if you lose - lose the third one  

what situation before the last first round match 

1930	Uruguay	must win, only 2 matches
1934	Italy	(playoff)
1938	Italy	(playoff)
1950	Uruguay	only 1 match (quasi-pl.off)
1954	Germany	additional play-off match (diff.system)
1958	Brazil	1 goal  loss enough
1962	Brazil	draw needed
1966	England	1 goal  loss enough
1970	Brazil	2(3?) goal  loss enough
1974	Germany	already qualified
1978	Argentina	already qualified
1982	Italy	draw needed
1986	Argentina	already qualified(/draw?)
1990	Germany	already qualified
1994	Brazil	already qualified

?=the unclear point, the succession of the third matches has not been 100% sure in the statistics source this table is based on. Until 1982 the third match had not been played simultaniously. 1986 until 1994 some, but not all, group thirds also qualified. The third matches of a particular group but not all matches were played simultaniously here. 
>>no recent World Cup winner has been in a critical situation before the third match

first matches 

The strongest title favorites (according to betting offices) and how they did in the first match:  

Brazil - perfect start  
Norway - 1st match 2:2 vs. Morocco 
Italy - 1st match 2:2 vs. Chile  
France - perfect start  
Spain - 1st match 2:3 vs. Nigeria  
Nigeria - perfect start  
Netherlands - 1st m. 0:0 vs. Belgium  
Yugoslavia - perfect start  
Germany - perfect start 
England - perfect start  
Argentina - perfect start  
Croatia - perfect start  

As you can see, Spain winning the Cup had created a new case in history as no team winning the Cup yet has lost the first match. 

which first round match not won 

Again the comparison of the quarter finalists with the past: 

France 
Argentina 

On the 'safe side' (only those who qualified for quarter-finals: 

France (won all three)** 
Italy (2-2 vs. Chile, 1st match)*  
Brazil (1-2 vs. Norway, 3rd match)* 
Danmark (1-1 vs. RSA 2nd match, 1-2 vs France 3rd match)* 
Netherlands (0-0 vs. Belgium 1st match) 
Germany (2-2 vs. Yugoslavia 2nd match)* 
Croatia (0-1 vs. Argentina 3rd match) 
England (1-2 vs. Romania 2nd match) 
Argentina (won all three)** 

*=unprecedented case 
**=unprecedented by ony other than Brazil 

the strong favorites before the quarter finals due to statistics: Netherlands and Croatia. 
Or - a new case... 

what situation before the last first round match? 

None of the quarter finalists had been in a must win situation. Already qualified had been France and Brazil, for the latter the third match had been a friendly.  
Teams that qualified for the last 16 which had been in a must-win situation before the third match: 
Norway and Paraguay 

back to top