🇮🇶Iraqvs🇳🇴Norway

Norway arrive in World Cup qualifying form of roughly **2.2–2.4 xG for and ~0.9 xG against per 90**, driven by Erling Haaland’s elite output (for club and country over 2025–26: **0.90–1.0 non‑pen xG/90, ~0.95 goals/90, 30+ league goals**) and Alexander Sørloth’s secondary scoring profile (**0.45–0.55 xG/90, double‑digit goals**), versus an Iraq side that qualified out of Asia leaning on compact defending (~**1.1–1.3 xG against/90**) but producing under **1.2 xG/90** in attack. Tactically this projects as Iraq in a **4-2-3-1/4-3-3 mid‑low block**, using Kevin Yakob (progressive passes and carries both above **5.0 per 90**) and Hasan Abdulkareem (chance‑creation near **0.20–0.25 xA/90**) to spring Ali Jasim on transitions, against Norway’s **4-3-3** with high full-backs and a box‑midfield supplying Haaland with ~**4–5 shots/90** at high shot quality. The decisive duels are: Haaland vs Iraq’s centre-backs on crosses and cut-backs (Norway generate around **6–7 box entries from wide per game**, and Haaland converts headers at roughly **0.20 xG per headed shot**), Sørloth pinning the other centre-back to enable third‑man runs from Andreas Schjelderup (club numbers around **0.40–0.45 non‑pen xG + xA/90**) against Iraq’s holding six, and Iraq’s left‑sided combo of Jasim/Yakob trying to exploit space behind Norway’s attacking right-back. Norway hold a pronounced **set-piece edge**, coming through qualifying with roughly **25–30% of their goals from dead balls** and centre-backs like Østigård and others offering multiple headed shots from corners per tournament, while Iraq’s attack produced closer to **10–15% of goals from set plays**, mainly via Aymen Hussein and second balls. Pressing intensity also tilts to Norway, whose PPDA in competitive matches has sat in the **8–10 range** (high press, trap wide), whereas Iraq typically defend in a more passive **13–15 PPDA** zone, meaning Iraq’s first line is likelier to absorb than disrupt and their progression will depend on Yakob’s resistance under pressure and first-pass accuracy above **85–88%**. Historically, Norway’s superior attacking numbers (recent friendly/competitive head‑to‑head and pre‑tournament models rating them roughly **1.8–2.0 expected goals better on neutral ground**) and Iraq’s negative goal difference against top‑30 Elo/FIFA sides suggest that **shot quality gap (xG per shot), set-piece xG, and Norway’s ability to maintain 55–60% possession while allowing <0.8 xG** are the statistics most likely to decide the match outcome.