The Mythical Fourth Match

With the World Cup just days away, and Scotland going into our opening game against Haiti off the back of two friendly wins where we scored eight goals, we are once again dreaming of what’s possible. Whilst I’m sure some people are dreaming about Andy Robertson lifting the trophy in New Jersey on 19th July, most of us are probably a bit more realistic than that. Our first World Cup appearance in 28 years means that Steve Clarke has managed to shake off every monkey on our back… except for one. Something that no Scotland team has managed before.

Getting out of the group stage. Playing the mythical fourth match of a major tournament. Something all the other home nations have all managed, Wales and Northern Ireland both managed it as long ago as 1958, Northern Ireland did it again in 1982, and they’ve only been to a combined total of five tournaments. This will be our ninth and we still haven’t done it. And, of course, the English… well they remind us a lot of what they’ve done. Let’s just say they haven’t been grouped since 2014 and leave it at that.

From our debut appearance in 1954 where we lost both games in an odd set up for the group stage where we never played the third team in the group, to 1958 where we picked up our first point but finished bottom, to 1974 where we went home unbeaten because our goal difference was not as good as two other teams, to 1978 and 1982 where we once again went out on goal difference, to 1986 where we just couldn’t get that winner against ten men for 89 minutes, to 1990 where we waited 24 hours to find out we were one of the worst third place teams, to 1998 where even the team that beat us didn’t manage to get through. It’s a long list of disappointments across eight World Cups.

Even if you throw in our four Euros appearances, it doesn’t get any better. The fifth best team in Europe in 1992 when the four other progressed to the knockout rounds, a nutmeg in the other game snatching the knockouts away from us in 1996, and two more bottom placed finishes in 2021 and 2024. Even the women’s team managed to find a brand new way to disappoint us when they threw away a three goal lead in their final game in 2019!

Most of those group stages have needed us to get one of the top two spots, but that hasn’t always been the case. Sometimes the third place team gets through, and that’s true in the World Cup this year for the first time since 1994.

When the World Cup expanded from 16 to 24 teams for the 1982 tournament in Spain, they did it by adding in a second group stage. That meant the six group winners and the six group runners up went into four groups of three teams and the bottom two teams from each group went home. However, that changed in 1986 where the top two teams in each of the six groups would be joined by the four best runners up. This was true in 1990 and 1994 too, and stopped in 1998 when the tournament expanded once more to thirty two teams, a setup that remained in place all the way up to the most recent World Cup in 2022.

Since 2016, the Euros have followed this same pattern as well, after it expanded from sixteen to twenty four teams. The women’s World Cups of 2015 and 2019 also used this pattern, before expanding to thirty two teams in 2023.

For 2026, the round of thirty two will be made up by twelve group winners, twelve runners up, and eight of the twelve third placed teams. Which means finishing third in the group could get you through the knockout stages, but only if you compare favourably with the other third place teams.

That is good news for Scotland. As much as we’re in good form, there is the issue that we’re arguably in one of the toughest groups there is. The disputed AFCON holders (subject to CAS ruling on Senegal’s appeal) and the first ever African World Cup semi finalists from 2022 in Morocco. Our regular group stage foes and five times World champions Brazil. There is even the lesser known Haiti who are giving folk of my generation real Costa Rica vibes. Nevertheless, I don’t think it’s unfair to say that Morocco and Brazil are the favourites to take the top two spots in this group and we need to start strong in our opening game against Haiti to even stand a chance.

Look around at the other groups and you’re probably looking at either Group E with Germany, Ivory Coast, Ecuador and Curacao, or Group I with France, Senegal, Norway and Iraq for a tougher group than Group C that we are in. Funnily enough, when the draw was made and our name came out, we were either getting Group C or Group I. The draw was not in our favour!

So, okay, let’s assume that third place is where we might well finish. No point talking about fourth spot as we’re definitely out if we finish there, as we have done in the last two Euros. There is a belief that finishing third on four points will get you through, whilst three points might get you through depending on your goal difference. But how accurate is that belief? Well, let’s see what the historical tournaments tell us.

Mexico 1986

This one is fascinating because it is the perfect illustration as to why three points for a win is better than two points for a win! Belgium and Poland both made it safely through with three points from one win and one draw, the equivalent of four points in today’s game. The other two spots went to Bulgaria and Uruguay who went through with two points from two draws and goal difference of -2 and -5 respectively. Hungary went out with two points and a -7 goal difference, but their two points came from a win. If it were three points for a win, they would have gone through, and Uruguay would have gone home instead!

Incidentally, had Scotland won by even a single goal against ten man Uruguay in that final game, we would have gone through with a better goal difference than Bulgaria. “If only” is a common theme among Scotland group stage campaigns that I’d really like to avoid this year! And for completion, Northern Ireland were the other third place team to miss out as they only picked up one point from their three games.

Italy 1990

Three of the four third place teams that went through in Italy did so with three points thanks to a win and a draw – the equivalent of four points today. The Netherlands were the other team that went through, also with three points, but these came from three draws. Indeed, they were only a third place team at all because they lost to Republic of Ireland in the drawing of lots. The two teams that missed out, Austria and Scotland, only picked up two points because they had one win and two defeats, however even converting these to three points for a win would see them miss out as both had a -1 goal difference compared to Netherlands having a zero goal difference.

So this is a good warning that three points might not be enough, even with a not unreasonable goal difference of -1. As you’ll know, Scotland’s win was by a single goal against Sweden, whilst the two defeats were by a single goal to Costa Rica and Brazil. Three tight results, and Scotland still went home. When you consider two points and -1 goal difference would have been enough to go through in Mexico four years earlier, it shows just how precarious the third place ranking can be.

USA 1994

The last time the World Cup was in the United States, three points for a win was now in place and there were two groups that had three teams finish on six points! Both Argentina and Belgium found themselves in that position, and unsurprisingly they took two of the four best third place spots. The remaining two went to the hosts and Italy, both of whom picked up four points from a win and a draw. That means that three points wasn’t enough regardless of the goal difference, which was costly for Russia who went out with a +1 goal difference.

Conversely, had Russia managed to pick up a draw in one of their other two games, Italy would have missed out with four points! Then again, you could also argue that if enough groups have three teams finishing on six points then four points isn’t enough regardless! Even six might not be enough depending on your goal difference if you go to the absolute extreme!

I’ll say now, there is next to no chance that it comes to that. There aren’t enough groups with three good teams and a whipping boy for eight groups to all have three teams on six points!

Canada 2015

The first of the two Women’s World Cups that had twenty four teams saw both Colombia and Netherlands go through with four points. The remaining two spots went to Switzerland who only picked up one win but it was a 10-1 over Ecuador so their +7 goal difference definitely helped a lot! Sweden were the other team to go through, thanks to their zero goal difference. Thailand missed out despite picking up three points, but that had a lot to do with the two games they lost both being by four goals, whilst their win was just by one goal. Costa Rica only picked up two points and so finished bottom of the third place rankings.

France 2016

The first of the Euros to have twenty four teams, Slovakia and Republic of Ireland both picked up four points to top the third place rankings. They were joined in the knockout stages by Portugal who drew all three games and Northern Ireland who were the best of the three teams to win one and lose two. Their zero goal difference put them ahead of Turkey and Albania who also picked up three points but their -2 goal difference wasn’t enough. Indeed, -1 wouldn’t have been enough either, another example like Italia 90 where even tight results might not see you through.

France 2019

The other Women’s World Cup to use the format is also the only other time that one group had three teams finish on six points. Brazil were the team to finish third in their group, but that was still plenty to secure the top ranking of the third place teams. China also secured their spot thanks to the four points from a win and a draw. The remaining two spots went to Cameroon and Nigeria, both of whom finished on three points with a -2 goal difference. Chile were the team to miss out with three points and a -3 goal difference, agonisingly close.

Argentina finished bottom of the pile with two points, once again reiterating how utterly useless that 3-3 draw was for both teams… and also shining a spotlight on the referee who lost control and blew far too early for full time! Had either Scotland or Argentina won that game, they would have qualified for the last sixteen. Scotland’s goal difference would have been at worst -1 and thus better than Cameroon and Nigeria, and Argentina would have had four points and at worst a zero goal difference, bettering China on goal scored.

Euro 2020

The multi-city Euros saw three of the four spots taken by teams finishing on four points. Portugal and Czech Republic both went through with a +1 goal difference, whilst Switzerland’s -1 goal difference didn’t make too much difference since they had the win and the draw. Whilst three points and a -1 goal difference wouldn’t have been enough… eh… five years earlier (why didn’t we rename this Euro 2021?), Ukraine took the fourth and final spot with that record this time. Finland and Slovakia both picked up three points, but their -2 and -5 goal difference respectively wasn’t enough and they went home with the bottom teams like Scotland…

Although technically we were already home, but you know what I mean.

Germany 2024

As with the previous Euros, the tournament in Germany saw three of the four third place qualifiers pick up four points. Netherlands, Georgia and Slovakia all went through courtesy of one win and one draw and a zero goal difference. Indeed, zero goal difference was the key to qualification this time around as Slovenia picked up the final spot despite only picking up three points. Hungary, despite that late win against Scotland, were one of the two to go home due to their -3 goal difference. Croatia with just two points never really stood a chance.

So, to summarise, four points has always been enough to go through, but there are possible scenarios where it might not be, however unlikely that may be. Given Scotland are historically great at finding new and interesting ways to get grouped, that almost feels like a “hold my beer” moment. At the absolute extreme, even six points might not be enough but as I said earlier there’s probably more chance of me being the next Scotland manager after Steve Clarke finally chucks it. Eight teams from twelve instead of four teams from six means a bigger sample size and less likely to be tripped up by all these extremes. So don’t worry, four points will almost certainly be enough as many have been saying. It always has been so far.

If you finish on three points, then ideally you have a positive goal difference as that would be enough to get you through in every instance so far. A zero goal difference might well be enough, and indeed even a negative goal difference has been able to get through in some scenarios but we know from our own experience that it could just as easily send you home.

Realistically then, Scotland’s best chance to get through to the knockout round comes down to how we do against Haiti. If we win, that’s a great start. Three points on the board right away. If we win by a few goals, that’s even better. Three points on the board and a decent goal difference. If we draw, then we’d better hope we at least draw the other two games as well, as then we get the three points and a zero goal difference like Netherlands in 1990 or Portugal 2016. If we lose, to Haiti… well, then we’re chasing points against the other two teams. Please don’t do that.

Assuming we get that win, getting anything at all in one of the last two games should be enough. That’s your four points, we’ll be looking out the round of 32 permutations then. If we lose them both, then at least don’t lose by much, and preferably have those goals in the bank from Haiti if we can. Three points and a positive goal difference please.

Of course, we could just finish in the top two and not worry about any of this. Beat Haiti by more than at least one of the other two, and draw with the other two teams. Even if they draw with each other we’d finish ahead of them on the “who put the most past Haiti” calculation, the same calculation as “who put the most past Zaire” that put us out in 1974. If there’s a winner between the other two and we pick up those five points, they can’t both finish ahead of us. Now wouldn’t that be nice? And hey, imagine we even beat one of them. Or both! Top two in our group means a date with a team from Group F – that’s the Netherlands, Japan, Tunisia and Sweden.

Third place gets confusing as to who we would play next. You basically need to wait until all the groups are decided, and then they have a formula for allocating them. There’s all kinds of permutations, but we could end up back in Boston or even down in Mexico depending on how it plays out. As I noted on the podcast this week, when I did a simulation for it, we ended up getting Norway – because of course we did, they’re the only one of our France 98 group we aren’t having a reunion with in the group!

Let’s just qualify and then worry about that bit later!

First, we need to take care of Haiti. So let’s end on a promising statistic. Scotland put four goals past Curacao and Bolivia in our warm-up friendlies, the first time Scotland have scored four or more goals in consecutive games since 1929. Those games were a 4-2 win over Wales and a 7-3 win over Ireland. But actually, they were part of a string of three games in a row, as we had also previously beaten England 5-1, a Scotland team famously known as the Wembley Wizards.

So that’s three in a row then. We’re one short this time around. Bring on Haiti!