World Cup last 16 bracket predictions: Picking biggest shocks, best games and who wins

The last 16 of the World Cup is set and some of soccer’s biggest sides are still fighting for the title.

All three co-hosts are still present too, with the U.S. facing Belgium, Canada taking on Morocco and Mexico hosting England at the Azteca.

The 2022 champion, Argentina, is also there after surviving a huge scare by Cape Verde, the smallest nation ever to make the knockout rounds.

So, which are the best ties left in the bracket? Where will the shocks come? Who will be leading the Golden Boot standings come the quarter-finals? And can anyone stop France?

We asked our writers to make their predictions on what happens next.

The best round of 16 tie is…

Stuart James: There are some cracking ties, including Mexico against England and Brazil against Norway, but it’s surely got to be Spain against Portugal, which has the makings of an absolute classic.

Oliver Kay: Portugal vs Spain. Mexico vs England should be compelling on so many levels, but the Iberian derby could be a classic. Possibly not as thrilling, but high-quality.

Phil Hay: Brazil versus Norway, because Brazil look beatable in patches and the world’s favourite Viking is loving the World Cup. I feel like Norway and Erling Haaland have further to go.

Laura Williamson: Mexico vs England… whenever the kick-off time is!

Tim Spiers: For the occasion, drama and tension, it’s Mexico vs. England. Altitude is going to be a leveller, just a shame there are no West Bromwich Albion players in the England squad. The most entertaining match could actually be the U.S. against Belgium, two evenly-matched teams who score plenty (19 in eight matches combined so far).

Dermot Corrigan: Portugal and Spain will be great but the Iberian neighbours have met so many times over the years. There is something uniquely exciting about Mexico against England at the Azteca, it feels like a game which is going to be remembered for decades to come.

Carl Anka: The U.S. vs. Belgium might not jump off the page for the neutral, but it could end up being the game with the biggest impact in the next five to ten years. Victory on home soil, over a top 10-ranked European side, is the sort of legacy game the USMNT needs to help turn the sport into a true cultural phenomenon in the country.

Simon Hughes: Mexico vs. England at the Azteca.

Lukas Weese: Portugal vs. Spain. Cristiano Ronaldo in his last World Cup, continuing the pursuit of the elusive trophy. Lamine Yamal trying to win his first World Cup. A tantalizing storyline and matchup.

Matt Slater: Mexico vs. England, but that is because I have a dog in the fight. Is it the neutral’s tie of the round? I’m not so sure. Surely it is either the Iberian Clasico/Ronaldo’s last stand or Brazil versus the Vikings? As I am a neutral for those two games, I am going for the latter.

Nick Miller: It’s Mexico vs. England, isn’t it? Spain vs. Portugal is slightly more glamorous/has a greater total tonnage of talent, but I don’t think that game is going to be particularly close. The home advantages afforded to Mexico at the very least level out the disparity in ability between the two sets of players, and the Azteca has sounded feral so far. It’s going to be great.

Patrick Iversen: Mexico vs. England. England is a contender with mettle to prove, and facing Mexico at Estadio Azteca is a crucible. It will either make or break them. Mexico is in uncharted territory and feeling it. All the makings of a classic.

Henry Bushnell: Mexico vs. England, and nothing else is in the same stratosphere. The history and lore, the passion for football in both countries, the cultural clashes, the location in a host country … there will be some other great games, all of which have been mentioned by colleagues above, but nothing will compare to Sunday night.

The game we’re most likely to get an upset in is…

James: I’m going for Norway against Brazil, which would be an upset based on their respective World Cup history … but maybe not based on form. Norway enjoyed a formidable qualifying campaign, its won three out of four games at this tournament and it has a phenomenal goalscorer in Erling Haaland. All the ingredients are there in that respect.

Kay: I would put U.S. vs. Belgium in the same category as Mexico vs. England. Technically speaking, a North American win would count as an upset — in terms of FIFA rankings, recent history and pre-tournament odds. But with belief and momentum growing, would anyone really be surprised by a “home” win or two?

Hay: Would the USMNT beating Belgium class as a full-on upset? Because I think they will, even minus Folarin Balogun.

Williamson: Paraguay couldn’t do it again, could they? A win over France feels very unlikely, but I can see Norway getting past Brazil.

Spiers: Brazil have shown enough vulnerability to suggest that Norway, who have nothing to lose, can beat them.

Corrigan: I’d agree with Tim on this one — it seems weird to say it but Norway actually have actually shown a lot more attacking power in this tournament so far than Brazil, who have been mostly surviving on vibes.

Anka: Mexico vs. England. The hosts played brilliant football against Ecuador to reach the round of 16 and have only lost twice at the Azteca since the stadium was opened in 1966 (one of which came against Sheffield Wednesday). England have looked physically exhausted and mentally congested in each of their four matches to date. If this game was being played on U.S. soil, Tuchel could rest easier. The potential for defeat at the Azteca is just that much higher.

Hughes: I would love for Paraguay to beat France. I can remember Laurent Blanc’s 114th-minute golden goal that decided a second-round tie in 1998. Something tells me I won’t get my wish. Norway can beat Brazil, I think. Entirely because of the presence of Haaland.

Weese: Because I said, “You heard it here first” with Canada reaching the quarterfinal before the knockout stage started, I am sticking with my prediction of the round of 16 beginning with a shocker as the host nation stuns Morocco.

Slater: Is it a cop-out to say that once you get to this stage of the tournament, it is hard to think of any of them as plucky underdogs as they must all be quite good? Yes, that is pathetic, Slater, get off the fence. But which team is the underdog in Belgium vs. U.S.? That looks like a perfect match-up, to me. So I am going for Haaland to bulldoze past Brazil.

Miller: On the basis that Belgium are ranked seven places higher than the U.S., I’m classing that as a technical upset candidate. And even without Balogun, I think Mauricio Pochettino’s boys are going to batter the Belgians.

Iversen: Without Balogun, would a fall to Belgium really count as an upset for the USMNT? I guess I’ll go with Norway over Brazil. We’re in heavyweight land now; I don’t see many upsets coming our way this round.

Bushnell: The U.S. beating Belgium would not be an upset. So the pick is Mexico over England. El Tri is riding a wave right now, and I’m just not sure there’s any way to slow it down or dodge it. It’s the ultimate neutralizer of talent and tactics.

The player who will lead the Golden Boot after this round is…

James: Lionel Messi, based on the fact that he’s already in the lead, playing brilliantly and Argentina have a benign draw.

Kay: It’s an opportunity for Messi and Kylian Mbappe to put some distance between themselves and the rest of the field. I’ll say Messi.

Hay: Mbappe or Messi. Probably Mbappe. When it comes to World Cups, he can keep going all night long.

Williamson: This feels like it’s Mbappe vs Messi all the way now so I’m going … Mbappe.

Spiers: If Michael Olise keeps teeing them up, Mbappe will keep scoring them.

Corrigan: Argentina’s draw is looking more favourable all the time, so Messi should keep racking them up. Watch out for Spain’s Mikel Oyarzabal making a late run for the prize deeper in the tournament though.

Anka: Mbappe. A goalscorer of such devastating potency that even his misses are fun to watch.

Hughes: Mbappe.

Weese: Mbappe. Every match, he continues to raise his level and I think he will add to his goal total against Paraguay.

Slater: Hmmm, Mbappe or Messi, Messi or Mbappe? I’m going for the Argentine stroller.

Miller: The actual answer is Messi or Mbappe, but Vinicius Junior has been fantastic so far and I think he’s on the brink of doing something incredible. A hat-trick against Norway would put him right up there…

Iversen: I flipped a coin, and it landed on Messi.

Bushnell: Mbappe. All France needs in that game is one early goal, and the floodgates could open.

The thing that has surprised me most so far is…

James: That the knockout stage so far has been so competitive, full of drama and delivered so many late winning goals. I really didn’t see that coming.

Kay: Above all, Cape Verde. I’m not surprised the football has been enjoyable. The last few World Cups have often been captivating and this is no exception. I’m surprised by how lenient the refereeing has been. It’s been a high bar to get a yellow card, never mind a red card. Most of the time, at least.

Hay: The crowds in Mexico. I mean, I know they’re religious about football, but the turnout in Mexico City for their last 32 win was what you’d expect for the final. They don’t half live it.

Williamson: How deeply irritating the random assortment of kick-off times are. And how we haven’t seen many examples of the “dark arts” at play (actually, that’s probably more of a disappointment than a surprise!).

Spiers: The host nations, in terms of their performances and results on the field but also how so many of their cities have embraced the World Cup. I wasn’t expecting a festival of colour and noise, but in some places it’s genuinely been that way. Also, the booing of every single hydration break has been surprisingly amusing every single time. Take that, Gianni.

Corrigan: Honestly, I’d say Messi’s performances have been the most surprising to see. The theory held by many in Europe that he was in semi-retirement in MLS has taken a battering.

Anka: Senegal’s implosion against Belgium. 2-0 up in the 80th minute in a game where opponents Leandro Trossard and Youri Tielemans had been squabbling among themselves.

Hughes: The refereeing. They’ve tended to let a lot of things go and this has made for a more physical, intense game. And the football is better for it. Delighted about this.

Weese: The number of stoppage-time goals. Especially when a match is tied, as we saw with Portugal and Croatia. Teams seem unafraid to try and go for the win as the match winds down, which makes the action entertaining.

Slater: Lots to choose from here, as this World Cup has been a voyage of (mainly) pleasant surprises so far. The attendances, the late drama, not too many blowouts … plenty. But I will go for a more general surprise: the quality of the games. I was worried that a combo of the bloated tournament, the heat, the travel and the amount of football these guys play would lead to long periods when the teams took breathers by just keeping the ball for a while. That hasn’t really happened yet. Maybe the hydration breaks have helped?!?

Miller: It’s been said a billion times but it’s amazing just how many of the big stars have delivered. Usually, at least a few of them are anonymous, but Messi, Mbappe, Haaland, Kane, Dembele and others have all been great. There’s one notable exception, but even he’s scored three goals in four games.

Iversen: That so many games are alive in the final minutes. The combo of refereeing and hydration breaks must be playing a part. I don’t really care how it’s happening, though. I just want more.

Bushnell: How seemingly every superstar is performing. This never happens at World Cups. It seems normal to anyone tuning in for the first time. It isn’t.

The best stadium being used in this round is…

James: That’s an easy one: the Azteca. Mexico vs. England in the last-16, at a stadium steeped in history (uncomfortable history in England’s case), will be incredible.

Kay: Of the eight in this round, I’ve been to six (either in this World Cup or previously). They’re all great, in different ways. Maybe Atlanta above all. I’m sorry I won’t get the opportunity to go to the Azteca. It may or may not be the best stadium, but it has so much World Cup history.

Hay: The Azteca. I don’t really see how anybody can argue the toss here.

Williamson: It’s such a shame Canada finished second in their group and is playing in Houston instead of Vancouver and everyone else has gone for the Azteca, so I’ll say Lumen Field — it’s going to be quite the atmosphere when the U.S. takes on Belgium.

Spiers: We can’t all say the Azteca and, to be honest, I’ve never been. I have been to Lumen Field, though, or as the sign says due to FIFA licensing laws, “Field,” and with its stunning design, great atmosphere and close proximity to dozens of bars and the train station in Seattle, it’s a wonderful stadium. The atmosphere for the USA vs. Belgium will be quite something.

Corrigan: It’s difficult to go against the Azteca for all its history.

Anka: Every World Cup should have at least a dozen games at the Azteca, regardless of which nation is the actual host. The place is a football cathedral, and if you’re in Mexico City on matchday, please take a film camera and take as many pictures of the England game as possible.

Hughes: The Azteca. Bit jealous of anyone who has experienced it so far.

Weese: The Azteca. I’ll use this opportunity to say it should be hosting the final.

Slater: I have only been to the Azteca, or whatever it is called these days, and that was to see one of Gianni Infantino’s pick-up games at the 2016 FIFA Congress. But even the self-indulgence on display could not ruin the privilege of watching football in a stadium that magnificent.

Miller: It’s fairly absurd that a World Cup which is technically being ‘co-hosted’ will only have games in America beyond this stage. More Azteca, please. It’s not too late* to change, FIFA. (*it is too late, obviously. But still.)

Iversen: New York/New Jersey. Oh, sorry, you said the best. Azteca. The final should be there.

Bushnell: The Azteca, of course, but to add a bit of variety … Lumen Field in Seattle is going to be an absolutely awesome venue for U.S. vs. Belgium.

The player of the round of 32 was…

James: Olise. The world’s most graceful footballer and, at this rate, it’s only a matter of time before he’s the best, too. What a joy to watch.

Kay: Harry Kane. His two goals, one of them a beauty, really dragged England out of the mire.

Hay: Like a lot of people, Olise is my answer. Although I saw Yamal in the flesh and his swagger against Austria was quite ominous.

Williamson: Kane. Just look at his face here!

Spiers: Kane. England would be a laughing stock (and already home) without him.

Corrigan: Rodri was outstanding for Spain against Austria, whose coach Ralf Ragnick explained afterwards how the Man City man had just controlled the entire game.

Anka: Olise is the spice that makes France’s sauce so delicious. If you are someone who believes football has grown too robotic and the game hates creativity, watch Olise for 10 minutes.

Hughes: Kane. Some of the platitudes coming his way have been over the top but there’s no doubt England’s players would be on their holidays right now if it wasn’t for him.

Weese: Mbappe. I’m jealous of my colleagues who get to watch him in real life at the stadiums. He is just a magician with the ball.

Slater: I am going to take a leaf out of Thierry Henry’s book and fudge it. Kane was the Most Valuable Player of the round; Olise has been the Most Important Player of the tournament. Can you imagine if they were on the same team?!?

Miller: Olise. However, if we’re measuring this by performance against expectation, Leao — maybe the most frustrating footballer in the world, half the time — was sensational for Portugal against Croatia.

Iversen: You want moments and memories from the World Cup, and Kane’s rescue mission against DR Congo is the kind of moment that makes legends — and perhaps sparks a run?

Bushnell: Kane. I had no rooting interest, and he’s the one player who made me exclaim.

The goal of the round of 32 was…

James: Sidny Lopes Cabral. I’m not going to lie, Sidny, I wasn’t familiar with your game. What. A. Goal. That goes straight in at No 1. A truly remarkable strike.

Kay: I’ve got several in mind and they all seem to involve a player dribbling in from the touchline and finding the far corner. They’re such satisfying goals, aren’t they? I’ll go for Mbappe’s first for France against Sweden, just ahead of Antonio Nusa and Amad Diallo.

Hay: Kane’s second against DR Congo. Boom. I really liked Quinones for Mexico against Ecuador too.

Williamson: Stephen Eustaquio’s stoppage-time strike for Canada deserves a mention but it has to be Kane’s second to beat DR Congo. The way he found half a yard, turned and struck that ball into the net was quite something.

Spiers: Ismaila Sarr’s goal for Senegal against Belgium was a beauty. Long ball over the top, chest, strength, volley, boom. His fourth goal of an impressive tournament, but sadly for him and Senegal also his last.

Corrigan: Tough call this — but there was something tremendously visceral about Quinones’ stunner for Mexico, as if he was surfing a wave of energy and emotion coming from the whole stadium (or the whole country).

Anka: Amad running at the Norwegian defence with the patience and precision of a paring knife before carving out an inch of space inside the six-yard box, before thumping a left-footed shot past Orjan Nyland. Might the Ivory Coast have won that match had Amad started?

Hughes: I agree with Carl: Amad. Can’t understand why he didn’t start.

Weese: Eustaquio for Canada in stoppage time against South Africa. The sequence was brilliant … Jacob Shaffelburg’s cross into the box, followed by South Africa’s poor clearance on the header. For Eustaquio to show patience as the ball went down before delivering a perfectly executed low strike to the corner was a touch of class, giving Canada its first knockout-stage win.

Slater: Nusa, Amad, Sarr … there were some absolute beauties in this round. But come on, for sheer magnitude and velocity, it has to be King Kane’s.

Miller: Sarr’s against Belgium was the most satisfying, in a ‘you have to do everything perfectly for this to go in’ way. Even though it wasn’t exactly the same aesthetically, in that respect it reminded me of Dennis Bergkamp in 1998.

Iversen: I know I just praised Kane’s goal, but for the purposes of this answer, I’ll go with quality … and Nusa’s sweeping strike against Ivory Coast was so sweet live.

The only team who can stop France winning the World Cup is…

James: France. They’ll have to be their own worst enemies to mess this up with such extraordinary attacking talent. If that’s not the answer you’re looking for, I’d say Spain.

Kay: I’m backing France and have done since the start, but I don’t think it’s that much of a certainty. It could face a quarter-final against Morocco and, beyond that, a semi-final against Portugal or Spain. There are contenders on the other side of the draw, too. France is the favourite, but not overwhelmingly so.

Hay: Spain. Get at Kounde down France’s right. Get Rodri to do a job on Olise. And dominate possession. But that’s theoretical. France will win it.

Williamson: Spain is lurking ominously in that half of the draw.

Spiers: The team with the best defence, or the one who is hardest to beat. Given its record of winning multiple tournaments, plus the Messi factor, that’s Argentina.

Anka: You need a team with good full-backs who can pin back France’s wingers. You need a midfield that can dominate possession and keep it away from Rabiot, Tchouameni and possibly N’Golo Kante for extended periods of time. Morocco can scare them. Spain can hurt them. It’ll be difficult, but not impossible.

Corrigan: Spain for me — it’d gone a bit under the radar but Unai Simon has not conceded a goal so far, and barely even had a save to make. There’s only one ball, so if La Roja can control possession, pin France back, there’s little Olise, Mbappe and Dembele will be able to do.

Hughes: Perhaps I’m alone but I think France can be beaten. It only takes a few minutes for a World Cup campaign to unravel and Morocco and Spain are potentially in their way before the semi-finals. I think both of these nations are capable of winning it if the breaks go their way.

Weese: Argentina. If that is the World Cup final, even though I expect France to win, Argentina will give one heck of a fighting effort, as Lionel Messi looks to go back-to-back.

Slater: I am not sure that France is so good that only it can beat itself … but it is getting there. Can one of Argentina or Spain take them down? Sure. And of those two, I will go for … Spain. But I still think France is winning this.

Miller: I’ve had a sneaky, slightly logic-defying hunch from the start that Brazil will win the whole thing, so I’ll stick with that.

Iversen: I had Argentina here until Cape Verde put them on the ropes. So what can beat France? This tournament can. This wild, wild tournament.

Click here to read article