•

Qatar’s #1 spot is the cleanest “champion profile” on your table: 7 matches, 6W-1D-0L, and 14 goals (frequency 2.00) for a 70.11 rating. What stands out is the zero losses plus strong scoring volume—so they win on both stability and output, not just one of them.

•

Jordan at #2 look like the “deep-run, efficient attack” team: 4 wins in 7, 13 goals, and a solid 1.86 frequency for 68.83. They’re below Qatar mainly because they took 2 losses—your model seems to punish losses harder than it rewards an extra goal or two, especially at the top.

•

Iran (#3) and South Korea (#4) show two different ways to rank high: Iran have a more win-driven run (4W in 6) with 12 goals and 2.00 frequency (rating 66.73). South Korea have fewer wins (2W) but more draws (3D) with 11 goals and 1.83 frequency—and still land at 66.64, meaning “avoiding defeat” can nearly match raw wins.

•

Uzbekistan (#5) and Australia (#6) highlight how your rating treats draws: Uzbekistan are unbeaten (2W-3D-0L) but lower output (7 goals, 1.40 frequency) for 65.16. Australia take a loss (3W-1D-1L) yet score more (9 goals, 1.80 frequency) and end almost identical (65.10). It reads like your model balances “unbeaten consistency” vs “goal punch.”

•

The mid-table is where “frequency spikes” can still break through—if losses don’t pile up. Japan (#9) have 12 goals in 5 (frequency 2.40) but 2 losses, landing at 63.58. Iraq (#11) are even more extreme: 10 goals in 4 (frequency 2.50) with only 1 loss, yet rate 62.30—suggesting small samples need both scoring and results to climb into the top tier.