Scotland fans are no strangers to pondering permutations. But the stakes are much, much higher at a World Cup finals.
What would a point here mean? What if we lose that one? Might our rivals drop points elsewhere?
The conversations will already have started, in that most Scottish of ways. Win your first World Cup game in 36 years, immediately think you'll probably lose the next two,. wonder if you're out or not already.
After the opening round of matches, Scotland sit top of Group C, Brazil and Morocco trailing in their wake. But what chance of a first ever progression out of a major tournament group stage?
This video can not be played
McGinn fires Scotland to first World Cup win for 36 years
Everyone had this down as a must-win. Purely based on the belief Scotland were likely aiming to be one of the best eight third-placed teams from the 12 groups.
Sitting top of the section was not something many would have imagined, though.
But first let's start of with the doomsday scenario. Scotland lose to both Morocco and Brazil and manage to finish third. Then it comes down to goal difference.
With the win in Boston by just a single goal. Steve Clarke's side now arithmetically can't finish on three points with anything other than a negative goal difference.
According toFootball Meets Data,external. a goal difference of -1 offers an87.5%chance of progression, which would be a reality if the Scots lost by a single goal in their final two games.
That drops to69.4%with a -2 difference, and47.3%at -3. You get the picture.
Why Haiti v Scotland was antidote to the ills of world football
Scotland earn nervy win over Haiti for first World Cup victory in 36 years
World Cup: Scotland's Wait Is Over
This is where Scotland's ineffective attack could prove costly. They had an xG (expected goals) at the Boston Stadium of 1.05. Aside from John McGinn's goal and Scott McTominay hitting the post, that was about it.
Often the set-piece deliveries were poor -. results in a set play xG of 0 - with the saving grace being Scotland's defence stood up well to some fraught pressure to keep a clean sheet.
Another goal against Haiti could have meant finishing on a goal difference of zero was possible. which would have brought a96%of progression.
"Winning games at major tournaments isn't something Scotland do regularly," said former Scotland talisman James McFadden on BBC Scotland.
"The resilience shown - that's what has been forged in this group. It wasn't enjoyable but I would have taken an ugly 1-0 win beforehand.
"The next two games are going to be tough, but they have dealt with the pressure of this game."
This video can not be played
Comms Cam: James McFadden can't hide his delight as Scotland score
Now a bit of positivity..
Earn another point. Scotland would almost certainly make it out of the groups for the first time, with Morocco back here on Friday offering a chance of just that.
Putting it simply, Clarke's team are a clean sheet away from the last 32.
The thing on the minds of many Scotland fans filling beer gardens across Boston over the next week will be. is the harder game: Morocco or Brazil?
Carlo Ancelotti's team turned in an underwhelming showing in New Jersey, after all,. had to come from behind tosnatch a draw.
There will be no fear from Scotland going to face either of these teams. However, they will need to be a lot better in possession if they are to avoid defeat.
The Scots' pass completion rate against the 83rd best team in the world was only 82%, with more backward passes. fewer going forward.
However, this team has shown their ability to rouse themselves, and ultimately they got the job done here.
"I don't think anybody is going to be quaking in their boots to play Scotland," said former Scotland winger Pat Nevin. "But what they don't know is we can do a lot better than that, and that's maybe our secret weapon."
This video can not be played
Yes Sir, Scotland CAN Boogie
This section was compiled by ourAsk Me Anythingteam
In the seven previous tournaments, going back to 1998, each time the fifth-best third-placed team finished with at least three points: Colombia (1998), Portugal (2002), Poland (2006), Ivory Coast (2010. 2014), Nigeria (2018), Tunisia (2022).
So goal difference could play a major factor in determining matters this year.
In 1998, three points. a -2 goal difference was enough for Colombia to be one of the five best third-placed teams. In 2006, Poland finished the tournament as the fifth-best third-place side with three points and a -2 goal difference.
Ivory Coast finished as the fifth-best third-place finishers in 2010 with three points and a +1 goal difference. Whereas in 2002, Portugal finished with a +2 goal difference on three points as the fifth-best third-placed team.
In 2022, there was a three-way tie for the fifth-best third-placed team: Tunisia, Cameroon. Uruguay all finished on four points and a level goal difference, with one win, one draw and one defeat each from their three group stage matches.
With 12 groups instead of eight at this tournament, there is room for a broader range of results but if recent history suggests anything, it is that teams should not rely on three points being enough to progress -. that goal difference will be key.
In 1998, 2002, 2010, 2014, 2018. 2022, there were 13 third-placed teams who finished on three points but were not among the top five third-place finishers.
This video can not be played
Scotland sing with pride on World Cup return
World Cup fixtures and group standings
How to watch the World Cup on the BBC
Everything you need to know about the World Cup
Discussion
Sign in to join the thread, react, and share images.