On Monday evening local time at New York New Jersey Stadium, Senegal will face Norway in a game that is not only crucial in terms of who qualifies from Group I, but will go a long way in determining how African performance at this World Cup is viewed. This is not entirely fair – nobody can seriously doubt that Senegal are an extremely adept side, and it may be that the court of arbitration for sport decides that they are indeed the reigning African champions – but there is a sense that Africa could do with a big performance.

No region benefited as much from the expansion of the World Cup as Africa. In Qatar in 2022, five of the 32 slots (16% of the field) went to the Confederation of African Football (Caf). Of the 48 slots this time around, nine went automatically to Caf, and they secured a 10th when DR Congo beat Jamaica in an interconfederational playoff in March. Caf had lobbied for years for more representation, arguing it was unfair that it had only five slots for its 54 members, while Conmebol, the South American confederation, had four plus a playoff for 10 members (21% of the field). The response was that Conmebol sides had won the World Cup nine times, while Caf sides had only made the quarter-finals on three occasions. By the end of the last World Cup, Conmebol were up to 10 victories and Caf had its first semi-finalist.

Caf’s logic was always that more sides at the finals would give them more of an opportunity to demonstrate quality, that African contenders would be less likely to be undermined by an unfortunate spate of injuries, a badly timed run of form or ill luck. To justify Caf’s extra slots, it really needs a minimum of five of its sides to make it to the last 32. How has that worked out?

Let’s start with the bad. Tunisia have been dreadful, undermined by shambolic leadership. They sacked manager Sabri Lamouchi after a 5-1 defeat to Sweden and then lost 4-0 to Japan under Hervé Renard, their seventh coach since qualifying began. South Africa, meanwhile, bafflingly adopted a back five for the opening game, tried to play in an unfamiliar style and were well-beaten by Mexico. A late penalty brought a fortuitous draw against Czechia and they could still make it through to the last 32 if they beat South Korea in their final group game. South Africa’s passivity, though, is not just damaging; it feels betrayal of the progressive football that had previously characterised them under Hugo Broos.

Algeria’s defensive shortcomings, exposed by Nigeria in the Africa Cup of Nations quarter-final, were shown up again by Argentina in a 3-0 loss. If your defence can’t handle Akor Adams, there’s very little chance of it handling Lionel Messi. Monday’s game against Jordan represents a vital chance to restore stability and confidence.

There have also been positives. For Morocco and Côte d’Ivoire, there is a sense of what might have been. Both took the lead against a former World Cup winner and neither team finished the job. Morocco were all over Brazil before the first-half hydration break and really should have scored more than the one they did. The 1-0 win over Scotland was similar in the sense that it should have been by more.

Côte d’Ivoire matched Germany for an hour and led in an engaging, high-quality game. They may have sat deep and attacked on the counter through Amad Diallo and, especially, Yan Diomande, but this wasn’t an underdog going into the bunker and simply looking to survive. It was a proper game between two well-matched sides, but Germany had greater strength in depth and won it with two goals from the substitute Deniz Undav.

Senegal may reflect similarly after their game against France. There was no shame in their 3-1 defeat, but having held the 2018 world champions comfortably in the first half, they faded in the final quarter. That pattern of African sides fading late is uncomfortably familiar, and may speak to a lack of strength in depth compared to the best sides in the world. Or perhaps it’s due to tactical shortcomings, a mental block or perhaps even a lack of belief that the European and South American elite can be beaten.

Ghana bucked the trend with their late win over Panama. They did not play especially well, but in grim unyielding resistance they were very clearly a Carlos Queiroz side. Queiroz’s former side Egypt, meanwhile, having failed to hold a lead against Belgium, overwhelmed New Zealand in the second half and now sit atop Group G.

Other sides have lesser ambitions. The two African minnows, Cape Verde and DR Congo, have both performed creditably. The latter went behind early to Portugal, responded well, equalised and held their highly fancied opponents relatively easily. The question is whether they can repeat that level of performance against Colombia and Uzbekistan. Cape Verde, having held Spain, then drew a thriller against Uruguay.

Which leaves us where? Egypt, Morocco and Côte d’Ivoire should go through. Ghana have a very good chance, Cape Verde and DR Congo have more of a chance than anybody thought likely, Algeria have to get a result on Monday, Senegal may find themselves undone by a cruel draw, South Africa still have an outside opportunity and Tunisia are done.

The total to advance will probably end up at around the five or six needed in the knockouts to justify the increase in representation. The next step is to start converting those leads against big sides into wins.

• This is an extract from Soccer Desk: World Cup edition, a newsletter from the Guardian US that will run regularly during the tournament. Subscribe for free here.