Harry Kane is destined to go his entire wonderful career being completely misunderstood as a mere England poacher who must stay in the area.
Harry Kane is destined to go his entire wonderful career being completely misunderstood as a mere England poacher who must stay in the area.
And have Scotland already done enough to get through to the knockouts?
Send your thoughts to [email protected].
O Canada
If I had to commit a violent, leg-breaking foul in front of a host crowd in the World Cup, I’d want to do it against Canada. One dude on the pitch could be heard shouting “his leg’s hanging off,” but the crowd’s reaction was incredibly mild. Try that sh*t in the Azteca, and you’d exit the pitch drenched in urine and risk murder between the dressing room and the team bus. I wouldn’t want to do it in Foxboro, either.
Canadians, though, are just better than me. I heard hardly any baying for blood, and by the time the distraught Madibo left the pitch, I think the crowd felt sorry for him. And at 6-0, half the crowd didn’t even applaud. They were just like, “stop hitting the slow kid, eh.”
God bless Canada.
Chris C, Toon Army DC
Creep
Let me say upfront that I do not like Hydration Breaks. Call me a cynic but it seems like the USA has managed to connive FIFA and World Football as a whole to adopt it under a pretext of player concern when in fact they simply want to shove more ads down our throats. And given that every future World Cup will most likely be held in the heat of summer, I think it is here to stay.
The reality is that teams creating artificial breaks in play anyway (e.g. the keeper gets injured) to have informal tactical huddles, so why not go ahead and legitimize it so that it can be controlled? As the saying goes, “If you are being run out of town, get in front of the crowd and make it look like a parade.” Given the pace and intensity of modern Football, one could argue that a short break is actually beneficial to players, even if the real reason is much more cynical and commercial.
The changes in game momentum after these breaks may be frustrating to the team on top but is that really such a bad thing? If it gives the underdog team a chance to regroup and be more competitive, isn’t that better for games overall? It would also nip in the bud the talk of giving each coach a “time out” which would be equally as bad, if not worse.
Most countries play their domestic leagues play in winter so I don’t see this being adopted on a cold February evening in Stoke so maybe the line is drawn at International level. At the end of the day however, the almighty dollar is always going to win out.
Adidasmufc (A cup of tea and a biscuit would not have gone amiss in the old days!)
Hit you like a Harry Kane
It really is painful to read a mailbox immediately after our best attacking performance at a major tournament in ages and see people are still moaning about our best player doing the thing the whole system is built around.
Matt from Sheffield is absolutely right, Kane is no Casemeiro. He’s a better passer and critically because he is dropping from a different position he poses much more of a problem.
It is difficult to break down teams set with two blocks of defence. By dropping deep, Kane gives his defenders a horrible choice – let one of the best passers in football become an extra man in midfield, or follow him and create space in the defence. Even if he doesn’t get the ball, he is pulling players out of position. The key is that runners occupy the space Kane vacates. Every manager Kane has ever had has understood this… except Roy Hodgson and Gareth Southgate.
As for Gibbo, his mail was just a car crash from start to finish, not just on Kane. Yes, it is perfectly possible for Bellingham to work really hard and look for fouls too easily.
If Croatia are ‘average’ what does that say about the 37 teams at the World Cup below them in the world rankings (and what is wrong with a win over an average team first time up anyway, I’m sure Spain and Portugal would love it)?
Yes Croatia’s goals could have been defended better (as pretty much all goals could) but they created little and had an xG well below 1 for what it’s worth. Our defence was nowhere near as poor as advertised.
Saying ‘Djed Spence’ just makes you look ridiculous. He came on and did well.
We were average first half, some good and some frenetic, nervous play. We were really good second half, and made substitutions Southgate would never have dreamed off to put the game to bed. You can be pleased with the first performance without measuring up for a replica World Cup to go on your mantelpiece. I’m happy to see a team with an attacking plan and the bravery to stick to it.
Phil, London
Third’s the dirty donkey
After that Czechia/South Africa draw, now seems like a good time to start thinking about whether Scotland have done enough already to qualify for the last 32 as one of the best 8 third place teams. If they lose to Morocco and Brazil they’ll have three points and a negative goal difference but will that be enough?
I reckon the groups can be divided into four sets:
Groups where third place team is expected to be behind Scotland
Group A where third best team has drawn with worst team (Czech vs SAf)
Group G where third best team has drawn with worst team (Iran & NZ)
Group J. Algeria to finish third but they’ve been tonked 3-0 by Argentina, so will have a poor goal difference.
Groups where third place team is expected to be ahead of Scotland
Group B where second and third best team have drawn (Canada, Bosnia, both still to play Qatar)
Group E. Second best team has already beaten third best (Ivory Coast vs Ecuador) so third place will probably have 3 points. But with Curacao in there, Ecuador will probably have a positive goal difference.
Group F. Netherlands and Japan have drawn so will end up on at least 4 points and Sweden have a big goal difference, so whoever comes third will be better than Scotland.
Group H where where second and third best team have drawn (Uruguay & Saudi, both still to play Cape Verde)
Group K. Can I assume DR Congo will finish in third? Beat Uzbekistan and their point against Portugal will put them on 4.
Group L. Croatia or Ghana in third with 3 or 4 points – still to play each other. Can assume they’ll play out another Disgrace of Dijon if a draw puts both through?
Squeaky bum time groups
Group C, Scotland on 3 points and negative goal difference if they lose both remaining matches. Draw one of those and they’re through but while pointing this analysis is to see whether three points will be enough, so assume for now they lose both games.
Group I. Senegal to finish third on 3 points? Have lost by two to France, but who knows how many Brazil will score against Scotland?
Unclear groups
Group D (USA, Oz, Turkey, Paraguay) Anything could still happen.
Conclusion: this analysis with all sorts of assumptions suggest we’re left with three groups with only room for one more third place team. Lots of moving parts but would be good if USA beat Turkey or if Senegal fall to pieces.
Steve Mills
The Messi v Ronaldo debate will never end – and that’s the point
I have spent the better part of two decades insisting that I am done with the Messi versus Cristiano Ronaldo debate.
Every tournament, every Ballon d’Or ceremony, every statistical milestone and every social media argument, I tell myself I have finally outgrown it. We have all seen the goals. We have all heard the arguments. Surely there is nothing left to say.
Then a World Cup rolls around, one of them produces another moment of brilliance, and suddenly we’re all back where we started.
The 2026 World Cup has reignited the conversation yet again. Depending on which side of the fence you occupy, every touch, goal, assist and result is either definitive proof of greatness or evidence that the other guy was always better. It is football’s version of Run Lola Run.
The truth is that there will never be a universally accepted winner because the debate was and is never really about numbers, even though the numbers are absurd on both sides.
Messi and Ronaldo have each scored more than 900 senior career goals. Messi’s advantage as a creator is reflected in the assist numbers, while Ronaldo remains men’s international football’s all-time leading goalscorer. Between them, they have won 13 Ballons d’Or, dozens of major trophies and enough individual records to fill an encyclopaedia.
At some point, the statistics stop settling the argument and start fuelling it.
Because what people are really debating is what they value most in football.
Some people see the ultimate footballer as a relentless competitor who treats every match like a personal mission, who has moulded himself into the most devastating goalscoring machine the sport has ever seen. If that is your definition, Ronaldo is your man.
Others see football as creativity, imagination and the ability to make the impossible look effortless. They value vision as much as finishing, artistry as much as athleticism. If that is your definition, Messi is your man.
Neither side is wrong.
It reminds me of the Michael Jordan versus LeBron James debate. The arguments never end because the players represent different ideals. Jordan’s supporters see the ultimate winner. LeBron’s supporters see the ultimate all-around player. Statistics can inform the conversation, but they cannot decide what people should admire.
That is exactly how I feel about Messi and Ronaldo.
And despite my best efforts at neutrality over the years, I know where I stand.
Cristiano Ronaldo at Manchester United was one of my idols growing up. The stepovers, the swagger, the thunderous free-kicks and the transformation from talented winger into footballing superhuman were impossible not to admire. He made countless young football fans believe that sheer dedication could turn talent into greatness.
But if someone asks me to choose, I will always choose Messi.
Not because Ronaldo lacks greatness. He obviously doesn’t.
I choose Messi because he feels like the more complete footballer. He can control a game as a scorer, creator, playmaker and conductor all at once. He can be the striker, the No.10 and the chief architect of everything good his team produces. Ronaldo evolved into arguably the greatest goalscorer football has ever seen. Messi somehow remained both an elite goalscorer and an elite creator throughout his career.
And if I’m being honest, there is also a human element to it. None of us truly know either man, but Messi has always appeared more comfortable letting his football do the talking. There is something endearing about that. In an era dominated by branding and self-promotion, he has often seemed happiest simply playing the game.
Of course, Ronaldo supporters will disagree. They will probably already be halfway through an email explaining why.
Which rather proves the point.
The debate will never end because there is no final piece of evidence waiting around the corner. There is no statistic that will suddenly persuade millions of people to abandon what their eyes, hearts and footballing preferences have told them for twenty years.
The Messi-Ronaldo debate is football’s Jordan-LeBron debate. It survives because both sides have a legitimate case and because greatness means different things to different people.
As for me, I stopped looking for a definitive answer years ago.
But if you absolutely insist on asking, I’m still picking Messi.
Gaptoothfreak, Man Utd, New York (Max B is home, the Knicks are NBA champions, and Messi still has people arguing on the internet. Some things change, some things never will.)
Ask and you shall receive…
Can F365 please do a sort of round up of the first set of group games so I don’t have to spend too long browsing through tables perusing it myself? Who’s looking likely to qualify already etc. Just a wee debrief. Thank you 🙏🏻
Seb
Thoughts on the first round of games
First and foremost…absolutely sick of the sight of David Beckham on EVERY SINGLE BLOODY advert during “Hydration” breaks (In Boston and Toronto?).
- Must admit, though Paraguay weren’t that great. I was surprisingly impressed with US performance.
- Did Brazil and Morocco change shirts before the game?
- Small nations punching above their weight…Haiti and we are all Cape Verde supporters.
- Japan look tasty and Holland look washed out, especially their shirts!
- Where was Algeria’s equivalent of Ji-Sung Park? Argentina to go out when a coach designates a player to just follow Messi around?
- Same coach doesn’t need the same instruction for Ronny though (Sad!)
- After15 mins of England game I said to my son that Tuchel has picked a team for power and physicality playing against a team with finesse and technical ability. First half a penalty and a corner for us and 2 beautifully crafted football goals for them. Yes, they were overpowered in the second half but I fear for England against technical teams that don’t have a 40 year old as their best player. Modric still got it though. He is so good he showed he can kick 2 balls at once! Only technical player in the squad is Kobbie (O’Reilly?). We will regret leaving Foden and Palmer behind I fear (and Trent and Maguire?). Stones is done. James won’t last. Ah well.
- Columbia may have the talent to go deep. And Norway…best shirts in the tournament and did you see their Viking team picture?
- Mbappe v Kane for Golden Boot?
- Some excellent and really bad goalkeeper performances,
- Anyone who takes a stutter step at a penalty should be given an instant yellow card…just TTB i.e. Twat The Bastard!
On to Round 2.
Gary (ex Pat Utd supporter in Pennsylvania) B
P.S. Alexei Lalas is a complete and utter ****
The important questions
Hi. Do you think there is a Stewie Griffin equivalent for the England team? Not happy unless England win every game 5-0 and Terry Vennables is brought back to manage them?
Dan Sweetman, Chippenham
