FIFA World Cup 2026 - Discussion Thread

Ghana defended well, we couldn't break them down. We weren't bad and we weren't good. That's about all I've got to say about this match 🤷
 
Jordan Henderson is a top bloke but I have no idea what he is doing at the World Cup. With the minutes he will be playing (close to zero I'm guessing) surely Palmer or AA would have been better blokes to have lounging around in the squad?
 
Isslander said:
Jordan Henderson is a top bloke but I have no idea what he is doing at the World Cup. With the minutes he will be playing (close to zero I'm guessing) surely Palmer or AA would have been better blokes to have lounging around in the squad?
Click to expand...
He's purely there for "vibes", right? He's there as some sort of Tuchel spy, a pseudo-captain. I don't know why Tuchel feels like he has to be in the playing squad to get that benefit (as opposed to, I don't know, non-playing staff)... but I think that's his idea. Not that I agree with it - let Kane do the captaining.

But I also don't agree with not taking Trent Alexander-Arnold. I get it from the fact that we're so shocking defensively that, if we have a player who disappears from the backline too often, we'll struggle to deal with the hole he leaves - but... I think it's bordering on criminally insane to take Djed Spence over him.
 
Chris Davies said:
He's purely there for "vibes", right? He's there as some sort of Tuchel spy, a pseudo-captain.
Click to expand...
At least Henderson's not injured... like Neymar... right?:ROLL:

Quick note, as this is my (obviously watching from afar) 11th World Cup (I was too young in 1982 to remember anything, but from 1986 onwards I remember vividly): never before it has been so EVIDENT that Brazil will be eliminated sooner, rather than later. Like, even Japan (no disrespect) have a more cohesive squad and can totally eliminate Brazil in the first knockout round (of 32)... In years past, you could maybe trust the "mystique" or the "tradition". But those days are long gone.

Apologies about my 2 cents on the matter.

Chris Davies said:
But I also don't agree with not taking Trent Alexander-Arnold.
Click to expand...
Me neither. And even with his defensive "lapses", I believe he's so good offensively (not to mention his dead ball prowess), that it compensates (or would compensate).
 
These groups need to go back to how they were at the next world cup. You need to be a mathematical genius to calculate who's going through in third place.
 
PES4eva said:
These groups need to go back to how they were at the next world cup. You need to be a mathematical genius to calculate who's going through in third place.
Click to expand...
I agree, to some extent.

I'd rather have a 32-team World Cup than a 48-team one. No brainer.
But I'd also rather have a 48-team one instead of a 64-team one (a format which would solve your issue).

The problem is not that you'd need to be a genius to calculate who's going through but that I don't believe that 32 out of 48 teams deserve to advance (and I don't belive that 32 out of 64 would, should they decide to make the World Cup bigger). 32 is way too many!
I'd be OK with either 16 teams out of 24 or 16 out of 32 (the best option I guess, and even the easier one).

I see that if one supported teams like Italy* or Curaçao (which would hardly have a chance to qualify for a 32-team World Cup) then he'd want to keep the tournament as it is now (more teams, more chance to qualify also for the so-called underdogs), but I really believe that the more teams participate the less appeal the tournament has (because it starts being not so "exclusive" anymore).

*Yes, I'm Italian. Yes, I'm definitely having a go at our team. Shame on you.
 
*aLe said:
I agree, to some extent.

I'd rather have a 32-team World Cup than a 48-team one. No brainer.
But I'd also rather have a 48-team one instead of a 64-team one (a format which would solve your issue).

The problem is not that you'd need to be a genius to calculate who's going through but that I don't believe that 32 out of 48 teams deserve to advance (and I don't belive that 32 out of 64 would, should they decide to make the World Cup bigger). 32 is way too many!
I'd be OK with either 16 teams out of 24 or 16 out of 32 (the best option I guess, and even the easier one).

I see that if one supported teams like Italy* or Curaçao (which would hardly have a chance to qualify for a 32-team World Cup) then he'd want to keep the tournament as it is now (more teams, more chance to qualify also for the so-called underdogs), but I really believe that the more teams participate the less appeal the tournament has (because it starts being not so "exclusive" anymore).

*Yes, I'm Italian. Yes, I'm definitely having a go at our team. Shame on you.
Click to expand...
They should have just left the format alone. Top two advance and that's it.
I agree teams that might advance don't really deserve to advance. Eg Scotland. They beat Haiti 1-0 and lost against Morocco and Brazil. According to A.I depending to other results Scotland (currently) have a 25% to 41% chance of advancing to the Knockouts. Doesn't feel like they have deserved to advance based on their results.
Id like to hear from any Scotland fans if they feel like they've earned a spot in the Knockouts. Of course any Scotland fan will be happy if they scrape through but objectively, without bias do they feel it would have been earned?
If it were England I'd be glad they could potentially advance but a win against Haiti and two defeats... I wouldn't feel like it's been earned.
 
PES4eva said:
These groups need to go back to how they were at the next world cup. You need to be a mathematical genius to calculate who's going through in third place.
Click to expand...
They're probably just gonna add a TON lot of more teams (64, instead of 48), 16 groups instead of 12, and only qualify 2 teams from each group. If you think about it, the south american qualifiers is already a breeze (TBH, it always has been). Adding a few more spots for European teams seem only fair (from the added nations standpoint, of course).

I'm just speculating though... As @*aLe said, I also believe there are already too many teams.
 
crustcyb said:
They're probably just gonna add a TON lot of more teams (64, instead of 48), 16 groups instead of 12, and only qualify 2 teams from each group. If you think about it, the south american qualifiers is already a breeze (TBH, it always has been). Adding a few more spots for European teams seem only fair (from the added nations standpoint, of course).

I'm just speculating though... As @*aLe said, I also believe there are already too many teams.
Click to expand...
You're probably right and I guess there is always the chance of upsets happening as we've seen but normally it's lambs to the slaughter
 
*aLe said:
I see that if one supported teams like Italy* or Curaçao (which would hardly have a chance to qualify for a 32-team World Cup) then he'd want to keep the tournament as it is now (more teams, more chance to qualify also for the so-called underdogs), but I really believe that the more teams participate the less appeal the tournament has (because it starts being not so "exclusive" anymore).
Click to expand...
But we both know that the media sensation that it's caused, seeing Cape Verde grind out points against Spain and Uruguay - and Curaçao drawing against Ecuador - guarantees the World Cup format will never, ever go back to 32 (not until global warming wipes out all but 32 countries).

I confess, the story of the World Cup so far (for me) has been Cape Verde's results, and the emotion that poured out of their players and their fans. At that point, a little part of you whispers "...was Infantino right?" (Before you vomit.)

But the whole best-third-places thing is just dumb. As a team, you need to know exactly what you need to achieve in order to progress. These "blurred lines" where you can fail your way to a sympathy place... Teams know the top two go through; if you miss that mark, you know you don't deserve to qualify! What if a third-place team then goes on to victory, having not done enough to qualify properly? Is that not scandalous, really?

They don't deserve to be there. They shouldn't be there. But this is one of the most corrupt organisations on the planet we're talking about (every time I remember they're a "non profit" I laugh); they're making more money out of more countries and their citizens than ever before. It's here to stay and it's pointless pretending otherwise. (So... Go Cape Verde!!)
 
Are World cups going forward going to be a shared country event? I mean I get it for European countries where travel is shorter and easier, but man the entire North American Continent is too damn big.
However, travelling to Mexico, the vibe of the World Cup there is something incredibly amazing. One of the best experiences and incredible stadiums Ive been to
PXL_20260618_015013384.jpg
 
I won't lie : i never really liked, even in the "great years" of football, the best third place(s) system.
Then, i just don't really think that average/poor football countries that we have on that 48 teams format wouldn't get their tickets for a 32 teams World cup, looks at Concacaf teams like Canada, even USA 1st from their group and same for Mexico : the reason is because the Concacaf leagues as become a way bigger deal than before (look at the MLS from 20 years ago and now for example, with Canadians teams on growing etc. for the rest of the USA clubs)

Now, it's not only the comeback of what i didn't really liked when i was young (third places on eliminatory phase) but... It's too freaking long. Even with the 24 teams, the Group Stage was much more intense in terms of interest for spectator; not especially supporters, the way biggest pressure and all which is relative to high level sports.
Yes, it's cool to see the happyness of a very small team looking like semi-pro celebrating a draw against a normally bigger team, but that's all.
And yes, it's hilarious that the Fifa act like a non-profit association are now practically shaking the wallet of poorest countries with their system "for more viewers/participants" and that even with the VAR, decisions are still very... Strange on many games since it has been introduced (even if it's on paper something that sounds obviously more "fair" regarding the help for referees to decide, especially if the ball get on or out the goal line)
Are World cups going forward going to be a shared country event? I mean I get it for European countries where travel is shorter and easier, but man the entire North American Continent is too damn big.
Click to expand...
I through the same, it's not like when there was Benelux (Belgium/Netherland/Luxembourg). It's almost the entire North America to travel, should be pretty exhausting and annoying for players to vary from a climat to another (some games at 35-40 degree in Mexico and others at 20 in Canada lol)
 
Last edited:
Decent game between Ecuador and Germany.
I would have said Germany at the start but Ecuador have been just about as good. Who knows.

Edit: That was a fun one to watch. Ecuador manager is a madman 😂
 
Last edited:
Come on, Winning Eleven!

POV: You have the ball against Japan and you look behind you:
giphy.gif
 
Last edited:
Once again, I hate this current format, where the 3rd place finishers can still go through.
This World Cup should be the one where only 2 teams go through the knockout stages (either back to 32 teams or, maybe, 64 teams).

The fact Bosnia, Ecuador, and Sweden somehow qualify as the best 3rd place finishers, and that some of the worst teams like Scotland (as someone mentioned in post above), Uzbekistan, and Iraq can still qualify for the knockout stages despite of horrendous performance in the group stage, are quite surprising. It has ruined so much of football imo. Especially Sweden. This team didn't deserve to be in this year's World Cup. They finished dead last in the World Cup qualifiers without a single win, even losing twice to Kosovo. Yet, they somehow got a lucky playoff lottery thanks to the Nations League performance, where they beat Ukraine and Poland. In the group stage itself, Sweden got battered 1-5 by the Netherlands after they destroyed Tunisia by the same exact result.

Ecuador actually played better vs Germany as someone said, but it was a pure luck result. Germany didn't played serious as they had already qualified. Ecuador couldn't even beat Curacao (lol).

But again, FIFA refused to reverse the decision because of money. And now everyone can accept this reality check for the format expansion of the biggest sporting events on the planet.
 
I agree with you @Ravager but not for 64 teams, even if the 2 first qualify.
For 2 reasons : 16th eliminatory final : firstly for the players and people's watching it's one match more to handle, but the too much number of matchs for a cup.
Second, it decrease the intensity and the pressure, and there's too much games for the players, in my opinion, during the whole tournament. 26 players by team is also too much, that's not high level "selectionning" at all in my opinion, 3 players more looks like nothing but it's far easier to make his final selection for a NT coach. Even if, yes, only 11 players that will be selected on the pitch, they can choose more profile type to change a game with a substitution.
Well, some will say that "it doesn't matter and it doesn't change all that much" but that's more than often little things like that that could change totally a scenario.

Other thing, when i see supporter like the Scottish one, it's okay for a small team (or very average) like them, but i found it so... Sad and in the same time, sorry to said that, but pitiful (not pejorative, more regarding the "hope" of tons of scenario) or better to say embarrassing.

I noticed that, take France and Argentina when they won, were probably the teams with the higher quality benchs in comparison to all others countries those last years, on every side of the pitch they got top players.
 
Last edited:
PES4eva said:
Ecuador manager is a madman 😂
Click to expand...
Yes he is! Glad Ecuador won at the end, the equalizer was class (I also believe that Germany's goal shouldn't have stood, but probably it's me).
Also loved how their manager reacted to the 2-1 goal, it shows he feels it a lot.

What I didn't like is that on the Italian TV at the 2-1 goal they went absolutely crazy, like we had just won the World Cup (and we're not even playing LOL). I believe that this "anti" stance (anti-German, anti-French, anti-English) is a bit too exaggerated. I mean, I also feel it (especially with France*, not gonna lie) but they crossed the line a bit yesterday.
Don't get me wrong, banter is always a good thing, but I felt this was a little bit over the top.

*and it is mutual I guess, as French DJ Bob Sinclar when interviewed by an Italian radio and asked "who's gonna win this year's World Cup?" answered "Italy" with a laughing face.
 
Last edited:
I read somewhere that the UEFA would change the system of qualification, so this won't happen again.
I still don't get why UEFA related the WC qualification to the Nations league, which is like an friendly tournament.

Ravager29586 said:
. Yet, they somehow got a lucky playoff lottery thanks to the Nations League performance
Click to expand...

Ravager29586 said:
Ecuador actually played better vs Germany as someone said, but it was a pure luck result.
Click to expand...

Ecuador had the worst difference between scored goals and their xG in this tournament. Which means the luck also wasn't with them during the first two games

There was a a proposed change to the qualification system for the knockout stages of the U-17 or U-20 World Cup, inspired by the "Play-in/Play-off" system used in the NBA (basketball)*.

​

The proposal eliminates direct qualification for third-placed teams and replaces it with a "mini-elimination stage" to determine who advances:

  1. Ranking the 3rd-Place Teams: After the group stage ends, all teams that finished 3rd in their respective groups are ranked from best to worst based on their points.
  2. Dividing Them (Best vs. Worst): Out of these, the top 8 third-placed teams are selected. They are then paired up based on their rankings (for example, the best-performing 3rd-place teams play against the lowest-performing 3rd-place teams). These teams face each other in a single, high-stakes elimination match. The winners of these matches officially advance to the next round to face the group winners.
    *system explained by AI
 
*aLe said:
(I also believe that Germany's goal shouldn't have stood, but probably it's me).
Click to expand...

It's not only you. Pretty ridiculous that the VAR didn't overturned that.


I also dislike the format with the 3rd-placed teams. Not just as a fan, but for the teams as well. It’s the biggest and most important tournament in football, and some teams don’t find out until Sunday evening who they’ll be playing on Monday. That’s bullshit.
 
Last edited:
*aLe said:
Yes he is! Glad Ecuador won at the end, the equalizer was class (I also believe that Germany's goal shouldn't have stood, but probably it's me).
Also loved how their manager reacted to the 2-1 goal, it shows he feels it a lot.

What I didn't like is that on the Italian TV at the 2-1 goal they went absolutely crazy, like we had just won the World Cup (and we're not even playing LOL). I believe that this "anti" stance (anti-German, anti-French, anti-English) is a bit too exaggerated. I mean, I also feel it (especially with France*, not gonna lie) but they crossed the line a bit yesterday.
Don't get me wrong, banter is always a good thing, but I felt this was a little bit over the top.

*and it is mutual I guess, as French DJ Bob Sinclar when interviewed by an Italian radio and asked "who's gonna win this year's World Cup?" answered "Italy" with a laughing face.
Click to expand...
I think it was probably a high foot and per the rules it probably shouldn't have been a goal. However since I don't like the overprotective rules I'm glad it was a goal.
So it was a stance against European teams. It's not our fault Italy didn't make it lol
 
H_G said:
I read somewhere that the UEFA would change the system of qualification, so this won't happen again.
I still don't get why UEFA related the WC qualification to the Nations league, which is like an friendly tournament.
Click to expand...
I like (but also hate) this new UEFA idea. Though it's not yet to be approved, this UCL "Swiss-style" format makes it very competitive as countries with the worst rankings like San Marino or Gibraltar won't get involved, so big teams won't definitely run up the score against those teams (like England beating San Marino by 10 goals or France 14-0 Gibraltar). The problem is that we could have such a big games involving big teams. Most likely, this new format won't even help Italy at all as they were practically the worst team right now, not capable of beating such a big teams like Spain, France, or Portugal.

For the record, the women's equivalent uses this Nations League format for the Euro 2025 and 2027 World Cup qualification, and that format literally impacts everything. The women's team of England, for example, could risk of missing out the next year's World Cup after winning back-to-back Euros and reaching the World Cup final in the last edition.

H_G said:
There was a a proposed change to the qualification system for the knockout stages of the U-17 or U-20 World Cup, inspired by the "Play-in/Play-off" system used in the NBA (basketball)*.

The proposal eliminates direct qualification for third-placed teams and replaces it with a "mini-elimination stage" to determine who advances:

  1. Ranking the 3rd-Place Teams: After the group stage ends, all teams that finished 3rd in their respective groups are ranked from best to worst based on their points.
  2. Dividing Them (Best vs. Worst): Out of these, the top 8 third-placed teams are selected. They are then paired up based on their rankings (for example, the best-performing 3rd-place teams play against the lowest-performing 3rd-place teams). These teams face each other in a single, high-stakes elimination match. The winners of these matches officially advance to the next round to face the group winners.
    *system explained by AI
Click to expand...
This is a good idea. A "mini-elimination stage" before the actual knockout phase just like the UEFA club competitions would benefit such a better team, though not 100% true.
 
*aLe said:
I agree, to some extent.

I'd rather have a 32-team World Cup than a 48-team one. No brainer.
But I'd also rather have a 48-team one instead of a 64-team one (a format which would solve your issue).

The problem is not that you'd need to be a genius to calculate who's going through but that I don't believe that 32 out of 48 teams deserve to advance (and I don't belive that 32 out of 64 would, should they decide to make the World Cup bigger). 32 is way too many!
I'd be OK with either 16 teams out of 24 or 16 out of 32 (the best option I guess, and even the easier one).

I see that if one supported teams like Italy* or Curaçao (which would hardly have a chance to qualify for a 32-team World Cup) then he'd want to keep the tournament as it is now (more teams, more chance to qualify also for the so-called underdogs), but I really believe that the more teams participate the less appeal the tournament has (because it starts being not so "exclusive" anymore).

*Yes, I'm Italian. Yes, I'm definitely having a go at our team. Shame on you.
Click to expand...
48 teams I would make 16 groups of 3 and only the 1st team advances to the 1/8
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom