World Cup 2026

[SuperBacon]

42 minutes ago, Devon Malcolm said:

A sort of high pitched misery, the intonation of someone who thinks he should be bigger than he is. I loathe him.

Its mad, because back in the day on Capital Gold 1548, he was brilliant. A genuinely fantastic radio broadcaster, who understood he was on the radio, and was just the right amount of enthusiastic and knowledgeable. But he's always been awful on TV.

It's mental how bad some commentators are and they just keep their employment forever seemingly.

[air_raid]

40 minutes ago, SuperBacon said:

Its mad, because back in the day on Capital Gold 1548, he was brilliant. A genuinely fantastic radio broadcaster, who understood he was on the radio, and was just the right amount of enthusiastic and knowledgeable. But he's always been awful on TV.

It's mental how bad some commentators are and they just keep their employment forever seemingly.

He used to be even worse than he is now. His early Channel 5 commentary used to make my ears bleed screaming “SHEARRRRRERRRRR!!!”

[SuperBacon]

Ref going down with cramp and the crowd not immediately singing "You're not fit to referee" shows just why the yanks shouldn't be hosting a World Cup.

That Australia performance, especially the first half, was a genuine disgrace. I've seen non league teams play better and the USA should've battered them.

[SuperBacon]

The best thing to happen in that game was Scotland fans booing Hakimi every time he touched the ball. They were terrible sadly.

I don't think they were booing Hakimi because he's "upset the locals" Ally...

[Carbomb]

I find it utterly mind-boggling that a country with the footballing history that Scotland has, with the contributions it's made to the global game, has never got out of the group stage of any major international tournament. And it looks like it's going to happen again. Is it deliberate, at this point? Even Iceland, with a population so small that a tenth of it fits in a football stadium, has got further. I just don't understand it.

[garynysmon]

47 minutes ago, Carbomb said:

I find it utterly mind-boggling that a country with the footballing history that Scotland has, with the contributions it's made to the global game, has never got out of the group stage of any major international tournament. And it looks like it's going to happen again. Is it deliberate, at this point? Even Iceland, with a population so small that a tenth of it fits in a football stadium, has got further. I just don't understand it.

I find it more surprising that Scottish sides of the 70's never progressed, given the talent they had back then.

But nowadays with Scotland I see a lot of parallels with Wales in that once you've named the top 4-5 players you already start naming lads who are struggling for game time in the Championship, for instance. Their starting keeper, Gunn, has barely played a game all season. Grant Hanley is a starting centre back, yet is 34 now and playing for Hibs.

Its not entirely surprising, despite some quality such as McTominay, Robertson, Doak etc.

(In fairness you could argue that Scotland has a major advantage over Wales though in having its own professional top-flight, whereas we only have the four Anglo-Welsh EFL teams and TNS as full-time clubs)

Many smaller countries have golden generations where enough good players are around at the same time to qualify, or even go further. But its nigh on impossible to maintain it as some inevitably retire and are replaced by others who simply aren't of the level.

Whatever you say about England, they will always have 2-3 Premier League starters in every position. Look at England this week, Timo Livramento got injured. Who replaced him? Chalobah, a 26 year old Premier League regular who couldn't even make the original squad.

I'd bite your hand off for a player like that in our starting XI.

So while we immediately look at McGinn etc, the depth just isn't there across the squad.

 

Edited June 20 by garynysmon

[neil]

In my uninformed opinion I think if the Scotch had put as much effort into scoring as they did trying to get a free kick/penalty they might have ended up with a draw.

[westlondonmist]

Scotland midfield have been awful so far, cut apart by Haiti and Morocco. Which is odd considering that's the one area where you have some quality. McTominay has been a bit of a greedy bastard and McGinn has just looked off it. Both penalty appeals came after they didn't make the pass and went alone and the run went badly. Neither were penalties, they'd played for them and the referee wasn't having it. 

[Rossman]

62 shots in total, 13 shots on target. Over 70% possession in both games. 0 goals , 0 points.

Turkey's World Cup so far. And they're now out.

[SaitoRyo]

33 minutes ago, Rossman said:

62 shots in total, 13 shots on target. Over 70% possession in both games. 0 goals , 0 points.

Turkey's World Cup so far. And they're now out.

Dark horseshit.

[JNLister]

In case anyone else missed this, there's a change in format this year: goal difference is not the first stage of ranking teams level on groups, it's head-to-head-results instead. Seems to be a typically dumb FIFA move in practice as it means more teams either being guaranteed eliminated or guaranteed through/top after two games and thus more final games where at least one team has nothing to play for. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cn94jrj8d5go

[westlondonmist]

31 minutes ago, JNLister said:

In case anyone else missed this, there's a change in format this year: goal difference is not the first stage of ranking teams level on groups, it's head-to-head-results instead. Seems to be a typically dumb FIFA move in practice as it means more teams either being guaranteed eliminated or guaranteed through/top after two games and thus more final games where at least one team has nothing to play for. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cn94jrj8d5go

I dislike that because a team coming 4th could potentially qualify as best third place but the actual third place wouldn't (if they both had 3 points) 

[air_raid]

2 hours ago, JNLister said:

In case anyone else missed this, there's a change in format this year: goal difference is not the first stage of ranking teams level on groups, it's head-to-head-results instead. Seems to be a typically dumb FIFA move in practice as it means more teams either being guaranteed eliminated or guaranteed through/top after two games and thus more final games where at least one team has nothing to play for. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cn94jrj8d5go

I was actually coming here to ask “So why are Turkey definitely out” thinking they could come 3rd if they beat the States heavily and have a better goal difference than the loser of Paraguay vs Oz. And now I know. Thanks Lister!

[MVP RULZ]

7 hours ago, JNLister said:

In case anyone else missed this, there's a change in format this year: goal difference is not the first stage of ranking teams level on groups, it's head-to-head-results instead. Seems to be a typically dumb FIFA move in practice as it means more teams either being guaranteed eliminated or guaranteed through/top after two games and thus more final games where at least one team has nothing to play for. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/articles/cn94jrj8d5go

That's how it is in the Euros so nothing particularly new or odd about it

I can see arguments both ways but I don't mind it.

If a team is on the same points it's fairly logical and fair to suggest that the team that beat the other should finish above them.

[Doog]

Still think the Scots have every chance of getting out the group, after last week GD was the concern but that wasnt harmed last night.

There'll be at least two groups where the 3rd place teams dont even get to 3pts by the looks of it, so only 2 other sides that could be a problem, as long as they don't get battered by Brazil they'll get through.