Yes, the Argentina team is a proper reflection of their nation's overall demographics, unlike some countries in this year's World Cup.
“If I wanted to play AFCON, I will play for Cameroon and send my brother Ethan to play for Algeria because my Dad is from Cameroon and my Mum from Algeria”- Kylian Mbappe pic.twitter.com/byZBW3KKHS— BASITO (@itzbasito) July 20, 2026
Messi also has coaches and presidents that screw him over Yamal, Mbappe and Italy (at their peak) never had to worry about dysfunctional footballing associations or structures or money issues. At least not at argentina's levels.
I would most definitely add Canada to that. Which is why I mentioned them. Also the Canada NT basketball and NT hockey teams aren't either. I'd probably say the NT baseball team is the closest to reality. As for CONCACAF joining CONMEBOL... no need. Keep in mind CONCACAF covers a large land mass with many nations. There are 3 sub regions (unions) within CONCACAF to keep it less clustered (3 north american teams, central america, caribbean). Also, I don't see what benefit CONMEBOL would get out of it.
Yes and he broke the record as the oldest outfield player in a final. What he did was astonishing. Messi had 9 dribbles against England. Ronaldo had no dribbles in 9 games between 2022/2026.
Which would mean France Spain will win every trophy over the next 20 years because England is England. But Yes someone needs to tactically change the game the same way Spain did in 2008. Spain sometimes beat Spain by having a 0-0 pk loss but they play the odds and get to finals enough to dominate over 10 tournaments.
No. Rodri came off hurt in the 2nd half and Spain still put two past England in 90 they still had 65% possession against England. Argentina were more likely to take Spain to penalties if not for the red card it likely would have happened. Spain was the worst possible match up for Argentina because with Messi not able to defend they were playing a man up with the ball. After the red it was 10 vs 8. Spain could just play keep away indefinitely. We don't need to compare Argentina 2026 to England 2024 against Spain 2024 and Spain 2026. We saw Argentina vs England and Argentina battered them once their physicality and pressing wore off. The gap between England 2026 and Spain 2026 was likely even larger than 2024 because Rice Anderson Jude are an even more limited midfield with the ball than what they had in 2024. The same pattern with England repeated against Spain France Argentina Croatia Italy. The sample size is very large and definitive. Argentina were already an old side in 2022 they were never really built to win the world cup but Spain was the one team that could take them right out of the game.
England were a clear second best against Spain in the 2024 Final but much better than what Argentina were in 2026. They got a goal, put shots on target. England lost against Argentina because their physicality wore off and not because they were unbalanced with 6 Defenders? Ma dai.
To me, the 1998 France squad is probably at the upper limit of what I would consider acceptable "diversity", only because France genuinely was and is a multiracial country to some degree with its overseas departments and whatnot. Most other European countries I'd think should be even less diverse realistically. Some white French from the native ethnic groups, some white French from other European immigrant backgrounds, some black French from the overseas departments, some with immigrant backgrounds from sub-Saharan former colonies, a couple of North African descendants... Maybe not totally proportional, but this was a decent enough representation of the demographic reality of modern France. The current iteration on the other hand is just comically absurd with how disconnected it is from the country as a whole.
I've asked this already and not received a reply yet you keep writing it. In what match did England blow it against Spain? It obviously wasn't the '24 Final because that was clearly one-sided, you yourself have admitted it. So which Spain match of England reminds you of Croatia, Italy, and now Argentina?
England played Spain in the final of Euro 2024 losing 2 - 1 . That's the last I can recall these two teams facing each other in a competitive fixture at that level ( not including games like nations league and similar ) . Only WC fixtures and Euros.
Before the additinal defender England were still trying to come forward, as they were against Italy in 2022 and even after drawing Spain in 2024, but they faced a more determined midfield in our case and a better one in Italy and Spains case. They've been like this for a long time, even back to Brazil 2002. It can't always be the coach. I'm having the discussion, though a bit more delicately in our forum. Yes Scaloni could have made other decisions, most notably Latauro instead of Senesi. Enzo could have made a better decision on the 2nd yellow especially having learned from the weak first one. It didn't happen and Spain was just better. England didn't just get coached to sit back in these three games mentioned. They were pushed back.
Right. It was more of a rhetorical question that England did not cower with the lead in a match as they did in the other 3.
And that's all fine but I've never seen 6 Defenders probably ever and if I did certainly not THAT early.
You mean the other two? Italy 2021 and 2024 vs Spain? In 2024 credit to England that they did go forward after being down 1-0 because that's the only logical thing to do in that circumstance and they scored a tying goal, then Spain turned it up again. In 2018, they thought they had it at 1-0 vs Croatia. The parallels are there, for me. Heck, I remember them not attacking Brazil in 2002 after being down a goal. They went up early and then tried to defend and stayed in a defensive posture after going down 2-1 at the 50th. The 2 goals in 5 minutes stunned them. I remember the broadcasters saying "well you're not going to get a tying goal if you refuse to go past the center line!" For me, I see a pattern. The debate is whether they do it to themselves or if the other team imposes it. Realistically it's a bit of both.
The first sub was at the 72nd minute, Konsa (defender) for Gordon (forward). Then it was a defender for defender in Burn for James at the 82nd. Also at the 82nd it's midfielder for midfielder, O'Reilly for Rice. Finally at the 90th Toney comes in for Stones, an attacker for a defender, and Rashford for Spence, another attacker for defender. At that point they needed to come forward. So at best it was 5 defenders from the 72nd minute till the 90th, which for me is not unusual under the circumstances. I've seen it many times before. I think it might seem extreme because of how deep they were defending from the 60th minute forward. I saw them try to come forward. Kane and Bellingham got swarmed each time, further pushing them back. That's where I saw it being imposed on them.
There is no "because" that is valid ...England have not been able to knock out a top side off home soil. This is a continuous pattern and time and time again their midfield quality/creativity is poor. The burden of proof is on those that continuously make excuses for England. With England it is simple show don't tell. Show me them knocking out a top side dont tell me how they would have if not for XYandZ. Argentina battered them. The two best teams in the tournament were Spain and France. England does not deserve your praise or concern they were never close to touching the world cup that is the reality. They were very fortunate to not go down 2-0 to Congo. I watched every minute of every game from them. It was the same England as usual.
They lost clean in 90m does not impress me. It's a pointless comparison. The 2nd best team in 2024 was Germany not England.
I really don't want to get into this again but you keep saying you've watched all England games and show me a good side they beat? They literally only lose to the top teams in the world ALWAYS BY ONE GOAL. Even the best teams in the world cannot dominate them, it is ALWAYS a close game whether you want to think it or not, they NEVER get blown out. It seems like you are clearly against them. I never want them to win, always root against them (basically every other European team as well), but you are either blind or bias to say they are not one of the best teams in the world. Only champions have knocked them out in the last 8 years except for Croatia once in overtime, they never lose any other games (the other winless nations you thought were better in the past got BATTERED by a non-competitve team in the WC). England has consistenly been a top 3-4 team in the world for the past 8 years, Argentina hasn't, Spain hasn't, France hasn't. Do you know how hard that is to do to not randomly get destroyed bc you are having an off day? Even we destroyed a stacked France in France not that long ago, but no team can do that to England bc they are consistenly elite. They are one of the most consistent teams I've seen, sure they might never become champions but to always be right there at the finish line, that is mighty impressive in my book. To conclude, I would never trade our Euro for a team that haven't won shit all these years, but when it comes to all the other winless nations in the world, there is not a team better than England.
Yes it is a combination of game state and the fact that once they are pinned back meaning they re not risking their goal with a high press which they achieve with their physicality and speed they are reduced to breaking a press and counter attacking with their close control and ability to play out the back which is lacking and then they get swarmed. If you rely on ball carrying and running once you give that up out if fear of conceding your super power is zapped and you will struggle to keep control of a game. They also don't have the defensive composure to keep a clean sheet for a 1-0 win.