Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

World Cup 2026 - USA/Canada/Mexico

1…89111314…18

Comments

  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,840
    Great end to the Wales game, after a fairly dull match. Two goals in added time and it finishes 1-1.
  • Algarveaddick
    Algarveaddick Posts: 21,146
    Two comical goals though. 
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,758
    Argentina become the fourth team to qualify (afree Japan, New Zealand and Iran) and the seventh in total after considering the three hosts.
  • iaitch
    iaitch Posts: 10,221
    Can you use the term 'qualify' for the hosts?
  • HastingsRed
    HastingsRed Posts: 1,580
    Callumcafc said:
    Argentina become the fourth team to qualify (afree Japan, New Zealand and Iran) and the seventh in total after considering the three hosts.
    Thought they had already qualified as holders Callum?
  • JaShea99
    JaShea99 Posts: 5,457
    Didn’t they scrap that years ago?
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 35,994
    HastingsRed said:
    Callumcafc said:
    Argentina become the fourth team to qualify (afree Japan, New Zealand and Iran) and the seventh in total after considering the three hosts.
    Thought they had already qualified as holders Callum?
    This was scrapped after the 2002 World Cup.
  • ValleyGary
    ValleyGary Posts: 37,973
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
  • AddicksAddict
    AddicksAddict Posts: 15,780
    ValleyGary said:
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
    Those are not contradictory statements. 
  • CAFCTrev
    CAFCTrev Posts: 5,976
    ValleyGary said:
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
    I dont remember Charlton v Brazil at Wembley?
  • Sponsored links:



  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,758
    iaitch said:
    Can you use the term 'qualify' for the hosts?
    My phrasing was poor but I tried to delineate between teams that had qualified and the host nations.
  • ValleyGary
    ValleyGary Posts: 37,973
    edited March 26
    AddicksAddict said:
    ValleyGary said:
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
    Those are not contradictory statements. 
    Game against us was a year ago, they’ve got significantly worse. Didn’t realise it was that difficult.
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 35,994
    ValleyGary said:
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
    Argentina away is not exactly an easy game and they were far from full strength.

    No Alisson in goal, Gabriel and Militao missing in defence and no Bruno Guimaraes either. Also without Neymar but you could argue that's not much of a loss these days.
  • ValleyGary
    ValleyGary Posts: 37,973
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    ValleyGary said:
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
    Argentina away is not exactly an easy game and they were far from full strength.

    No Alisson in goal, Gabriel and Militao missing in defence and no Bruno Guimaraes either. Also without Neymar but you could argue that's not much of a loss these days.
    They’ll still qualify but they’ve not exactly been in great form during the whole qualification, 10 points behind Argentina and 2 behind Ecuador.
  • AddicksAddict
    AddicksAddict Posts: 15,780
    ValleyGary said:
    AddicksAddict said:
    ValleyGary said:
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
    Those are not contradictory statements. 
    Game against us was a year ago, they’ve got significantly worse. Didn’t realise it was that difficult.
    I was implying England aren’t great. Didn’t realise it was that difficult. 
  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,835
    Brazil have not beaten Argentina for 6 years now
  • killerandflash
    killerandflash Posts: 69,840
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce8vp2e7p64o

    Interesting article on the failings in Chinese football. They finished bottom of their qualifying group, level on 6 points with the mighty Bahrain!
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 35,994
    ValleyGary said:
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    ValleyGary said:
    Crazy to see how poor Brazil are. They impressed me against us at Wembley in the Friendly.
    Argentina away is not exactly an easy game and they were far from full strength.

    No Alisson in goal, Gabriel and Militao missing in defence and no Bruno Guimaraes either. Also without Neymar but you could argue that's not much of a loss these days.
    They’ll still qualify but they’ve not exactly been in great form during the whole qualification, 10 points behind Argentina and 2 behind Ecuador.
    They've not been good for years.

    Haven't gone beyond the quarters of a WC since winning it in 2002.
    Won 1 Copa America since 2007, which was 6 years ago and they were the host nation.
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,750
    Good. I can’t stand all the fuss about Brazil.
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,750
    Leroy Ambrose said:
    Swindon_Addick said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    It means NZ have qualified for a World Cup by playing only 5 games (4 of which they played at home). Beat Tahiti, Vanuatu, Samoa, Fiji and New Caledonia to qualify. Scored 29 and conceded 1.

    Compare that to Asia where teams play a minimum of 16 games to qualify.

    It's possible that the Asian team who end up in the Intercontinental play offs and go on to win that, will play 23 games to qualify. Or worse, they could play 23 games, lose the final and not qualify!
    And they call it inclusion or some other woke nonsense. 
    Don't be silly, this is FIFA we're talking about. They call it a money-making opportunity.
    Is, of course, the CORRECT answer. 
    Well, yes and no imo.

    Yes, having 48 teams is a money making opportunity. 

    No, giving New Zealand an easy path is not a money making opportunity. 

    I think that the question is why is there such an easy way to qualify for Oceania. It should at least be enlarged to include Australia and south-east Asia teams .
  • Sponsored links:



  • ForeverAddickted
    ForeverAddickted Posts: 94,291
    edited March 27
    jimmymelrose said:
    Leroy Ambrose said:
    Swindon_Addick said:
    golfaddick said:
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    It means NZ have qualified for a World Cup by playing only 5 games (4 of which they played at home). Beat Tahiti, Vanuatu, Samoa, Fiji and New Caledonia to qualify. Scored 29 and conceded 1.

    Compare that to Asia where teams play a minimum of 16 games to qualify.

    It's possible that the Asian team who end up in the Intercontinental play offs and go on to win that, will play 23 games to qualify. Or worse, they could play 23 games, lose the final and not qualify!
    And they call it inclusion or some other woke nonsense. 
    Don't be silly, this is FIFA we're talking about. They call it a money-making opportunity.
    Is, of course, the CORRECT answer. 
    Well, yes and no imo.

    Yes, having 48 teams is a money making opportunity. 

    No, giving New Zealand an easy path is not a money making opportunity. 

    I think that the question is why is there such an easy way to qualify for Oceania. It should at least be enlarged to include Australia and south-east Asia teams .
    Cost for the Pacific Teams is probably a big factor - In which case they maybe need to have a Pre-Oceania Qualifying Stage(s) where one or two join New Zealand in the main Asia draw.

    Going back to the original comment made by Chris, its worth remembering that the UEFA format isn't much different now; Germany after all only need to play one extra game than New Zealand to qualify for the World Cup. Their three opponents of Slovakia - Northern Ireland - Luxembourg, arent exactly going to be difficult fixtures for them - Same for France, who "only" have to bypass Azerbaijan - Iceland - Ukraine.
  • sm
    sm Posts: 2,958
    Can we insist on playing all our games in Canada and Mexico?
  • jimmymelrose
    jimmymelrose Posts: 9,750
    Don’t want Mexico or southern US. The heat will be a factor.
  • HastingsRed
    HastingsRed Posts: 1,580
    jimmymelrose said:
    Don’t want Mexico or southern US. The heat will be a factor.
    Yes Jack wasn't to keen on Florida.
  • cafcnick1992
    cafcnick1992 Posts: 7,413
    Just on the theme of bad American takes...some bloke on ESPN in the US has claimed that Shohei Ohtani (a baseball player for the LA Dodgers) is the best known global athlete since Tiger Woods or Muhammad Ali.

    https://x.com/SportsCenter/status/1907863786293244258

    The bloke actually has less instagram followers than Ngolo Kante
  • Chris_from_Sidcup
    Chris_from_Sidcup Posts: 35,994
    edited April 4
    cafcnick1992 said:
    Just on the theme of bad American takes...some bloke on ESPN in the US has claimed that Shohei Ohtani (a baseball player for the LA Dodgers) is the best known global athlete since Tiger Woods or Muhammad Ali.

    https://x.com/SportsCenter/status/1907863786293244258

    The bloke actually has less instagram followers than Ngolo Kante
    He's not even the best known global athlete currently in LA.
  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,758
    Ohtani is undoubtedly a super star - in the world of baseball.
  • Kap10
    Kap10 Posts: 15,562
    killerandflash said:
    orpingtonRED said:
    Chris_from_Sidcup said:
    Iran become the latest team to qualify for the World Cup.
    Remember USA v Iran 1998 WC? That game had some edge to it. 
    We just need Israel to qualify and be drawn in thee same group...
    That would be awesome!
  • Leroy Ambrose
    Leroy Ambrose Posts: 14,435
    Getting closer and closer to drawing The Goodwin Sands in round 1...


  • MrOneLung
    MrOneLung Posts: 26,835
    Uzbekistan qualifies for their first World Cup 

Categories

“Marketplace”