** World Cup 2026 - USA, Canada, Mexico Thread **
Saw no thread was active yet while it starts tomorrow so I'd gave it a go
No real time for an extensive write-up but lets
which poor bloke will kick it into the stands?
This was 2 hours of pointlessness
All these kicks are sus
Best detail of the entire game: last penalty was vargas vs vargas
A win for chocolate
congratulations to argentina for advancing to the semifinal
It still amazes me when somebody can't even get the shot on goal on penalty kicks. You have one job and it's not completely missing the goal.
Swiss coach looks like the guy from Jaws, but with luxurious hair.
I always forget that Luis Diaz is Colombian. He seems like the most Uruguayan player of all time to me.
Hopp Schwiiz
6 out of last 8 are uefa though
we've said goodbye to mexico, now we say goodbye to canada, the remaining 8 games are all in magaland. day off tomorrow, for the first time since the tournament began i believe, before we are so back with the quarterfinals
july 9:
france vs morocco (in foxborough)
golden boot race:
8 goals
Lionel Messi
7 goals
Kylian Mbappé
Erling Haaland
6 goals
Harry Kane
4 goals
Jude Bellingham
Ousmane Dembélé
Mikel Oyarzabal
3 goals
Romelu Lukaku
Ismael Saibari
Johan Manzambi
that race is mbappe vs whoever he plays in the finals
First world cup game I attend in person. 0-0 goes to pk. Snore. Lol soccer.
People who call it soccer deserve to suffer boring games.
golden boot race:
8 goals
Lionel Messi
7 goals
Kylian Mbappé
Erling Haaland
6 goals
Harry Kane
4 goals
Jude Bellingham
Ousmane Dembélé
Mikel Oyarzabal
3 goals
Romelu Lukaku
Ismael Saibari
Johan Manzambi
Saibari looked out of the tournament, the way he grabbed his hamstring (not that there is a world in which he scores 5 more goals)
after SUI beat COL, i immediately thought of a discussion i've had w friends about whether the EUROs are more difficult to win than the WC. what with 75% of the QFs consisting of UEFA countries (the most since 7 UEFA teams made the QFs the last time the U.S. hosted the WC in 1994 ... interestingly, a UEFA team didn't end up winning that WC). i align myself w "the EUROs is more difficult to win" crowd
building on that topic, and on this first off-day of the WC, i've spent the time to tally the results of all EUR teams in the WC and the UEFA European Championship (1960 was the first year of this competition). i gave a country a point for every WC or EUROs title and a 1/3rd of a point for every WC or EUROs runner-up finish. note that for this exercise, i lumped West Germany's and Germany's results together
here are the all-time rankings (top 9 listed):
1 - GER, 9.33
2 - ITA, 7.33
3 - ESP, 5.33
4 - FRA, 5
T-5 - CZE, NED, and URS, 2
8 - ENG, 1.67
9 - POR, 1.33
Greece and Denmark have won the Euros.
That pretty much immediately disqualifies the Euros from being more difficult to win.
well, the world cup has been won by Uruguay twice
You have to include the assists for the golden boot race, as that is the tiebreaker if the amount of goals scored is equal. Should they both be equal it goes to the player with the fewest minutes played.
https://www.fifa.com/en/tournaments/mens...
Golden boot very likely won by one person but shared if all three criteria are tied. Top goalscorer can easily be shared. They are different markets for betting as well.
Yes, but that was in the Flintstones era of the World Cup. I've actually done a decent amount of research on their WC wins.
In 1930, Uruguay were chosen as inaugural hosts, after winning the previous two olympic tournaments for football. Those two tournaments allowed professional players, hence why FIFA considers them official world championships, and it's why Uruguay jerseys have 4 stars on them rather than 2.
Therefore Uruguay were actually massive favorites at the 1930 WC, and it wasn't a surprise to anyone when they beat Argentina in the finals. 1930 was before commercial air travel, so many big nations from Europe declined to make the long and expensive journey by boat to Uruguay. So the field was quite small, and Uruguay were already heavily favored.
1950 was a different story. Hosts Brazil were massive favorites, and Uruguay winning that one was a lucky fluke. However, the format was a giant shitshow, and Uruguay essentially only had to win 1 tough match the whole tournament to be crowned champions. 16 teams were supposed to qualify for the 1950 WC, and the teams were split into 4 groups of 4. The group winners would then be placed in a secondary group of 4, and would face each other in a round-robin again, to determine the champions.
However, due to a whole bunch of withdrawals by various teams, Uruguay ended up in a group of just 2 teams, rather than the planned 4. They only had to beat Bolivia to advance to the final group stage, which they did. The final group stage consisted of the following teams: Brazil, Sweden, Spain, and Uruguay.
Brazil steamrolled Sweden and Spain, 7-1, and 6-1, respectively. Meanwhile Uruguay could only draw with Spain 2-2, and barely beat Sweden 3-2.
So Brazil was sitting on 2 wins and a massive goal difference, while Uruguay had 1 win, 1 draw, and a goal difference of just +1.
Therefore, Brazil only needed a draw vs Uruguay to be crowned world champions. Brazilians considered this match a formality, since they didn't even need to win the match to win the tournament.
At the Maracana, they lost to Uruguay 2-1 after conceding 2 late goals, and Uruguay were crowned world champions in arguably the sport's greatest ever upset. This result was a massive fluke, but ultimately Uruguay only really had to beat Brazil in that last match to win the whole thing. It was a really short path to be crowned champions, since they benefitted from everyone else in their original group withdrawing.
