The World Cup

[Silent Blade]

I always thought it started in 1966 when England beat Argentina 1-0 at Wembley in the World Cup Quarter final. There was a lot of 'argy-bargy' after the Argentina Captain was sent off for a 2nd bookable offence:

1966 World Cup​

In spite of all of this history, it was not until the 1966 FIFA World Cup, held in and eventually won by England, that the rivalry picked up the sometimes bitter and fierce edge that it retains. The two teams met in the quarter-finals of the tournament, a game referred to in Argentina as el robo del siglo ("the theft of the century")<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–England_football_rivalry#cite_note-14"><span><span>[</span>14<span>]</span></span></a> that England won 1–0 thanks to a goal from striker Geoff Hurst, disputed by the Argentines due to a claimed offside.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–England_football_rivalry#cite_note-15"><span><span>[</span>15<span>]</span></span></a>

Rattín is sent off in the historic Argentina vs England match in the 1966 FIFA World Cup
The game, however, was particularly noted for the sending off of Argentina captain Antonio Rattín after receiving his second caution of the game. The Argentines considered the second caution to be unfair, including Rattín himself, who had to be escorted from the pitch by police as he refused to leave the pitch. Rattín was cautioned at the start of the match for a lunge on Bobby Charlton. Rattín then fouled Geoff Hurst and received another caution (the use of yellow/red cards would not be adopted until the next World Cup in Mexico) for arguing with the referee for a teammate's foul.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–England_football_rivalry#cite_note-16"><span><span>[</span>16<span>]</span></span></a>

It was reported in Argentina that the German referee, Rudolf Kreitlein, said that he had sent off Rattín because he did not like how he had looked at him,<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–England_football_rivalry#cite_note-17"><span><span>[</span>17<span>]</span></span></a> while British newspapers cited the official as having given the reason as "violence of the tongue", despite the referee speaking no Spanish.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–England_football_rivalry#cite_note-TheObserver051002-18"><span><span>[</span>18<span>]</span></span></a> Rattín's intention appeared to have been to speak with the German referee, as according to the Argentines, he was ruling in favour of the English team. Rattín made a visible signal showing his captain's armband and intention to call a translator.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–England_football_rivalry#cite_note-19"><span><span>[</span>19<span>]</span></span></a>

Ken Aston, the English supervisor of referees, entered the field to try to persuade Rattín to leave, but he only exacerbated the situation since the Latin American teams had already suspected that the English and Germans were collaborating to eliminate them from the competition.<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina–England_football_rivalry#cite_note-TheGuardian020225-13"><span><span>[</span>13<span>]</span></span></a> After his dismissal, Rattín scrunched the corner flag (featuring the Union Jack) with his hand before finally sitting down on the ground. After the match, England manager Alf Ramsey refused to allow his players to swap shirts with the Argentines (as is traditional after the conclusion of a major football match) and later described the South Americans as "animals" in the press. The Argentine press and public were outraged, and one Argentine newspaper published a picture of the official World Cup mascot, World Cup Willie, dressed in pirate regalia to demonstrate their opinion of the England team.

Just had a look at the below footage. You were right about Rattin had already been booked before the sending off.

 

[BazWainwright]

Messi walks around the pitch and sees 3 moves ahead where he can tap the ball in. Opposition cannot concentrate on him for that long..
Still think Ronaldo is better though

Ronaldo still plays 90s/00s football in a game that has advanced too much. He was a bit lost in this World Cup because defences and midfields knew how to deal with both him and those who supply him with chances.

Mbappe and for much of the game Haaland are a different kettle of fish regarding being available and execution of chances. Messi still has real danger in that, as you say, his vision is impeccable.

 

[Berkshire Blade]

Both ourselves and Argentina have rarely made it look simple and dull. I'd argue only France have looked like "winners" but Spain beating them wouldn't shock me.

Two fantastic in paper semi finals. If Spain win I think we COULD even when the world cup.

It's just a shame that if we do it wouldn't have the same "this means everything" feeling I had in my childhood but still I can't lie I am a little giddy thinking about how epic Wednesday night is going to be.

Biggest England game since 1990 in a world cup easily. Croatia didn't have half the baggage...

 

[Kenilworth]

Ronaldo still plays 90s/00s football in a game that has advanced too much. He was a bit lost in this World Cup because defences and midfields knew how to deal with both him and those who supply him with chances.

Mbappe and for much of the game Haaland are a different kettle of fish regarding being available and execution of chances. Messi still has real danger in that, as you say, his vision is impeccable.

He’s struggled because he is well past his prime. They haven’t sussed him out he’s just nowhere near the player he used to be. Age has caught up with him. More so than the others, since his position and style demanded more physicality and sustained running.

 

[JustLookin]

He’s struggled because he is well past his prime. They haven’t sussed him out he’s just nowhere near the player he used to be. Age has caught up with him. More so than the others, since his position and style demanded more physicality and sustained running.

Completely this. His power and pace meant that even if you knew what he was going to do, there was nothing you could do to stop it. Now, he's lost a little pace and stamina, he's reduced to the level of mere mortal players.

 

[BerksBlade]

Sorry. I may have missed something. But my understanding is that in FIFA 2030 Uruguay, Paraguay, Argentina, Morocco, Spain and Portugal (six) would all host matches.

And all six qualify automatically as hosts?

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

And all six qualify automatically as hosts?

Channelling my InnerInfantino, I'm going to say - that's the plan...

 

[Chezzy Blades]

And all six qualify automatically as hosts?

The South American qualifying group will look a lot different with 3 of their regular participants getting a free pass, if they up it to 64 teams they might as well just let all the other 7 in!

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

And all six qualify automatically as hosts?

Yes

 

[Grey Blade]

Just had a look at the below footage. You were right about Rattin had already been booked before the sending off.

Watching that it was difficult to know who was being booked at times. I don't know what VAR would have thought of it!

I don't remember those weird corners England took - at ground level to the near post. There was also an Argentina direct free kick where the England wall charged forward and were about 3 yards away as the kick was taken.

Being only highlights it's difficult to judge, but the referee seemed unnecessarily provocative at times. Must have been a very difficult match to ref - lots of diving and rolling around from both teams. Maybe VAR would have helped (I do hate it by the way!)?

 

[Selly]

Said it already, but i would not be surprised to seen Continent wide world cups becoming a thing.

I certainly think that, outside of the odd exception, we have probably seen the last of single countries hosting world cups. Being realistic who actually has the ability to host in on their own?

- China - because $$$$
- Saudi Arabia - because $$$$
- AN Other Gulf State awash with $$$$$$$$
- England
- France
- Germany
- Maybe Italy
- USA

Frankly I don`t see Africa getting a WC "on its own" any time soon - the level of infrastructure investment to find a group of countries with 15 40k+stadia would be immense.

That's probably it - and even England would need a 4 or 5 stadia to get upgraded to 40k+ to get to 15 (which is how many are being used this year) and France 7 or 8 and Italy 10.

Hell England isn`t hosing Euro 2028 on its own - its sharing it with Scotland, Wales and Ireland* (all stadia are 50k+) - the days of singular host nations are almost certainly gone.

*Two of whom will qualify automatically - so all countries will compete in qualifying with 2 slots available for hosts that fail to qualify through the qualifying tournament.

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

I certainly think that, outside of the odd exception, we have probably seen the last of single countries hosting world cups. Being realistic who actually has the ability to host in on their own?

- China - because $$$$
- Saudi Arabia - because $$$$
- AN Other Gulf State awash with $$$$$$$$
- England
- France
- Germany
- Maybe Italy
- USA

Frankly I don`t see Africa getting a WC "on its own" any time soon - the level of infrastructure investment to find a group of countries with 15 40k+stadia would be immense.

That's probably it - and even England would need a 4 or 5 stadia to get upgraded to 40k+ to get to 15 (which is how many are being used this year) and France 7 or 8 and Italy 10.

Hell England isn`t hosing Euro 2028 on its own - its sharing it with Scotland, Wales and Ireland* (all stadia are 50k+) - the days of singular host nations are almost certainly gone.

*Two of whom will qualify automatically - so all countries will compete in qualifying with 2 slots available for hosts that fail to qualify through the qualifying tournament.

Looking at the venue list for 2034, they're mostly 40k stadiums. That is not going to be enough to satisfy FIFA in the future. 12 of the 16 venues at this world cup are 60k.

 

[Uganda Blade]

I certainly think that, outside of the odd exception, we have probably seen the last of single countries hosting world cups. Being realistic who actually has the ability to host in on their own?

- China - because $$$$
- Saudi Arabia - because $$$$
- AN Other Gulf State awash with $$$$$$$$
- England
- France
- Germany
- Maybe Italy
- USA

Frankly I don`t see Africa getting a WC "on its own" any time soon - the level of infrastructure investment to find a group of countries with 15 40k+stadia would be immense.

That's probably it - and even England would need a 4 or 5 stadia to get upgraded to 40k+ to get to 15 (which is how many are being used this year) and France 7 or 8 and Italy 10.

Hell England isn`t hosing Euro 2028 on its own - its sharing it with Scotland, Wales and Ireland* (all stadia are 50k+) - the days of singular host nations are almost certainly gone.

*Two of whom will qualify automatically - so all countries will compete in qualifying with 2 slots available for hosts that fail to qualify through the qualifying tournament.

Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are hosting Afcon next year, so while the stadia might not be Fifa standard, some won't be far off.
I think a pan-African World Cup could be viable in the not too distant future.

 

[SwissBlade]

Uganda, Kenya and Tanzania are hosting Afcon next year, so while the stadia might not be Fifa standard, some won't be far off.
I think a pan-African World Cup could be viable in the not too distant future.

It’s not just the stadia though, it’s the infrastructure so that fans can travel around safely and get decent accommodation as well.

And of course FIFA would be really concerned about corrupt host nation leaders trying to influence the competition….

No wait, what am I saying, fifa have zero care for all that, they just want to take the World Cup to wherever they can make the most money…

 

[Uganda Blade]

You're right about the infrastructure, of course, particularly the travelling, perhaps less so the accommodation.
At the moment, certainly in Uganda, it wouldn't be possible, but things can change quickly here when there's an incentive.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

I know knock out rounds, including penalty shootouts, bring all the drama and jeopardy loved and expected by many World Cup watchers. But I'm not a particular fan. I believe/worry that the best teams can be knocked out on a particular bad day in a way that we would not tolerate in "proper" league football when deciding the best team.

If we are to have enlarged World Cups, with more teams, in more venues, with more matches, I would like more of a shift to league rather than knock out football.

For instance 16 teams could decamp to one country and play seven games each in groups of eight. 16 elsewhere, 16 elsewhere, 16 elsewhere. Top of each group to QFs.

 

[mattbianco1]

I know knock out rounds, including penalty shootouts, bring all the drama and jeopardy loved and expected by many World Cup watchers. But I'm not a particular fan. I believe/worry that the best teams can be knocked out on a particular bad day in a way that we would not tolerate in "proper" league football when deciding the best team.

If we are to have enlarged World Cups, with more teams, in more venues, with more matches, I would like more of a shift to league rather than knock out football.

For instance 16 teams could decamp to one country and play seven games each in groups of eight. 16 elsewhere, 16 elsewhere, 16 elsewhere. Top of each group to QFs.

Not for me. It's called the World CUP

I would do away with seeding teams too. Just chuck them all in a big bag and draw out one by one.

 

[lincsfan]

I know knock out rounds, including penalty shootouts, bring all the drama and jeopardy loved and expected by many World Cup watchers. But I'm not a particular fan. I believe/worry that the best teams can be knocked out on a particular bad day in a way that we would not tolerate in "proper" league football when deciding the best team.

If we are to have enlarged World Cups, with more teams, in more venues, with more matches, I would like more of a shift to league rather than knock out football.

For instance 16 teams could decamp to one country and play seven games each in groups of eight. 16 elsewhere, 16 elsewhere, 16 elsewhere. Top of each group to QFs.

Penalties seem to be an acceptable way to end a football match now, but I remember it being controversial in say 1990. If you can't beat the opponent in 120 minutes in a final, are you a real champion.

 

[mattbianco1]

What a bellend

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

Not for me. It's called the World CUP

I would do away with seeding teams too. Just chuck them all in a big bag and draw out one by one.

It's called The Premier League, chuck all 92 in a big bag and draw out one by one

 

[mattbianco1]

It's called The Premier League, chuck all 92 in a big bag and draw out one by one

That makes absolutely no sense.

How would you feel if the FA Cup turned into a league format?

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

That makes absolutely no sense.

How would you feel if the FA Cup turned into a league format?

In football, all across the world, the pros and cons of both jeopardy riddled knock out cup football AND relentless, cream rises to the top league football are recognised. And many country's have implemented both as a good balance for their domestic game.

Yet, on THE most important stage, we've inexplicably gone for only one of those formats.

In England, for example, we had seventeen FA Cups before we decided that a league format was an important addition. While both thrive, the league format is recognised as the most important format.

There have been 23 World Cups. I feel some sort of League format is overdue.

 

[Lord Eddard Muir]

What a bellend

Good lord, imagine paying hundreds of pounds for a ticket and getting stuck with this knobhead behind you. And his grinning hypeman chipping in with THIS ISN'T RIGHT BRO! every 5 minutes

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

The current structure of the FIFA Organised Tournament means that the best teams in the World hardly ever play each other. That seems non-sensical. The best ought to be testing themselves against the best frequently.

 

[Ball_Sup (Phil)]

England have only ever played Argentina five times in competitive fixtures. That just seems bizarre. Why would you organise world football so it's worked out like that?

 

[Lord Eddard Muir]

In football, all across the world, the pros and cons of both jeopardy riddled knock out cup football AND relentless, cream rises to the top league football are recognised. And many country's have implemented both as a good balance for their domestic game.

Yet, on THE most important stage, we've inexplicably gone for only one of those formats.

In England, for example, we had seventeen FA Cups before we decided that a league format was an important addition. While both thrive, the league format is recognised as the most important format.

There have been 23 World Cups. I feel some sort of League format is overdue.

Was just idly wondering how many matches would be needed for 64 teams to all play each other once and then have a knock-out tournament with the top 16, but, well, turns out the games multiply exponentially

 

[Klaatu Barada Nikto]

What a bellend

Imagine paying 2 grand a ticket and having to sit in front of a prick like that.

 

[nopigfansintown]

Seedings exist in a lot of sports to protect the top players and to reward them for their overall performance throughout the last year or two. Some of them even give protected rankings to account for injuries so you can't drop even if you do. It also just so happens that these are the players with the biggest brand recognition whose faces will adorn the posters and merchandise and TV adverts before a ball is hit. There's a big commercial incentive in them reaching the latter stages.

Usually you end up with the same semis or finalists and a lot of dud matches, especially in sports where there's a huge gap between the top two and the rest. If you have 5 or 10 individuals with a similar level it's still very interesting but when it's only a couple zzzzzzzzzz.