A few thoughts after the World Cup Quarter-Finals

Hey, Jude.... 

A slightly dull round...

After such a thrilling tournament, with so many 'surprises' in it, it does feel like something of an anti-climax to have a round where everything pans out pretty much exactly as expected. The only real exception was Belgium, who were much better than I'd expected, and managed to give Spain a little bit of a scare by scoring first - but were eventually overpowered. And Switzerland gave Argentina a damn good fight, forcing them into extra-time. But the other two challengers, Morocco and Norway, both showed a disappointing lack of ambition, and produced their weakest performances of the competition. 

Prospects for the semi-finals

But these results have set up a fascinating pair of semi-final ties: the 'old enemies' of Argentina and England pitched against each for the fifth time in a World Cup, and the two favourites, France and Spain, facing off in a premature final. It's not often that we actually get the best four teams all advancing to the semis, but this year, somehow, it's happened. (Well, OK, I wouldn't necessarily rate England as the fourth best team in this tournament, even with Bellingham's supernatural contributions: I really think Morocco and Colombia and Norway have, mostly, looked much better, and arguably Cabo Verde too; and Mexico and the USA were much better in the group stage. However, these are the top four teams in the FIFA rankings, so the 'seeding' for the tournament has worked out perfectly.)

France will be facing a real challenge for the first time, as Spain probably won't allow them to have much of the ball. But Spain's finishing has often been quite poor so far, with Oyarzabal blowing somewhat hot-and-cold. And Yamal hasn't yet shown that kind of 'I don't care if the rest of my team isn't very good, I'm going to win this game on my own' mentality that we've seen from Messi and Bellingham (and Mbappé; although his motivation to produce at that level is less acute, since France are actually a really good side) - so, I'm expecting that France will win it, but perhaps only narrowly, and it might well go into extra-time.

I am similarly expecting Argentina to prevail, narrowly, over England. But that one will almost certainly depend on the pair of star players who have been carrying the two teams in this tournament. I think Argentina-without-Messi are better than England-without-Bellingham, but if those two are playing at the top of their game, the result will probably turn on which of them can produce the bigger performance on the night. It should be a great watch.

Bellingham v Messi

One of the things that is marking this out as probably the greatest tournament ever is the truly astonishing form that these two players have been showing. They've both regularly been achieving a god-level of performance, single-handedly dragging their fairly mediocre teams to the brink of the Final. It is all the more remarkable to be seeing this from Messi, who is well past his prime and really ought not to be capable of dominating a tournament like this any more. Whatever happens in these last few games, seeing two such phenomenal players achieving such heights at the same time has been a remarkable privilege - something all football fans should cherish forever.

Mind you - much as I strive not to succumb to foolish, painful optimism about England's prospects, I have always fancied that 2026 ought to be 'our year',.... if only because it fits so well with the scansion of the song: "Sixty years of hurt... never stopped me dreaming...." [I only just found out Ed Sheeran's done a new variation on the beloved classic for this tournament. Feels a little bit sacrilegious - the original Lightning Seeds anthem with Baddiel & Skinner is so iconic; although the update they did for '98 World Cup in France was arguably even better.]

More 'controversies'?

The online hordes on the Fantasy Football forums display two ridiculous vices: they only 'notice' decisions which go against the team they like, and these decisions are always deemed to be obviously 'wrong' and 'unjust' and even 'corrupt'. I often try to gently point out to them that something is not a 'controversy' simply because they disagree with it. But many of the mainstream media outlets add fuel to these fires with silly clickbaity headlines listing the supposed 'controversies' in the latest round of matches.

Norway appeared to have taken the lead again with a header from Heggem 10 minutes into the second-half; but Haaland had clearly shoved Anderson to the ground just before the corner came in, so it was quite rightly disallowed: no 'controversy' there. There was also a claim that goalkeeper Nyland's clearance had brushed one of the cables supporting the overhead 'spidercam' immediately before Bellingham equalised on the stroke of half-time. If such a contact did occur, it had no material effect on the flight of the ball - so, I don't feel it can really be considered any sort of injustice; the handful of Norwegian players who insisted they'd seen this contact were in a tiny minority in the stadium, and appeared to be just clutching at straws. None of the officials saw this, there were no still or video pictures clearly showing that it happened, and FIFA insist that the in-ball sensor did not register any such contact - so, in effect, it simply 'didn't happen' (even if it did; only a handful of people think they saw it, and there is no independent evidence to corroborate their appeal). Again, that's hardly a 'controversy'. Norway deserved to lose because they sat back and allowed England to have the ball for long periods; and they wasted the few chances that they did create.

Switzerland were hanging on for dear life rather than looking like they could actually go after the game and win it - before the Embolo sending-off. So, although an incident like that obviously had a negative impact for them, it's hard to argue that its effect on the game outcome was really decisive; Argentina were simply the better side. And it was an obviously correct decision: Embolo was guilty of a ridiculously exaggerated dive; and it was his second yellow-card offence, so he had to go. The only element of 'controversy' here concerns the manner in which the decision was reached. The referee had originally interpreted the incident as a foul by Paredes and given him a yellow card. VAR intervened, citing the 'Mistaken Identity' rule - but that is only supposed to cover cases where the referee erroneously shows a card to someone other than the player who committed the perceived foul, not to cases like this where the referee simply misinterpreted the foul. It's hard to complain about this too much (unless you're the Swiss coach!!) as justice was clearly done - but there does seem to be some doubt as to whether correct protocol was followed by the VAR team.

Of course, most of the world was rooting for these 'underdog' teams, so it rankles when they appear to have suffered some tough breaks. But Embolo clearly did deserve to be sent off; and it didn't really appear to affect the course of the game very much anyway. And the Norwegians really didn't have much of a leg to stand on with their two complaints about goals scored or not scored. So, 'controversies'?? Not really.

The fatuousness of the FIFA 'conspiracy theories'

We see this ridiculous bias in counting up grievances against the offiating - only decisions against the team I like are worth noticing and remembering, all such decisions are obviously and inevitably wrong - in the case of Argentina, who are now widely derided online as being at the centre of a comprehensive FIFA conspiracy to ensure that Messi wins the Cup for a second time. These dingbats now tally up the number of 'injustices' in Argentina's favour to include every penalty they've been awarded (all four of them pretty unarguably correct), the Messi foul on Algerian right-back Aissa Mandi in the opening game (he clumsily stepped on to the back of his calf, but with zero force, zero follow-through - it probably should have been a yellow card, but it was nowhere near a red card offence), and the two disputed goals in the Egypt game (similar, but conclusively different circumstances in the two incidents; again, tough though they were to accept for Egyptian and neutral fans, both decisions looked unarguably correct); all incidents where the detractors insist that the referees were wrong - with no foundation to their argument at all.

But of course, these loonies then take it a step further, and maintain that not only are all these unjustly favourable decisions racking up to Argentina's advantage, but that they are being orchestrated to this end - that FIFA is repeatedly seeking to 'rig' their matches. They omit to consider how many other factors are having a major impact in games - how do FIFA ensure that Messi is playing such god-like football, how do they ensure that Julian Alvarez can score one of the goals of the tournament to avoid having to face a penalty shootout with Switzerland? They can't, they aren't; Argentina are progressing on merit.

Probably some wrong decisions have been made in this World Cup, some perhaps in Argentina's games. But none of the headline 'controversial' decisions the conspiracy theorists cite appear to be anything other than straightforwardly correct. And when mistakes do happen, they are more likely the result of simple human frailty rather than conscious bias, or wilful corruption.

The one area where some kind of a case could be made for Argentina having received 'favourable treatment' is in the small number of yellow cards they have received - with Messi, in particular, appearing to be utterly card-proof (this was even more conspicuously the case in the last World Cup in Qatar, where he committed several clumsy challenges which could have been eligible for a yellow card - including two in the same game on one occasion - yet he wasn't shown even one in the whole tournament). But this is probably the result of a natural human sympathy rather than orchestrated match-fixing. It is entirely likely, unavoidable, that referees may tend to be a little more lenient to the best teams and the best players. Argentina - strangely - have not been a very physical or 'dirty' team in this tournament so far; they haven't needed to be, as they're tending to have the lion's share of possession most of the time, and so they're not having to go chasing after the ball very much - hence, an impressively low number of fouls and yellow cards. (They probably should have picked up one or two more cards than they have, but it's hardly a glaring bias in their favour.) And Messi, of course, is a notoriously mild-mannered and affable player, always well in control of his emotions; he can occasionally be a bit clumsy or over-eager in his challenges, but he's not a very physical player, and he almost never evinces any sign of aggression or petulance. So... he's not the kind of player referees are inclined to give cards to; if you have the reputation of being a bit of a 'hard man' or a thug, you're far more likely to receive a yellow card for a challenge that might be only borderline card-worthy; whereas, if you're a player like Messi, you're quite likely to be let off the occasional quite bad foul, because the referee appreciates that it was untypical, an unfortunate accident, not likely to be repeated. There's nothing very surprising or 'unfair' about that. And it's not as if Argentina and Messi are the only beneficiaries of this sort of leniency: Mbappé hasn't been booked either, and England have received remarkably few yellow cards in the tournament so far.

For me, however, the most ludicrous part of the prevalent 'conspiracy theory' is the total lack of motivation for it. Messi is 'yesterday's man' as far as FIFA are concerned. He'll almost certainly be retiring this week, from international football at least, if not from football altogether. (I'm sure he won't want to limp on into his forties and become a laughing-stock, as has unfortunately happened with Cristiano Ronaldo.)  He's been the leading draw in the game for the past decade-and-a-half, but the baton is being passed on now. FIFA does not have some weird sort of homo-erotic fetish for Messi; their interest is solely in consolidating their brand and maximising their revenues from sponsorships, ticket sales, TV rights, etc. They are interested in narratives that promote those ends. Messi has been their trump card for a long time now; but that stops with this tournament. They are surely now going to be far more interested in building up the 'legend' of Jude Bellingham or Kylian Mbappé; and if there were any 'match-fixing' going on at this stage, it would be more likely directed against Argentina than for them.

Fantasy dilemmas for the Semi-Final round

Since the 'favourites' all got safely through the quarter-finals, most of us are left in a not-too-bad condition with our squads ahead of the penultimate MatchDay. I only lost 4 players from mine (although I had taken the chance of leaving 3 blank spaces on my bench). This means that I can probably get by without using my Wildcard (if France and Spain had both been eliminated, I would have had to), and can keep it up my sleeve for the Final (although I probably won't need it there either, and it will have proved to be superfluous).

Fantasy points don't always correlate very well to actual individual and team performances, but... I think it is rather telling this year, powerful evidence that England are much the weakest of the four semi-finalists, that apart from Bellingham and Kane, none of their players has averaged above 4 points per game. Even though they've come through three knockout rounds and are on the brink of an historic appearance in the Final, it's really a bit of a struggle to think of any players apart from the 'big two' that you'd want in a Fantasy squad. Maybe Saka, if you could rely on him starting; maybe Rice, for the chance of an assist from a corner; maybe Anderson for 'tackles' points, or Pickford for saves....? But I'd only go for one of those options, not more... and only if I felt fairly confident that they would get past Argentina to play again in the Final - and I'm afraid I don't. But things aren't much better with Argentina: who do you want, apart from Messi? Maybe Emi Martinez or one of the defenders, maybe Julian Alvarez or Enzo Fernandez?? So, I'm looking at a 5-3-3-2 split across France, Spain, Argentina, and England - with a couple of non-playing 'enablers' still on my bench (Kobel and Dest!). And I'm going to risk my last booster chip, the 'Maximum Captain', in this round rather than the Final (only one opportunity to rotate the captaincy in this round, and a large number of potential contributors that you thus might miss out on).

It is a pity that France and Spain have to face-off in this penultimate round. I think they are clearly a class above either of the teams in the other semi-final, and whoever wins this tie should go on to lift the trophy relatively comfortably. So, I want to go in fairly heavily for their players, expecting that they'll do well for me in the Final too. (If I'd had another Free Transfer to spare, I would probably have gone for Unai Simon as a back-up keeper, in case France should be the ones to go out and I lose Mike Maignan.)  But you really don't want to go anywhere near the maximum quota of 6 players per country at this point; even going to 5 with France is a bit of a big risk. I could potentially lose 8 players, including my only keeper, if France and Argentina go out; so, I'd probably resort to my Wildcard then. But I'm hoping I might only lose 5 players, and be able to leave it unused. If I didn't have that Wildcard in hand, I probably would have left 1 or 2 more spaces on my bench, and settled for a 4-4-3-3 or a 4-4-2-2 distribution, so that the 6 Free Transfers for the final would have been enough to rebuild my starting lineup, whatever the semi-final results.

The imponderable wrinkle for the last phase of the tournament is that the Third Place Play-Off game is also part of MatchDay 8 alongside the Final. (A lot of Fantasy managers seem to be playing their 'Qualification Bonus' chip in this round, in the deluded belief that everyone is guaranteed to 'qualify' for another game - sorry, folks, it doesn't work like that: getting into the consolation game is not 'qualifying'!)  This should at least mean that you're not really 'losing' any players, regardless of the semi-final results. But in practice, of course, teams tend not to take the play-off game very seriously, and often field a second-string team; so, there's no way to know how competitive this game might be, what the most likely result is, or even who's going to start in it - so, for Fantasy purposes, it is best avoided; you really want a full squad (or at least a full starting eleven; you don't really need a bench for a single match) playing in the Final.

I rather fear that both games could largely turn out to be tactical stalemates - all teams being a bit over-cautious because of the magnitude of the occasion, and largely cancelling out each other's threat with an emphasis on ball retention and defending deep. It would be nice if we could see an early breakthrough goal in both games - that might force the opponent to open up more, and perhaps see the games develop into end-to-end ding-dongs. I'd like to hope that we might see a thrilling pair of 3-3s or 4-4s, but dour 1-1s seem much more likely. Either way, I fear both games might have to be decided by penalty shootouts - I really hope not, but that's what my gut is telling me at the moment. We shall see.

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!!!

A little bit of Zen (102)

"All that matters is today. Yesterday is merely information and tomorrow we think about when it arrives."

Jürgen Klopp

Fantasy World Cup: What are the Booster Chips worth?

 

I've said before that I think one of the main faults with FIFA's Fantasy World Cup game is that it has just too many chips - which it calls 'Boosters'. Subject to the same harsh limitation as in Fantasy Premier League that we can only use one of these at a time, it's really a bit of a struggle to get all 5 of them out of the way in a competition that only has 8 rounds (especially as you probably don't really want to be playing any of them in Round 1 or Round 3; and you may - like me - have occasionally found it impossible to play one when you wanted to because the game website mysteriously unsaved your selection of it!).

Sorry, I appreciate that this little note comes rather too late to be of any help to most people in planning how to use these chips - but perhaps it will still show up in search results in four or eight years' and be of some use in a future Fantasy World Cup game.

In planning how you might use these various chips, I think it's important to form a clear view of how they can be useful and how many points you can hope to make out of them.

Qualification Bonus - this is the most straightforward one: only available after the end of the group phase, it gives you 2 extra points for any points-scoring player in your final eleven who progresses to the next round of the competition. (However, for some bizarre reason, this is calculated as completely separate from all the regular points, and does not enjoy a doubling procedure for your nominated captain.)  Hence, the maximum you can make from this chip is 22 points, 2 points for every point-scoring member of your final eleven.

That actually makes it the most valuable of the chips, and the 'easiest' to realise full value from. However, in order to do this, you almost certainly have to play it in the 'Round of 32'. Thereafter, there are few if any badly mismatched ties, and it becomes harder and harder to correctly anticipate the outcome of all the fixtures in the Round. Correctly identifiying 11 (or 15!) players who will all qualify for the next round is relatively straightforward in the 'Round of 32', but increasingly less so thereafter.

Clean Sheet Shield  -  originally announced only as an additional 'Mystery Booster', we weren't even told what this chip was going to be until during MatchDay 3 (although there had been some accurate leaks online); and, like the Qualification Bonus above, it was only available for use in the knockout stage. This extends your chance to earn clean sheet points by treating a clean sheet as 'conceding no more than 1 goal' rather than 'conceding NO goals'. (It is very difficult to find a description of exactly how this is meant to work, since a description is still omitted from the official 'rules page'! I was pretty sure that the original description I'd seen had suggested that clean sheet protection was being extended to 'conceding no more than 2 goals'; but even if that is what they originally said or implied, that's not actually what's happening.)

Now, in theory this could earn you 5 extra points for a goalkeeper and up to 5 defenders, and 1 extra point for up to 4 midfielders (or 5, if you only field 4 defenders): so, the absolute maximum return is 34 points - very handy. But in practice of course, you're almost certainly going to want to play 2 or 3 forwards (in the 2026 iteration, anyway, it has been absolutely essential to play Messi, Mbappé, and Haaland or Kane in every MatchDay), so that will reduce the number of players who can benefit from the chip; quite probably, you'll only have 3/4 defenders and 3/4 midfielders who are eligible, reducing the reasonable maximum expectation to 24-28 points. (I think, as with the 'Qualification Bonus' above, they do not double this bonus for your captain selection - mean!). 

That's apparently slightly better than the 'Qualification Bonus', but.... you're choosing players, especially your keeper and defenders, because of the likelihood that they will win games comfortably and keep clean sheets; so, most of the time, most of your keeper/defender picks are keeping clean sheets anyway, and you're not getting any benefit from this chip - it's just a kind of 'insurance policy', in case one of your star defensive players unexpectedly concedes a solitary goal. You're only getting extra points for defensive players who concede 1 goal (rather than 0 goals or 2-or-more goals).

In practice, then, you'd be very lucky to make even 15-20 points off this chip. And it carries a very high chance of returning little or nothing (if all of your defensive players either keep a proper clean sheet or concede 2 or more goals...). [I played it in the 'Round of 16' this year and made a lousy 1 point off it - and that only because Bruno Guimaraes was subbed off shortly before Haaland scored his second goal against Brazil!!]

It would have been kinder to offer a bonus chip like this in the group stage, when clean sheets or low goals-against likelihoods are more predictable. Once we get into the knockout rounds, with higher stakes, more closely matched teams, and the possibility of extra time, it becomes more and more possible that matches will become high-scoring, with both sides conceding more than once. In 2026, there was only 1 goalless draw and 3 other clean sheets in the 'Round of 16', with only 4 of the 16 teams conceding only 1 goal (making their players eligible for the benefit of this chip); in the 'Round of 32', there were no goalless draws but 7 real clean sheets, while 12 teams conceded only 1 goal. 

This would suggest that the 'Round of 32' is probably the best round to play this chip in also, but.... it's really a bit of a lottery, just about impossible to predict which teams will concede 1 goal rather than zero.... and you might not want players from those teams (you have to think primarily about factors like how likely they are to score other points for you, and how far into the competition they are likely to progress; you can't just be including players because their fixtures look potentially favourable for this bonus!).

You should have more chance of picking up at least 1 or 2 players who concede only a single goal if you play this chip in a round where you have as many teams as possible represented in your Fantasy side. However, this is a truly random chip, not one you can really plan for; and it probably won't make a lot of difference when you play it. You could even leave it until the Final, when it would be an all-or-nothing play: there is a high chance that neither of the two Finalists will concede only a single goal in the game, but if either of them does, you might have multiple players picking up the useful extra points.

[Both the Qualification Bonus and the Clean Sheet Shield are treated as separate from a player's regular points: they are not doubled for your captain, and they do not count towards the 4-point threshold that a low-owned player needs to reach in order to earn his 'scouting bonus' points. This, to me, seems over-complicated, daft, and petty. And I do not recall seeing it explained anywhere in the rules; I just had to work it out for myself from bitter experience!]

12th Man - this bonus chip allows you to recruit an additional player for one MatchDay only: a 16th squad member who automatically counts as an extra member of your starting team (you can't choose to swap them out for one of your subs if they bomb!). The nice thing about this one is that it is free of any of the usual restrictions on country quotas or budget cap, so if there's a star player you can't quite afford, or an additional member of a top team like France that you covet because they're playing a very weak team and might be fancied to score a lot of goals - this is your opportunity. 

A top MatchDay return from a leading player has typically been in the range of 15-18 points in this tournament, so that's what you can hope to earn from this chip. But of course, even your Mbappés and your Haalands can have a blank here and there, so it might very easily give you little or nothing.

This is a very flexible chip that could be used on any MatchDay when the fixtures seem favourable. But there are two problems with that: i)  most of the other booster chips strongly favour use on a narrower range of MatchDays, so in fact with this one you're limited to the few MatchDays that might be 'left over', unclaimed by higher priority chips; ii)  you're more likely to want to use it while all of the starriest players are still in the tournament, which will bias you towards using it in the group stage or one of the early knockout rounds. I think MD2 in the group stage would probably have been the ideal time to use it this year.

Maximum Captain - this chip simply gives you the double-points score for the captain's armband on whichever of your players actually gives you the biggest return of the MatchDay, without you having to designate him in advance. As just mentioned above, the top scoring player in the MatchDay is typically returning about 15-18 points, so this chip might appear to be worth this much as a maximum. But if you weren't playing the chip, you'd get captaincy double-points from someone; and most of the time, you're picking someone that does actually give you a pretty good return - so the additional lift you could get out of this chip is usually only going to be a few points. At least, that's the case in Rounds 1-6 or 7, because the in-game 'manual changes' facility allows you to change captain between each match, and so you can, if you like, rotate the captaincy through a succession of your strongest players until one of them returns a good haul; especially in the earlier rounds when there are a lot of games, this usually means that you end up with a good score from your captain - possibly your maximum possible, and rarely more than 2-3 points lower.; so, that is the likely true value of this chip. 

However, in the semis you only get to try out two captains, and in the Final, you can't switch your captain at all, you're stuck with your original choice. So, I think this chip potentially has the highest value in the final round, or the penultimate round: you might of course correctly guess who your highest-scoring player in the Semi-Finals or Final is going to be; but there's quite a strong chance you'll pick someone who gives a fairly disappointing return, and in that case, the 'Maximum Captain' chip might have given you an 8 or 10-point, maybe even a 15-point lift.

Wildcard - unlike the other chips, this doesn't directly provide a positive points advantage; it's more of a rebuild chip, allowing you unlimited changes to completely refashion your squad. 

Some are tempted to use it to chase a points advantage early in the competition. Big points in the group stage are usually to be found from the most mismatched fixtures, very strong teams playing the weakest teams; but the teams with the most favourable fixtures might change dramatically between MD1 and MD2, and so you might want to make a lot of changes for MD2. Some are even tempted to use the chip ahead of MD3, because a lot of star players are often rested in the third game, if their teams have already secured first-place qualification in their groups.

However, I generally counsel that it is better to plan your initial squad to try spread optimisation of fixtures across MD1 and MD2, and to accept that MD3 is almost always very low-scoring in Fantasy, and isn't worth expending much effort on (take a few cheap hits if you need to in order to muster an eleven, but don't be wasting the valuable Wildcard on fixing your squad for a MatchDay that rarely produces many points anyway).

The Wildcard is best saved for possible 'emergencies'. As a tournament like this progresses, more and more players pick up injuries, or fall out with the team manager, or get suspended; and then, of course, in each round, half of the players and teams are eliminated - often quite unexpectedly in 'upset' results! This hazard is proving to be particularly extreme in the 2026 tournament because the game's designers have been very nigarrdly in the number of Free Transfers allocated for each round, and also because it's been an unusually competitive tournament, with almost every team playing near the best of their ability, and even some of the lesser teams proving to be quite a handful. After the 'Round of 32', almost none of the ties have been at all easy to predict the outcomes of. 

So, there is a very high chance that in the Quarter-Finals or the Semi-Finals, you may find yourself missing half or more of your squad - and that is when you need to use your Wildcard. (This shouldn't be an issue in the Final because you don't need a bench for that, and you are given 6 Free Transfers after the semi-finals. You should be able to distribute your semi-final picks so that, whatever the match outcomes, you don't lose more than 9 or 10 players - 6 free replacements plus an empty bench!)

IN SUMMARY:

Qualification Bonus:  Near-essential to use it in the 'Round of 32'. Expected yield: 14-22 points. (Maximum yield quite easily attainable!).

Clean Sheet Shield:  An utterly random and unpredictable chip, and largely worthless: only available in the knockout rounds - use it whenever it isn't getting in the way of a more important chip.  Expected yield: 0-12 points. (Maximum yield could theoretically be 24-34 points, but it's very, very unlikely anyone would ever get anywhere near that - and it would be a massive fluke if you did!)

12th Man:  Probably best used in the group stage, especially MatchDay2 - when you've had some indications of form in the first batch of games, and the stakes are still high for everyone (by MD3, a lot of teams have nothing left to play for, and there may be a lot of rotations). But this is a flexible chip that can still bring an advantage in the knockout phase; although you probably want to use it in the earlier rounds of that, when there are more top players to choose from, and you might not be able to afford all of them in your regular squad.  Expected yield: 10-15 points. (The maximum could be even higher, if you're lucky; but of course there is a non-zero chance that it could return you little or nothing!)

Maximum Captain:  Probably best saved for the Semi-Finals or Final, when you have a chance to gain a bigger 'differential' points lift from it, as you no longer have the opportunity to 'maximise' your captaincy return by rotating through multiple selections.  Expected yield: In earlier rounds, probably only 0-5 points (because your regular captain picks would usually do very nearly as well); but in Rounds 7 and 8, perhaps as much as 8-15 points. (Then again, it might easily be worth nothing - because your 'Maximum Captain' turns out to be the player you would have given the armband to anyway!!)

Wildcard: This might be of use sometimes in MatchDay 2, if a lot of your initial picks are in surprisingly bad form, and/or the most promising fixtures in the second batch of games are for very different teams than they were in the tournament openers. However, it is usually far better to save the Wildcard for possible emergency use (even if ultimately not needed, left unused!), to rebuild a squad after suffering heavily from unexpected eliminations going into the Quarter-Final and Semi-Final rounds.  

Expected yield: Impossible to quantify, since it's usually saving you from spending points on 'hits' (additional transfers above your 'free transfer' quota) and giving you additional points from better performances (or at least starters rather than non-starters!) from the players you bring in and, hopefully, giving you additional benefits from those new players through the subsequent rounds also; but conservatively.... 15-20 points!!

BEST OF LUCK!

Thoughts after the 'Round of 16'

The Balogun fiasco

First off, I can't see why there was any whingeing about the original decision, or any discussion about its being potentially 'harsh'. That was probably the worst foul we've seen in the tournament: the US striker came chasing after Bosnian defender Tarik Muharemovic and crashed into him, bringing his foot down with full force just above the opponent's ankle and folding his foot over sideways. It might have been 'accidental' rather than 'malicious' (though that is far from clear; if there wasn't an element of conscious intent in it, it was very, very clumsy), but the severity of an 'endangering the opponent' offence now takes no account of presumed intent, only of the possible severity of the consequences. That was a potential leg-breaker; and it is a small miracle that Muharemovic doesn't even appear to have suffered any serious ligament damage either, but is largely unscathed. It is probably the most clearcut and unarguable red card offence I've seen all year.

But then, yes, the notion that FIFA's Judicial Committee can arbitrarily suspend a red card (properly awarded!), without even giving any rationale, at a couple of days' notice, in the middle of the world's biggest tournament... is utterly outrageous. Red cards in the World Cup are unappealable: that is the way it has to be, to ensure some clarity and certainty and consistency in the disciplinary sphere. Some red cards may be harsh, some may be savagely unfair; but once they've been awarded, we just have to accept them. FIFA's ridiculous action here - apparently again just pandering to Trump, whose lackeys complained to Infantino that he wasn't pleased about losing the US team's star player - sets a disturbing and potentially very disruptive precedent: national football associations might now be forever challenging suspensions issued to their players. A dark day in football history, and one that slightly blights what has otherwise been a terrific tournament.

The one positive note in the story, really, is that we're all spared any more immediate embarrassment over this madness because the USA promptly crashed out of the competition, thrashed by Belgium. One wonders if the US team just died of shame - because it was a shockingly lacklustre performance from them, far below the standards they'd shown in the previous four games.

A decline in the refereeing standards?

Well, maybe. I've said a few times here on the blog recently, and elsewhere online, that I've been generally very impressed with the standard of the officating at this tournament. And complaints in this round have been greatly over-exaggerated, I feel. There were only two games with rather poor officiating; and even there, it wasn't absolutely terrible (in fact, the problem was more with the VAR team; and that might be down to protocols about thresholds for intervention, as much as the competence or otherwise of the particular officials); and it might have been just a statistical blip.

People who got up in arms about what a bloodbath the Paraguay v France match supposedly was are obviously Millennial 'snowflakes' who've never seen a genuinely dirty game of football! The stuff Mbappé jokingly referred to afterwards - and he was being fairly light-hearted about it! - was mostly gamesmanship and shithousing, not violent play. Yes, there was something amiss in the fact that only French players ended up with bookings, when Paraguayans had committed at least as many, and rather worse fouls. And because the referee had let too much go in the game, there was a danger of gradual escalation, and tempers were getting frayed towards the end. But nothing really bad kicked off, no punches were thrown, no-one had to leave the pitch injured. All a bit of a storm-in-a-teacup. While the on-pitch referee Ilgiz Tantashev was at fault in not being a bit more stringent and a bit more consistent in his issuing of yellow cards, the larger problem lay with the VAR team backing him up, since many of the niggliest incidents were happening off the ball, and were inevitably missed by Tantashev. 

There was a similar problem in the Mexico v England game. Nico O'Reilly clearly appeared to have flicked his elbow into the mouth of Jorge Sanchez just as the players were going to the second-half drinks break; but the referee apparently missed it, and we were not informed that the VAR team had looked the incident over or discussed it with their on-pitch colleague - although O'Reilly was then booked over the confrontation, so... somebody must have seen something. And then in the closing period, when England were pretty much continually under siege in their penalty area, our defenders were shamelessly grappling with their Mexican counterparts every time there was a set-piece delivery into the box - but nothing was ever said about it. Again, if things like this are being missed by the on-pitch referee - as can easily happen in such a busy game! - the VAR team needs to step in; but they're not doing it. That was why these two matches fell so far below the high standards we've enjoyed in most of the rest of the tournament.

I was distressed to see that Thomas Tuchel was suddenly slagging off the refereeing in the tournament yesterday. He really has no cause to do so, as the only beneficiary of the poor refereeing in  Sunday night's game was England! Of course, he omitted to give any specific examples in his remarks, to try to avoid getting into trouble with the organisers, but... he must surely have meant the Quansah sending-off and the penalty given away by Kane. And those were both absolutely 100% unarguably correct decsions. When a manager comes out and says shit like this, it looks as though he is just doing it to curry favour with the more rabid elements of the England fanbase, whose delusional tendencies I was ruing the other day. That kind of pandering is not a good look for Tuchel; I wish he wouldn't do it.

And of course the online dingbats are having a field day with the unfortunate denoument of the Argentina v Egypt game last night. It was a most unhappy coincidence that a late Argentine breakaway for the decisive goal in stoppage time should have started with two potential fouls on Egyptian players, one of them Salah, in the Argentine penalty area, and thus potentially demanding a probably decisive penalty award to Egypt. But both incidents were thoroughly innocuous, and rightly dismissed by the VAR team. It was even more unfortunate that an earlier breakaway goal in the first-half by Egyptian forward Mostafa Ziko, which would have been one of the great team goals of the tournament, and possibly even the best goal of all, had to be chalked off because VAR discovered that Marawan Attia had clearly committed a double foul on Lisandro Martinez right at the start of the move. The only cause for discontent there is with the current framing of the rules themselves, that it is perhaps excessive and inappropriate to insist that VAR screen all possible fouls in the build-up to a goal, even those that may have happened 20 seconds prior, at the far end of the pitch. But that is the rule we have in place, and it was properly applied: no room for any conspiracy theory nutjobs there. 'Unfair' as these two incidents may appear to have been to many - well, obviously to all Egyptians, and to a great many neutral supporters who were rooting for an underdog win - they were both perfectly correct, and actually pretty straightforward and uncontroversial. But you'll never persuade the legions of online dingbats of that.....

The best World Cup game ever??

It is, I think, a great pity that those two inflammatory talking-points to arise from the Argentina v Egypt match may detract from a simple appreciation of what a thrilling spectacle it was. It was truly a match that had everything, skill, physicality, drama, constantly swinging fortunes, big refereeing decisions, and lots of fantastic goals. I was still a lad during that legendary 1982 semi-final between Brazil and Italy; and I was enraptured by that, I didn't think I'd ever see it topped. But that game last night.... I think it might just have done so. It's certainly got to be well up there amongst the top handful of most fabulous games of football ever played.

Sleepytime for me...

As I noted at the weekend, the relaxation of the game schedule from here on is a welcome relief to me. I had been full of good intentions that I would now diligently watch every single minute of every single game from here on, and as much of it as possible actually live, but... the USA v Belgium game yesterday morning defeated me! Either my alarm somehow didn't go off, or I managed to sleep right through it: 9 or 10 hours of solid slumber.... for the first time in three-and-a-half weeks: blissful.

Unlucky Alf

We must spare a thought for poor Jordan Henderson, who has just etched his name into football's history books in the most unfortunate manner possible - by becoming the first-ever player (surely?) to pick up a yellow card and a serious injury at a game in which he was not even participating. I half-suspect Tuchel had just asked him if he fancied starting at right-back in the Norway game, and it was a sudden surge of joy that impelled him to try to vault over that advertising hoarding...  [For the title reference, if unfamiliar, refer here, and here.]

The rise of the 'slow starters'

Apart from the excitement of Egypt so nearly taking down mighty Argentina, this round has seen the almost as great - though, frankly, not nearly so unexpected - excitement of Norway putting out Brazil (who, apart from the sensational form of Vinicius Jnr, had looked severely under par in this tournament). Switzerland holding their own against the impressive Colombia (and nicking the tie on a penalty shootout), and Belgium trouncing the previously rather formidable-seeming USA were also somewhat surprising results. And, frankly, not many people had been making England favourites - certainly not strong favourites - to get a win at the Azteca. So, for me, the 'theme' of this round has been the striking improvement of teams who'd almost been written off after somewhat faltering starts to the tournament. Belgium had laboured to impotent draws in their opening games against Egypt and Iran, while Switzerland had likewise struggled to a 1-1 with Qatar in their opener, and England had made heavy work of beating a poor Croatia and then got embarassingly held to a goalless draw by Ghana. I confess, my hunches went against all three of those teams in this round (although I'd held off on taking players from them, or their opponents, because I'd judged these fixtures too close to call with any confidence). But often this slow building of momentum is a good sign in a tournament: sometimes teams need to struggle to find the right solutions, to battle against adversity, in order to grow - to develop more resilience, determination, confidence, fluency. I would not have risked my money on England or Belgium a week ago, but now.... I just might. (Not favourites for the win, but suddenly with a much better chance of reaching the semi-final or the final than I'd thought before. Switzerland were always one of my 'dark horse' picks for the tournament - belatedly starting to earn my belief in them.)

The great Quarter-Final conundrum(s)

With a number of moderately 'unexpected' results in this past 'Round of 16', most of us are looking at some rather alarming holes in our squads now. I had bet heavily on Brazil and the USA, so I'm now hurting for that. In total, I've lost 6 players to elimination. This puts me in a dilemma that's going to be rather typical for this quarter-final round: should I leave gaps on my bench, or spend points for additional transfers (beyond the rather niggly allowance of 4 Free Transfers we're being given for this round)? Answers to this dilemma will vary, depending on your view of the upcoming fixtures, how confident you are in your core players to return reliable points - and whether you still have your Wildcard available. 

Since extra transfers in this game only cost 3 points, rather than the 4 points we're used to in Fantasy Premier League, it is quite tempting to just spend willy-nilly on as many transfers as you need; particularly as MatchDays in this tournament have tended to be rather more high-scoring than a typical FPL Gameweek. In FPL, it's generally only a good idea to spend points on filling a hole in your starting line-up caused by injury or suspension or disastrous loss of form; but with the active in-game substitutions available in Fantasy World Cup, every player is effectively a member of your starting line-up, so there is just as much reason - well, almost as much reason - to fill in holes on the bench as in the original eleven. However, a player you're subbing out for a bench player has almost invariably earned you some points: rarely less than 2, sometimes perhaps as many as 3 or 4. So, it's not really worth spending points on a new player beyond the core eleven unless you have high confidence that they can deliver >6 points. And if you're planning to Wildcard for the semi-finals, there's no harm in leaving some holes on the bench in this round.

There's also a common dilemma for many about when to use the 'Booster' chips. [I wrote a little more on this the next day.] A lot of people still seem to have the 'Maximum Captain'; I think this will probably go best in the Final, In earlier rounds you can usually 'maximise' your captaincy return fairly well by just rotating the armband through different players until somebody gives you a decent haul: in the Final, you can't do that - and I think the advantage of definitely having your best possible return in that game will probably be greater than the usually low (or zero) advantage you might get in other MatchDays from having a perfect captain rather than a good enough captain (most people are settling on 10 or 12, and rarely having a later player get any more than a few points higher than that). In the quarter-finals, I'm set to rotate through Mbappé, Yamal, Bellingham or Haaland (haven't decided yet: coin toss!), and Messi - which looks promising. If you still have any of the other chips, you probably play them in whichever round you don't have to use your Wildcard in. I feel I can hang on until the semi-finals to Wildcard; others have been harder hit by eliminations already, and would like to drop it for the quarter-finals.

Although France, Spain, Argentina, and (much less strongly!) England are favourites in this coming round, they're all facing strong opponents who are well capable of causing an upset. I think we should probably expect to see at least one of those 'favourites' go out. I think I've got my squad pretty well balanced - but I have taken the gamble of going quite heavily for France and Spain, the two teams in whom I have the highest confidence. If either of them let me down, I'll be in quite a bit of trouble. If the results go as I hope/expect, I'll only lose 3 players, and won't have to worry about using my Wildcard at all. If things go badly, I could lose up to 10 players (with already a couple of empty spaces on my bench). I don't think they will go that badly, but.... that's why you save your Wildcard in a tournament like this.

Two final words of warning

I only discovered the other day that while this Fantasy World Cup game allowed you to roll 1 transfer from one MatchDay to the next during the group phase (when you'd almost certainly have no opportunity to do so!), for no good reason, it does not allow you to do so during the knockout phase (when that facility could be incredibly useful!). I find this really quite a huge pain-in-the-arse.

Also, I had thought that the 'Clean Sheet Bonus' chip supposedly extended clean sheet points to players who'd conceded up to two goals. I can't check on that now, because they haven't actually filled in the details of this chip yet on the 'rules' page, and the information is removed from the 'Booster Activation' pop-up window once you've used it! It would appear that in fact it only extends it up to players who've conceded a single goal - which is actually far more sensible; but I'm fairly sure it's not what the original description of the chip said, and it does make a hell of a difference.

So, the game is shoddily, incompetently put together, and we can't rely on it to treat us fairly, remember our team selections, or even (I fear, in my most paranoid moments...) count our points accurately. But hey, it's still a bit of fun, right?

But you have been warned!

BEST OF LUCK FOR THE QUARTER-FINAL ROUND, EVERYONE!!!

The REVENGE of ITVx

 

I didn't get very far with my recent resolution to try to watch all the remaining World Cup games live...  Last night's tie between Argentina and Egypt actually started at a reasonably accessible 11pm for me; but, alas, the UK coverage was being carried on the independent TV channel's ITVx streaming platform - so, I knew I was likely to be fucked.

ITVx has been so notoriously BAD, for so long (annoying UI, archived programmes impossible to search, and - worst of all - a glitchy and unstable stream, with unusably low speeds for any high-demand live event; I recall the Queen's Funeral being about an hour behind actual time by the time I eventually managed to finish watching it!), that I've gone through extended spells of giving up on it altogether and not even trying to make it work. I skipped most of England's qualifiers for this World Cup because they were on this useless bloody channel.

But, to be fair to them, I have been pleasantly surprised recently: they do seem to have - finally - invested in some substantially upgraded server capacity, and their stream has been more stable and less prone to freezing.

Until last night. I suppose a crunch game for Messi's Argentina, against the also highly popular Mo Salah and Egypt, was likely to be one of the biggest worldwide draws of the competition so far - particularly with the way Messi's been playing in this tournament. During the first-half, I suffered a few bothersome mini-freezes; and about midway through the second-half, just as things were getting really interesting, the dratted stream started breaking down altogether.

In the further interestts of fairness, I should also acknowledge that the issues might not have been entirely with ITVx this time. My VPN kept breaking down as well; and a few times, the Internet in my guesthouse dropped out altogether for a few seconds. So, it was more likely to be a problem with my local network - whether censors attempting to interfere with a recognised VPN routing (I've had that happen to me a few times), or just a demand overload as half the neighbourhood stayed up into the early hours streaming this same match. The final outcome was somewhat spoiled for me by a huge cheer from a coffee shop a couple of hundred yards away - about 20 minutes or so after I finally gave up on my errant stream,... and decided to try to watch a full re-run this morning.

Watching the footie from the far side of the world is a constant challenge, I'm telling you....

Five Levels of Self-Delusion

 

I rather fear that England's football fans may be some of the most obnoxious and objectionable in the world. It is one of the reasons why I abandoned the country to set out on my globetrotting adventures 30-odd years ago.... and I have seldom been back since. But, of course, you can never completely escape them. In just about every sports bar I've ever visited in Asia, the most loudmouthed, offensive, unreasonable punter in there is almost invariably a Brit (in fact, 9 times of out 10, it seems to be a Spurs fan;... but that's another story). And now, of course, they're all over the online forums too.

It would have been nice to be able to enjoy a rare moment of success for England, the gruelling victory in the Azteca stadium yesterday morning, without having to suffer all of these dingbats crowing about how we trounced the host nation and it was a thoroughly dominating performance, and.... all manner of other horseshit. I even saw one poor lamb today averring that it was the best England performance in the World Cup since 1966; I can only assume that he's less than 30 years old and thus has nothing in his memory to compare it to. An important win is not necessarily the same as a great performance. (And, alas, all too often for us a great performance has not been rewarded with victory. Our defeats to Argentina in the 1986 quarter-final and to Germany in the 1990 semi-final were by far the best England performances I've seen in the tournament.)

Now, to be fair, I think this was much our best performance yet in this tournament (though that is fairly faint praise), and included many elements that should be greatly encouraging: Pickford emphatically getting his mojo back, Saka being fit again at last, Bellingham continuing to look as if he's a man determined to steal Messi's last Ballon d'Or. And our determination and discipline in defence was especially impressive, as we grimly clung on to our narrow lead with only 10 men. Many online commenters have also asserted that it was part of Tuchel's gameplan to surrender the bulk of possession to Mexico, confident that they weren't incisive enough to hurt us too much (that was surely the case in the opening period; but not thereafter - I fear they were just better than us at keeping the ball).

And I have an inkling that the manner of this victory, the huge flood of relief at having managed to pull it off in such demanding circumstances, may prove to mark a decisive momentum-change for us, giving us the emotional boost we need to kick on and play better, more successful football from here on. (Although, I am also anxious that our players won't be able to completely recover physically before our quarter-final against Norway. By the end of the game in Mexico City, both teams looked utterly, utterly knackered, and I really don't think any of them could have played 30 minutes of extra time. After all the thunderstorms in the vicinity earlier in the day, the humidity in the stadium was apparently up around 85%, and all the players were completely drenched, perspiration dripping off their faces, from the opening minutes. I think that might have been one of the sweatiest games of football I have ever seen!)

However, having given credit where it is due,.. I cannot countenance all of this absurd hyperbole that instantly sprung up around the game - how the result was so thoroughly deserved, how we had completely outplayed our opponents.

We did not. Mexico - even before Quansah's (entirely uncontentious) sending-off - had had the lion's share of possession. Overall, they saw twice as much of the ball as us, and created nearly five times as many attempts on goal (the majority of those actually before the sending-off; we contained their threat much better once we'd 'parked the bus'). But for some uncharacteristically 'off' finishing in crucial moments from Raul Jimenz, and a couple of absolute world-class saves from Jordan Pickford, Mexico might have won fairly comfortably. In fact, but for Jude Bellingham's astonishing last-gasp clearance when Cesar Montes had been presented with an open-goal opportunity at the far-post to equalise at 2-2, seconds before the half-time break - I feel fairly sure Mexico would have gone on to win in the second-half, even without the Quansah sending-off.

Moreover, Nico O'Reilly was very, very fortunate not to have become our second sending-off, when he petulantly flicked out an elbow at Jorge Sanchez's face just before the second drinks break (it doesn't matter that it 'wasn't that hard', or 'barely made contact'; you can't usually get away even with making a gesture like that). And we clung on to our precarious lead by our fingernails for the whole of the last half-hour, resorting to a 5-4 low-block - and even taking Kane off in the closing minutes to bolster the defensive ranks even further.

And the thing that soured me most about our victory was that during that siege of our penalty area in the closing stages of the game, we resorted to peak Arsenal tactics of wrestling opponents in the box every time they had a set-piece delivery, practically ripping the shirts off their backs on a few occasions. We committed more than enough holding fouls to have conceded 2 or 3 more penalties, but the referee and the VAR team were mysteriously sleeping, and we were allowed to get away with every single one of them.

So, all this talk of 'deserved' and 'dominant' quickly began to rankle with me. You can celebrate a success without being dismissive of your opponent's performance in a game. If England lose a game in circumstances like this, we whinge about it for the next 50 years. So, it seems to me to be only fair to acknowledge that on this occasion our gallant opponents were somewhat hard done-by. Yes, we played well; but all the breaks went our way as well - and without that, we wouldn't have won.

After an hour or so perusing the Internet forums yesterday, I concluded that we could attempt a classification of just how out-of-touch England fans were being in their assessments of this game. So, I give you.....

The Five Levels of Self-Delusion 

(about the Mexico v England game)

Level 5: England fans who insist we must have been the 'better' team simply because we ended up with (narrowly) more goals. [Football 101: the final scoreline is not always an accurate indicator of desert.]

Level 4:  England fans who 'didn't see' any of the numerous holding offences we committed in the later stages of the match, simply because the BBC commentary declined to draw attention to them.

Level 3:  England fans who think Nico O'Reilly did nothing wrong - because the Mexican had it coming to him, or similar. ['Retaliation' is not a defence, lads.]

Level 2:  England fans who don't even think Mexico should have got the penalty that was awarded to them. [A 'thought experiment': imagine Harry Kane is in the opposition box, raises his leg high to meet a falling ball and gets there first, but a defending player behind him decides to try to kick the ball anyway and instead kicks through the back of Harry's calf with full force. What would you say then? Eh, Mr Shearer??]

Level 1 (the most extreme form of this mania):  England fans who don't even accept the Quansah sending-off!! (They are depressingly numerous.)

It is astonishing and dispiriting how the environment of 'anonymous' discussion on the Internet seems to lead people into a total loss of any sense of objectivity. So many England fans are intent on spinning themselves this fantasy narrative about how this was the most wonderful, wonderful England performance ever and Mexico were hardly in the game. And they will rapidly get surly and abusive with anyone who rains on their parade by daring to point out any facts inconsistent with this comforting lie they want to keep on telling themselves.

All I'm arguing for is a little bit of balance and open-mindedness. I'm an England fan, I like to see us do well. I'm pleased that we have progressed to the quarter-finals. But I resist the pressure to buy into this absurd narrative that every important victory must also necessarily have been a flawless performance and our finest moment ever. There were still a lot of problems in this performance, and we've certainly had many finer moments. And I do find it difficult to exult about a victory in a game where we really should have had a second player sent off, and should have conceded another penalty.

Not AGAIN??!!

 

Yes, the FIFA World Cup Fantasy game is doing my head in again.

To be fair to them, this time it is my own fault - for not taking care to read all the fine print of the absurdly over-long, over-elaborate, over-finicky rules.

But to be fair to myself - and every other poor schmuck trying to play this game - it is absolutely fucking absurd to allow the rolling of unused transfers during the group stage but not during the knockout stage (when they're likely to be far more needed, and there would be far more tactical subtlety in being able to plan to do that). [The Fantasy Football Scout summary of the rules - which I confess I have been relying on, rather than the rules on the FIFA site itself - entirely fails to mention this rather important wrinkle. (And I find it rather worrying that FIFA label these rules as 'guidelines' - as if they're not going to feel bound to actually follow them all the time! Oh, wait, it's FIFA: no, of course they won't!)]

So, in addition to having two or three times 'lost' - or simply had the game site refuse to accept - an attempted captaincy switch, and having been misled into retaining a player in my scoring eleven who'd got a far lower score than I thought (because I didn't realise he was still my 'captain', and there was nothing obvious in the display to alert me to that fact!!), and, most momentously of all, having also seen my selection of Mbappé as my '12th Man' on MatchDay 2 mysteriously unsaved the next day,.... I needlessly saved a transfer before this 'Round of 16', anticipating that I'd need at least 5 (not the measly, entirely inadequate 4 the game allocates to you) for the following Quarter-Final round; and indeed I do find I need 5 transfers, but I've only got 4 available because of this ridiculous - inconsistent, unnecessary, unreasonable, hidden - rule. I am grinding my teeth to powder over this game. It has robbed me of at least 20 points now; but I'm somehow still in the top 200,000.

The LULL

After three straight weeks where we've had three or four games (occasionally six games!) every single day, now... we only have 16 games remaining over the next fifteen days. There'll only be 1 or 2 games per day from now on. Heck, we'll even have five days with no football at all - I don't know what I'll do with myself!

It is a bit of a relief, I have to say. While I think the expansion of the tournament this year to 48 teams is a thoroughly good and necessary thing - in giving more teams and players the opportunity to compete on the biggest stage in the sport, and giving more countries and supporters the ability to experience a direct emotional investment in the competition. And we might also be seeing, soon if not already, a more indirect but also joyous benefit - that we'll all have the opportunity occasionally to see great players in this tournament who would previously have had no chance of qualifying (it is a bit of a tragedy that the likes of Georgie Best, Ryan Giggs, and George Weah never got to play in a World Cup because they represented such small nations). The one downside of the expansion has been that.... it is now an overwhelming watch. There were 8 more games in the group phase alone than we have seen in the entire competition before, and we now have twice as many knockout games as previously to get through in the last two weeks. And I've been finding it all just a bit too much to keep track of.

For most of the previous World Cups in my lifetime (at least since I was about 4 or 5!), I have somehow or other managed to watch just about every single game in its entirety. But this year, I've probably only managed a quarter of them (and most of those not actually live: the games are all on in the middle of the night in my timezone!). I haven't even bothered to watch proper extended highlights for all of them, but only the rather shorter reels that pop up on Youtube - and even them, I fear I'm sometimes skimming through with glazed eyes, not really paying much attention. There are probably a few games that I've overlooked entirely. Oh, the shame.  I am committed to trying to watch every single minute from here on in (and, as much of it as possible actually 'live').

We're probably all unaccustomed to this much larger roster of participating countries, and perhaps we'll adapt and deal much better with the memory challenge it presents in the next iteration of the enlarged event. But I am starting to fret that there is perhaps a problem with my aging brain as well: I'm really finding it a struggle now to remember what order the games came in, or what all the results were, or who was in who's group originally, or who scored the goals in a certain game,.... or who Curacao's goalkeeper is. You, the important details are not staying put as they used to. I hope it's just a lack of sleep rather than the beginning of the long decline into senility....

Best World Cup ever?? (Some thoughts after the 4th Round)

How does this tournament compare to those of the past - is it possibly the best ever??

I really think it might be!

1970, of course, had some moments of unbelievable magic - mostly from Pelé. But the combination of some brutally hot weather, unaccustomed elevation at some of the venues, and the generally much lower level of physical conditioning in those days meant that the matches were mostly played at walking-pace. 1974 and 1978 were illuminated by the dazzling 'Total Football' of the Dutch, but not that much else; and they were, for me, and many others, ultimately somewhat marred by the chronic injustice of that fabulous Holland side twice being robbed of their deserved victory in finals against the host nation. 1982 and 1986 were surely the pinnacle - mainly thanks to the legendary Brazilian and French sides of the first half of that decade; although, of course, Germany, Italy, Argentina, Uruguay, Holland, and even England were also very good for most of the 1980s, and 1986 was further enlivened by Michael Laudrup's wonderful Denmark. 1998 and 2006 weren't bad; but really, all the tournaments since the 1980s have, I think, been somewhat disappointing - until now.

Over the past quarter of a century or so, the increasing physical demands of the modern game have taken a heavy toll in injuries and fatigue towards the end of domestic seasons, and we've usually had to suffer a number of the expected stars of a tournament either being missing completely or at least operating well below their best. But this time, apart from Jamal Musiala (who missed much of last season after breaking his leg in last summer's Euros) and Nico Williams (injured again at the moment, but hopefully available for the quarter-finals, if not this next round), all the big names are present - and in absolutely banging form. I really don't think there's been another World Cup where there were so many leading players all looking absolutely at the top of their game. And who would have dared to hope that 'over-the-hill' Leo Messi would somehow produce his best World Cup performance yet??

Tournament hosts have often had weak teams who might otherwise have struggled to qualify, and couldn't make much of an impression in the competition. But this time, the three hosts, Mexico, the USA, and Canada, have all looked very capable - and I'd expect at least one of them to reach the quarter-finals.

We've seen lots of drama already, especially in this first knockout round: tight games, late winners, late equalisers, extra-time and penalty shootouts. And there have been some intriguing tactical battles as well. While the 'hydration breaks' have been universally derided (they are necessary for player health in such hot and humid conditions; but they don't need to be more than 30 or 60 seconds long - and they could happen under FIFA supervision, well away from the coaching areas), they have added to the tactical intricacy of matches by allowing coaches a major reshuffle three times each game instead of just once.

Most previous tournaments have also been marred, at least occasionally, by erratic, sometimes outright poor refereeing. But this year, I really think the refereeing, and the operation of the VAR room, has mostly been exemplary. In the 'Round of 32', I felt there were a few penalties that were strangely missed, and one or two goals that were perhaps wrongly disallowed; but these were all tight calls, arguably "50-50s", not really egregious errors. Prior to this, there hasn't really be any major controversy at all. I remarked last time how remarkable - and enviable - it was that in 70-odd matches so far, we'd seen fewer dubrious decisions than we typically get in any single week in the Premier League!

The expansion thoroughly vindicated

Though many people have carped at the enlarging of the tournament, I think you have to accept the value of giving more of the 'smaller' footballing nations a chance to participate. And in fact, it has only been an enhancement to the entertainment of the competition; most of the 'expansion teams' were more than half-decent, and a few of them proved capable of threatening a major upset. Cabo Verde's astonishing performance, deservedly finishing second (in a tough group!), and then just scaring the bejesus out of Argentina in the first knockout round, has been the great story of the tournament so far - and should serve to shut up all the naysayers who've been ridiculing the enlarged format.

A proper shoutout for the Golden Boot

We've seen much the highest rate of goal-scoring in modern times (an average of very nearly 3 goals per game!), with very few 0-0s - and even those have often been very entertaining games. There have been some absolute belters amongst those 257 goals to date; it's going to be really hard to pick a 'Goal of the Tournament' this year (although I suspect Sidny Lopes Cabral's extra-time equaliser today for Cabo Verde may claim it, as much for the emotional impact it had as for the sublime technique). And the race for the Golden Boot is just ridiculous: Messi now on 7 goals, Mbappé on 6, Haaland and Kane on 5; Vinicius Jnr., Oyarzabal and Dembélé on 4; Cunha, Quinones, Saibari, Manzambi, David, Balogun,.... and Cristiano all on 3 (that's just among those who are still playing). I don't think there's ever before been a tournament where so many players were all scoring so freely. Often, the title has been cruised to with a relatively modest total haul, mainly from one or two big performances in easy group games right at the start. This time, it looks set to be a proper contest, going right down to the wire.

'Boring'???  Are you kidding??!!

So,... I really don't understand people online whingeing about how 'boring' this tournament has been! I think they must not have been watching many of their games. Or they're peeved that their team hasn't done as well as they'd hoped. Or... they just don't understand football. It's been an absolutely fucking brilliant tournament.

It may be too early to call it as the 'best of all time', when we're only half-way through. Obviously we'd like to see some more thrills-and-spills in the later rounds, and a big final with a deserving winner. But it looks very much as if we're going to get all of that. I think it's going to be between France and Spain, and Brazil and Argentina; but teams like the USA, Mexico and Morocco are certainly in with a shout as well.

My 'crystal ball' mojo is back

I'd been having a pretty wretched start to my perennial 'Nostradamus Challenge' with my best friend, predicting relatively few correct results, and almost no exact scorelines during the Group Phase. But in this 'Round of 32', I nailed 5 exact scores (and was very close on Argentina v Cabo Verde!); only Egypt's hard-fought draw with Australia (I thought Australia would win!) and Paraguay's surprise win over Germany eluded my precognition this time.

Fantasy strategy recap

I went into the strategy considerations for this tournament in some detail at the start of the week. I feel fully vindicated in recommending the use of the 'Qualification Bonus' chip in this Round just past. I achieved a maximum haul of 24 points from it. (That gave me my first ton of the competition so far; although I was also very close on MatchDays 1 and 2, and would have breached it on MD2 as well if the damn game had allowed me to enroll Mbappé as my '12th Man'.) [But, oh no, wait - in fact it was only 22 points, because they apparently don't double the bonus for your captain. That seems unnecessarily petty; and I don't recall seeing that explained anywhere...]

Every batch of games from here on is just going to get harder to call, I fear; so, those who didn't play the 'Qualification Bonus' in the last round are likely to suffer - it will be very difficult to achieve a maximum return from the chip now. In the upcoming 'Round of 16', only France, Morocco, Spain, and Argentina look likely to be able to progress fairly comfortably (and even venturing that much may be 'tempting Fate'...); the other four fixtures are a bit of a toss-up. However, I feel it should be safe to play the 'Clean Sheet Shield' chip in this round, since it's hard to envisage any of the top teams conceding more than 2 goals, even if they do have a bit of a rough time. '12th Man' and 'Maximum Captain' will probably do quite well in the quarter-finals or semi-finals; although I might save the latter until the final. (You have a pretty good chance of 'maximising' your captaincy anyway in the earlier rounds by rotating it through your best players until one of them strikes a big haul. In the final, you can't do that.)

I'm a little nervous about how long Messi may need to recover after having to play a full two hours in that thriller against Cabo Verde. It wouldn't surprise me to see Nico Paz start instead of him against Egypt on Tuesday. But the form he's in, he can probably register an attacking contribution even with a short run off the bench; so, I imagine everyone will be keeping him in their Fantasy squads. (It really is astonishing that his ownership in the game is only at around 52%. The way he's been playing, 95% would be low!!!)

Fantasy irritations

I had thought that the 'Date of next game' option had been restored to the during-the-Matchday display on the FIFA Fantasy website during MatchDay 3 - but it seems to have disappeared again (which is a bit of an irritation when you're trying to remember when you need to bring in your substitutes or swap your captain's armband around). 

And I've suffered another of those infuriating glitches where a 'saved' captaincy change somehow got unsaved again, denying me 6 extra points from Kylian Mbappé in this MatchDay - Gggrrrrr......

BEST OF LUCK, EVERYONE!!!

Ooops - they did it again!

I am cursed with Kylian Mbappé! In the group stage, the damn FIFA Fantasy webpage wouldn't 'save' my selection of him for the '12th Man' booster chip on MatchDay 2. When I brought him into the main squad for MD3, it failed to save my selection of him as captain. And now, on MD4, the same problem. I've had problems with the captaincy on other players too, but.... there does seem to be a particular obstacle about accepting the selection of Mbappé! 

So, now I'm left hoping that Yamal or Messi can save my MatchDay. But I very much doubt they'll match Mbappé's 16-point haul. Bugger.  [Indeed, no. I suppose I shouldn't complain about a 10-pointer from Leo. Although I'm bummed he was denied the assist for the winner.]