One last word on the Club World Cup

 

One slight variation on the common complaints against the Club World Cup (petty jibes which I further castigated at the start of this week) seemed to become even more prevalent in the days following the Final. It's really just a riff on the selfish resentment that 'my team wasn't in it'; this time that gripe is expanded - so as to try to dodge charges of parochial self-interest - into a more general claim that the competition was 'worthless' because so many of the world's top teams were not taking part in it. One commenter I saw particularly amused me with the absurd assertion that fully 'half' of the world's best teams were missing from the tournament!

OK, we have to grant that the absences of Barcelona and Liverpool were regrettable. (If FIFA was willing to bend over backwards to contrive the participation of Leo Messi, could they not have performed similar contortions to include Mo Salah and Lamine Yamal??)  And one might perhaps add Ajax to that list - consistently the best Dutch team, although their great side of a few years ago is, sadly, almost entirely broken up. But aside from that, can you name even one or two teams, let alone half a dozen or more remotely as good as PSG or Bayern Munich or Real Madrid or Manchester City or Inter Milan - or, yes indeed, the suddenly renascent Chelsea? [Manchester United fans, let it go. You're just making yourselves look ridiculous and pathetic. You haven't even been a force in English football for a dozen years now.] And let us not forget the high standard of competitors we saw from the rest of the world: Inzaghi's Al-Hilal and the Brazilian teams, in particular, produced some outstanding football, and were worthy opponents for Europe's best.

And then you get down to the 'second tier' of European entrants - mostly rather disappointing in the tournament, but still 'big' names, and with a significant enough record in European competitions to justify their inclusion: Juventus, Dortmund, Atletico Madrid, Benfica, Salzburg. It's pretty difficult to name any omitted clubs better than those. Doing well in your domestic league last season clearly isn't enough: this selection is based on a four-year timeframe, and you need to have established some consistency in continental competitions over that period. Atalanta are probably the strongest contender among the omitted Italian sides on that basis (AC Milan have fallen on hard times in recent years, and haven't made much impact in Europe for a long time; Napoli's renascence is too recent...). Leverkusen and Leipzig from the Bundesliga might feel a little hard done-by, but, despite recent successes, they're not really yet unseating Germany's 'big two'. Arsenal clearly look to have the quality to stand alongside the best participants in this competition - but they've still achieved nothing in Europe, so they haven't earned the place yet.  Anyone else???  NO.

It is, in any event, fatuous to question a tournament's worth because some of the teams you'd like to see in it - some of the 'best' teams - are absent, or don't progress very far. That's always going to happen in any tournament. Some teams hit a run of bad form and/or terrible luck and don't even get through a qualifying competition. Others run into those problems early in the tournament itself - perhaps undone by a solitary bizarre mistake, or a terrible refereeing decision to their detriment, or an uncharacteristic, one-off playing-their-socks-off performance by a 'lesser' opponent. Some suffer - or benefit - from a ridiculously lop-sided draw (if we're honest with ourselves, that was probably the single biggest factor in Gareth Southgate's extraordinary run of 'success' with the England team). The World Cup - and the various continental tournaments for national teams - is rarely won by the best team in it; sometimes, the best team won't even reach the semi-finals. Hopefully the eventual champ will be a worthy winner, clearly one of the best three or four or five contenders - but they're seldom the actual No.1. That's just the way it goes.

This new Club World Cup is an unusual and unfamiliar format for club competition: it's the only one I can think of that's only going to be held once-every-four-years rather than annually. So, the selection criteria have to look at the whole period since the last iteration of the tournament, not just last season. [There is, I think, a case for significantly increasing the weighting for the current season, and, to a lesser extent, for the season before, as it clearly seems unfair that an isolated good performance two or three years ago should carry anywhere near as much weight as one this year or last.]

It's focused on continents rather than countries, on the elite continental competitions rather than the national leagues. Sorry, Arsenal (Newcastle, Spurs, et al) - you've got to win the Champions League (or at least get to the semis a couple of times...) before you get a sniff at this. Might never happen? Tough luck!

Above all, this new competition is looking to be inclusive and representative - seeking to bring together a similar number of competitors from every region, and from as many different countries as possible within the regions. 

Now, clearly, with the current state of the world game, the 10 (or 20....?) best teams might all be from Europe. But that's not the point, is it? We don't want a new competition only for European teams (we already have that!). We're creating a tournament that pits a strong representative sample of Europe's finest teams against similar groups of clubs from Africa, Asia, and the Americas. If we admit that it is reasonable - essential - to limit Europe to 12 entries in total, you can't really make much of an argument that at least the vast majority of the 12 European teams taking part this time didn't deserve to be there. The fact that some excellent teams are going to miss out each time is inevitable - and nothing to cry over.

 

Sure, in this first iteration of the new tournament, the selection criteria might have been somewhat flawed; and there was a lack of transparency in FIFA's process. (Chelsea were particularly fortunate to be included, since they haven't actually done anything domestically or in Europe within the last four years. They were presumably getting credit for their out-of-nowhere Champions League win under Thomas Tuchel - but that was five seasons ago!! Too long ago to be accorded that much weight; and not properly within the eligible timeframe anyway - WTF??)  

And of course, the modest subterfuge involved in crowbarring Messi's Inter Miami into the tournament also undermined FIFA's 'credibility' (not that they have an awful lot of that left anyway; though at least they're still some distance behind the International Olympic Committee in the 'risibly corrupt' stakes!). Having Messi participate in the tournament was a reasonable enough objective, and FIFA would have looked less ridiculous and dishonest if they'd just allowed themselves ONE 'Wildcard Entry' that was entirely discretionary - rather than attempting to 'justify' their decision with a post facto invention of criteria.

These problems certainly need to be ironed out for the next tournament in 2029. But, apart from these two unfortunate blips in the selection process (where the only objection would be as to the rationality and transparency of the methodology, rather than the results - which weren't wildly unjust, and did serve to enhance the tournament), there weren't really any egregiously unfair inclusions or omissions. And within the framework of this tournament's intentions - to provide a truly global competition, not a parochially Europe-dominated one - the selection process worked out pretty well. Enough with all the 'My team wasn't in it' whining!

A cracking game indeed!!

We don't often get the greatest football in a tournament final, as fatigue and nerves (or cumulative injuries and suspensions) get the better of the teams, or fear of failure comes to dominate, and the game ends up being mostly an edgy, cagey stalemate. Approaching Sunday's climax of the first Club World Cup in New Jersey, we were all hoping for the best - bur rather fearing the possibility of the worst.

Or indeed, many people - probably a significant majority - were expecting a rather drably one-sided contest. Paris St Germain had simply been so good over the last several months, and in most of this competition, while Chelsea, coming off a turbulent and inconsistent season, appeared to be still mired in the midst of a difficult rebuild - well, very few people gave the London team much of a chance, and it was widely anticipated that PSG might prevail over them as easily as they had in their semi-final against Real Madrid. Some of the bookies were offering more than 2-1 against Chelsea lifting the trophy, and although those odds shortened slightly in the last 24 hours or so before kick-off, really not many were seriously fancying the Chelsea win. 

Now, I try never to talk myself up on here, but.... I will allow myself to occasionally acknowledge when I've got a big call right. And I did indeed predict a Chelsea win - in my last post on here before the Final, and even before the start of the tournament. [That foresight enabled me to enjoy a strong MatchDay 7 in the Fantasy game, as well as a nice little return from the bookmaker!]

PSG didn't do themselves any favours: perhaps being guilty of a little over-confidence, they persisted with their usual open attacking style, pushing both full-backs up the field as often as possible. I had really thought that they would appreciate the potential danger posed by players like Neto and Gusto (and Palmer and Cucurella and Pedro) in the wide areas, and try to hold Nuno Mendes and/or Hakimi much deeper most of the time. Perhaps they just dismissed this threat because they hadn't expected that Robert Sanchez, so long derided for his sloppy distribution, would suddenly have figured out how to ping accurate long balls into those inviting spaces on the flanks behind the over-advanced full-backs. Chelsea were perfectly set up to exploit this weakness, and Sanchez created a dangerous counter-attack with almost every long clearance from his box. But they were impeccable in their defensive set-up too, with their effcient pressing and fluid positional rotations completely stifling PSG in the middle of the pitch. 'Tactical masterclass' is becoming a bit of an overused cliché, but it might be justified here: Maresca's gameplan was exemplary. And every single one of his men absolutely played their socks off! It was pretty much the perfect team performance. Well done, lads!

And then of course, we ended the day with that wonderful comedy moment when a bumbling Donald Trump refused to leave the stage after the trophy presentation. (Who could have foreseen that?? Oh, wait.......)

Alas, a lot of people are refusing to share in the joy of having been able to watch a fine game of football, to witness a superb achievement from a new coach and a renascent club (and yes, English fans should be allowed - should be expected - to indulge in a little bit of a patriotic buzz about one of our country's teams having come out on top, even if it's a team we revile and root against in domestic competition...). Instead, they're still bitching about the tournament and its winners, yet again rehashing the ridiculous argument that the tournament really has no value, isn't respected by anybody, and doesn't mean anything, that it isn't a true 'world championship'.

I have some hard news for those people: your opinion doesn't matter. FIFA is the world governing body of our game, and - for better or worse - only they get decide on the status of a tournament. This IS the definitive 'world championship' for clubs - because they say it is.

Moreover, now that it's all over - only Chelsea fans any longer have the right to make legitimate criticisms about the tournament and its perceived status in the game. If you voiced those criticisms before it started, and if you managed to frame them within a genuinely broad view of the world game, untainted by personal resentments about whether your favourite team was going to be involved (most gripers were not thus reasonable), then fair enough. But most of the criticisms - the standard of football is going to be poor, none of the big teams are going to take it seriously, nobody's going to go to the games, nobody's going to watch, nobody's going to care about the outcome - have now been emphatically disproved by events. It has been a very successful, very entertaining tournament, with every participating team looking fully committed to trying to win it.

And now, if you continue to whinge like this, it just sounds like sour grapes - not reasoned criticism, but surly resentment that a team you like better than Chelsea didn't win it. 

If Chelsea fans, despite the euphoria of such an impressive victory, and the pride of having such an impressive-looking trophy to add to their cabinet, still want to voice doubts about the tournament's worth - they would deserve to be listened to. But everybody else should just shut the f*** up!

However, Chelsea fans shouldn't get too big for their boots. Being the official 'Club World Champions' doesn't necessarily make them the best team in the world. They'll have to sustain this sort of performance level for a full year, beat a bunch more top sides, and, ideally, claim another big trophy - the Premier League or Champions League title - at the end of the coming season before they can be in that conversation. They're off to a flying start with this magnificent win; but they'll need to build on that....

PS: I'm glad to see that my two favourite Youtube tactical analysts, Adam Clery (who has his 'own' channel now, bless him) and Cormac of Football Meta, were both quick to put out videos breaking down Chelsea's success this weekend: worth a look.

[And finally..... I generally rather like the Irish commentator, Conor McNamara; but recently it has started to grate on me a little that he always seems to pronounce the French champions as Barry St Germain. I suddenly find myself growing obsessed with the idea of trying to write a novel around this fascinating character.]

Haters gonna hate....

 

I have been shocked and disturbed by the extreme negativity so often being expressed online about this first Club World Cup competition. Most of the people dissing it so heavily are clearly driven by personal grudges and prejudices, and are often nakedly hypocritical too: they abuse the tournament, while also griping how unfair it is that their club isn't in it (if you're a Liverpool fan, you have the beginnings of a case on that; but it's not a reason to dismiss the worth of the tournament); or they suggest it's not worth watching or supporting - while they've clearly been watching it.

Many of them are also so stubbornly invested in this embittered view of the competition that they seek to disparage it further by questioning the quality of the football or the degree to which players and teams have really been motivated for it. I saw one comment from a guy this past week whose main argument seemed to be that Manchester City couldn't possibly have been beaten by Al Hilal if they'd been trying properly! I must assume he didn't watch that game (or many of the ones last season in which City were also chronically incapable of defending against swift counter-attacks): City tried their damnedest, and were just outplayed on the day; and both Pep and his players looked absolutely gutted to have been eliminated. The quality of football in this tournament has, in fact, been of an astonishingly high standard, and no club has been guilty of putting out a sub-par eleven or being unconcerned about a result (except in a few instances, perhaps, at the end of the group stage; but that always happens in competition like this).

So, these critics almost all appear to be driven by a knee-jerk emotional response rather than a rational analysis. And a great many of them also have a hidden - or not-so-hidden! - personal agenda fuelling their invective. Thus, they don't really merit much attention..

However, the detractors of the tournament do have two main lines of attack which I think are worth addressing.

Lack of 'prestige'?

The haters deride the tournament as valueless, they protest that it carries no 'prestige' - or only 'fake' or 'manufactured' prestige.

I would suggest that 'prestige' essentially means how highly the event is valued - by players, fans, and the club's ownership. And the key determinant of that is the standard of the competitors. Most people - players, certainly - are going to value a competition if they have to beat really top opponents to win it. And this competition - aside from the unfortunate but unavoidable omission of a few big names like Liverpool and Barca - does have all the best teams in the world in it.

'Official' status also counts for a lot. FIFA, although it may often be laughably corrupt and incompetent, is nevertheless the game's global governing body, and any event they endorse automatically carries considerable weight - far more than an event organised by one of the regional football associations, or a 'private' friendly competition set up by groups of clubs. And heck, the title of 'World Champion' is inherently prestigious - there's no getting away from that.

Moreover, in our sadly materialistic world, the sheer size of the prize pot is going to be a key determinant of the importance attached to a competition by a club's owners - and, at least to an extent, by the players and the fans too, because we're all dazzled by money, and we appreciate how important it is. And FIFA have produced an impressively huge prize fund for this tournament.

Now, yes, there's a further sentimental component to 'prestige' in sporting competitions, which grows from the associations we've all accumulated  around them - from their history. But no competition has 'history' when it starts; and that isn't a reason to never consider creating a new competition. Even the World Cup was a bit slow out of the blocks, with a lot of the European nations being uninterested in joining it, even when the second event was hosted in Italy in 1934; England and others didn't come on board until after World War II, The European Championship had an even rockier start, with some of the leading European footballing powers - England, Italy, West Germany, Netherlands - actively opposing its creation, and not participating in the first one or two iterations in the 1960s; and it didn't start becoming a major viewing draw until the 1980s. In its first iteration a new tournament is strange, unfamiliar, an unknown quanitity - it's inevitable that natural human scepticism (and resentment of change) is going to win out with a lot of people, and they're going to question the event's prestige, or even its reason for existing.

We had just the same distaste and dismay expressed towards the new Nations League competition in Europe just a few years ago. But now.... people are starting to get into it a little bit, now that they understand the format, and they're starting to build a stock of potent memories about times their team did well or badly in it. And the fact that the Great Egomaniac, Mr Cristiano Ronaldo, is so chuffed to have just won it is probably going to do wonders for how seriously people take the next one.

The same will be true of this Club World Cup - and probably on an even shorter timeline, because it's simply been such a bloody good tournament. People who've watched it with an open mind.... are already looking forward to the next one.  Supposed 'prestige' problem SOLVED.

Unacceptable toll on the players?

This objection I have a bit more time for. I am concerned about the increasing burdens we place on top football players - both physical and emotional - and alarmed about possible adverse consequences a little down the line. But for me, blaming summer tournaments (or international football more generally, or the governing bodies creating novel tournaments more specifically) is a dangerous distraction, it's missing the point. The core of the burden on players comes from the domestic schedule, and that's what needs to be lightened. 

We have been used to there being summer tournaments at least every other year for decades now; we ought to be well used to it. And it's unreasonable to insist that no new tournaments should be tried out ever. Without occasional innovation and experimentation, the sport will stagnate and die. 

People who take that tack in regard to this tournament are wilfully disregarding the very strong and worthwhile reasons for its creation. The original 'Club World Cup' format was tiny, it was buried in midwinter (at a time when most of the world is preoccuppied with preparations for Christmas), and given almost no promotion. For years, it failed to attract very much media attention in Europe; and in the UK, at least, we were barely ever aware that it was happening (even if our club was in it). But in the rest of the world - especially in South America - they went mad for it! The developing football nations were desperately craving an opportunity to test their best teams against the big boys of Europe (even if it rarely worked out very well for them). The demand was undoubtedly there (outside of selfish, insular Europe, anyway) for a proper international competition between the best clubs of all continents - something on a broader scale that could include multiple clubs from each continent, and provide a bigger spectacle that would grab the attention of global TV audiences. Events like this help to develop the game in the less well-off countries - hopefully to the point that, one day, we'll have a more level global playing-field in this sport, and the best African, Asian, and South American teams will be powerful enough to hang on to at least some of their best young players - rather than regularly having all of them poached by European sides. And I think an event like this is also good for 'cultural exchange' in the here-and-now, helping to educate football fans about the level of the game in other countries, and introducing us to some previously unknown talents. (It would be unfortunate, though, if it just became a big shopping showcase! I'm not sure that players like Arias, Mastantuono, and Jesus would have been getting moves to Europe without this competition....)

The root of the problem with player health is not the number of games, but the intensity of them in the modern-day style of play. One game can break a player! And of course, there's a huge variation in individual susceptibility: some players, like Declan Rice, are tanks who seem to be able to play a full 90 minutes again and again and again, with no tail-off in performance or incipient injury risk; others have hamstrings that ping more often than their phones. But sports science has made huge advances in recent years: clubs are now getting very good at monitoring fatigue levels and muscle soreness or stiffness for the earliest signs of danger. It's really the club's responsibility to manage their player's well-being, and ensure that they aren't over-played when they're looking vulnerable. 

The much deeper squads and routine rotation we've grown used to now are a big help with this, as is the increased number of substitutions allowed in each match. Permitting one or two further substitutions might help a little bit more. And the League does seem to be doing its best with scheduling - contriving a short winter 'break', and trying to ensure minimum 'recovery periods' are provided between all fixtures. However, the inevitable mid-winter log-jam still looms ominously over the season. Many countries suspend their domestic leagues altogether for a couple of weeks or so around the turn of the year; we really need to be looking at doing that in England too. Traditionalists, of course, (and especially those who support clubs who would suddenly be at a greatly heightened risk of relegation) are vehemently opposed to reducing the number of clubs in the Premier League. But, with the vastly increased pace of the modern game, I'm afraid it's now unavoidable: we need to get it down to 18 teams as soon as possible - and perhaps ultimately to only 15 or 16. It's not the end of the world, we'll get used to it! After all, it's only 20 years since the League was reduced from 22 teams to 20, and nobody grumbles about that any more; in fact, I think most people had got over it inside a couple of years.

And if we're talking about unnecessary additions to the minutes-burden, surely the League Cup has to go before anything else?! I know fans of clubs like Newcastle and Spurs will briefly get very passionate about it, as it's the only piece of silverware they've managed to claim in the modern era. But that's all it is: a lame 'consolation prize' for teams that aren't quite good enough to win anything worthwhile. It is - and always has been - a complete non-event. And if it were cancelled tomorrow, nobody would miss it in a year's time. [The one small counter-argument I can see in favour of retaining it is that it has become useful as an opportunity for giving squad players and emerging youth talents a few full run-outs.... in a competition that doesn't matter.]

I fear many of the gripes we're hearing from the online community about the possible harm to players from playing another summer tournament are driven by the purely selfish concern that it may impact their team - especially at the start of the season. Pep himself has already jumped on that bandwagon, whining about the possible detriments to City in the domestic league from their participation in America. (He's just getting his excuses in early, as the tournament exposed the fact that his Manchester City might be quite poor again next season, the 'no defence' problem still not fixed!) It's notable, I think, that there were no such complaints before they got knocked out; and you'll probably never hear Chelsea fans bitching about the tournament, because they're so surprised and delighted to have reached the Final!

Fantasy managers tend to be even worse in their narrowness of focus, resenting not just the possibility of a player going missing with an injury, but the likelhood of increased rotations, uncertain starts, and reduced minutes - anything that might eat into their precious points tally. But that's such a problem with Pep's City anyway, you never want to risk taking more than one or two of their players! It's really a very small, potential impact on two EPL teams; it shouldn't be that big of a deal. But people are treating it as the most massive and unconscionable source of grievance. It is not: get over it.

This first Club World Cup has gone far better than anyone can really have expected. It has been a huge success, producing a very high level of competition, a few surprises and upsets, some extremely entertaining football (the main media partner, DAZN, is missing a trick by not having put together a 'Goal of the Tournament' reel yet, because there have been some absolute bangers!!) - and it's produced a fascinating Final for us to enjoy tomorrow.

Quit bitching - it's here to stay.

A 'Team of the Tournament'

 

Notice - I said  a 'Team of the Tournament' up there in the heading, not THE Team....

This is not intended to be any sort of definitive verdict on all the teams and players who've participated in this first Club World Cup. It's just a quick snapshot of some of the ones who've most caught my eye - with particular reference to how well they returned in the Fantasy game (while still trying to keep to a formation and a balance of players that could actually work on the pitch - so, I wouldn't allow myself three left-backs!!).

I have deliberately omitted the more major European clubs, to focus more on some of the less well-known teams (to European fans!) that have enjoyed an excellent showcase in this tournament. In fact, I was going to exclude all the quarter-finalists; but I felt that would be a bit rough on Fluminense, because, honestly, no-one expected them to get that far.

Obviously, if we were just going for the outright best players, and the ones who've been most successful in this tournament, we'd probably go for almost the whole of the PSG starting eleven, with perhaps just a token representative or two from Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, and maybe Chelsea - but that wouldn't be very interesting.

So, this is what I've come up with - essentially, the Fantasy picks that worked out best for me. But I'm pleased with the overall diversity in the selection: there's quite a spread of ages, nationalities, and different clubs here.

My Team of the Tournament - Club World Cup 2025

One of the chief pleasures of this tournament for me was being introduced to some previously unknown talents, particularly from the South American clubs. I'm really frustrated that I couldn't find a way to crowbar in a few extra ones like Fluminense's Juan Pablo Freytes, Palmeiras's Joaquin Piquerez, or River Plate's Franco Mastantuono.

What do you think are my worst omissions?

A little bit of Zen (50)

 

"All these moments will be lost in time. Like tears - in rain."

Rutger Hauer ('Roy Batty' in 'Blade Runner')

There is a common story that the Dutch actor himself came up with the celebrated short monologue at the climax of 1982's Blade Runner, just before Roy Batty, the charismatic antagonist of the film that he played, reaches his pre-ordained expiry date on the rain-drenched rooftop. However, I've never found any substantiation of that claim, and I suspect it's just a legend. It certainly seems improbable that such a sophisticated piece of dialogue could have been purely improvised in the moment. We should probably give at least some of the credit to the great screenwriter David Webb Peoples (who also wrote the scripts for Unforgiven, 12 Monkeys, and the criminally underrated Hero; even if it's a relatively short filmography, it's pretty hard to top!).

I get a bit emotonal whenever we near the end of a big football tournament - particularly one as surprisingly exciting and entertaining as this first Club World Cup event has proved to be. We need to savour such moments of joy while we can.

Almost done...

 

So, it's nearly over: the first Club World Cup Tournament is down to its last game. It's been a hell of a ride so far. I wonder if there might yet be one or two surprises in store for us on Sunday? 

Funnily enough, I picked Chelsea and PSG to reach the Final (and Chelsea to win!) in my 'bracket prediction' at the start of the competition - though that was more wishful thinking than crystal-ball confidence!

After PSG's demolition of Real Madrid, I imagine the betting market for the game is revolving around how many goals the Paris team are going to win by.... But Chelsea, as I said the other day, have a certain amount of momentum behind them now, having played with a lot of confidence and determination to overcome adversity in their progress to this point. And Joao Pedro, outstanding the other day, is currently looking the best forward to have appeared in the whole competition. (Although he's not really a forward. I don't know what position he was supposed to be playing on Tuesday, but it sure as hell wasn't a No. 9; 'false 9' or 'joint 10', maybe - but he hardly set foot in the box all game.)

The semi-finals, while they had plenty of excellent football, were a bit of a disappointment as contests. I had been wary of making any firm prediction for them, because I felt they could both potentially be very close. But it didn't really turn out that way!

Fluminense, perhaps, finally ran into 'altitude sickness', a faltering of self-belief as they realised how much further they'd progressed than anyone, themselves included, had ever expected. But if that penalty award just before half-time hadn't been overturned on review, that might have given them the lift they needed to go after the game. Or indeed, if Cucurella hadn't pulled off that remarkable goal-line clearance from Arias, they might immediately have been back on terms after Joao Pedro's confidence-sapping opener. The penalty decision ultimately seemed fair; Chalobah did appear to be trying to pull his arm out of the way of the ball rather than moving towards it (although it might have been slightly ambiguous: as he swivelled his torso away from the ball, centrifugal force made his arm sway slightly away from his body towards it...). However, we've seen an awful lot of penalties given for incidents like that in recent years. And we almost never see VAR daring to query the referee's decision on something like that. So, that was a very hard blow for the Brazilians. As were the two wonder-strikes out of nothing from their former player - ultimately the only difference between the two sides: Chelsea had two chances and put them both away emphatically, Fluminense had rather more but couldn't make any of them count. (And I'd be curious to see what the xG calculation was for Joao Pedro's brace: very, very low, I would expect!)

And if the 'Many Universes' theory is true, I would imagine that there are a large number of possible worlds where Real romped away with an improbably comfortable win over PSG, rather than vice versa. Having both of the usually immaculate centre-backs, Asencio and Rudiger, lose possession in front of their goal to give up easy chances.... in the first 10 minutes of the match??!! No-one was predicting that! The game was pretty much dead-and-buried almost before it had begun.

Alas, the Fantasy game is pretty much dead-and-buried too. This is the unfortunate weakness of Fantasy games in knockout tournaments: with progressively fewer teams (and, usually, cagier matches as there's more and more on the line), points returns dwindle in the later rounds; and with only a single game on the last MatchDay, there's very little scope for differentiation, little hope for making up even a small deficit over a rival. Going for one of the subs (like Goncalo Ramos), who might possibly contribute a goal or assist late in the game, could provide a bit of an edge. But in all probability, rankings for the last MatchDay will be determined mainly by how well you did with your captaincy choice.

I keep my interest in the game going by focusing on the round-by-round head-to-head tally against my principal antagonist - my best drinking buddy from college days. He managed to get a monster score in the 'Round of 16', and despite trouncing him in two of the group rounds and the quarters and the semis, I still haven't quite clawed back the gap - and almost certainly won't now be able to. But coming out on top in the Final, by even a solitary point, will confer epic bragging rights.  [Well, what do you know.... I bet heavily on Chelsea, putting Sanchez in goal; while my friend backed PSG and went with Donnarumma. I was chasing a daunting 17-point deficit and wound up with a 45-point advantage in the final game!! Still a rather disappointing tournament for me overall, though. I had hoped to top 500 points, but in fact barely scraped above the 'adequate' threshold of 450 with a fairly strong finish in the last two rounds. I suppose that was still in the top 5%, but I had aspired for much better than that. Fairly poor returns in MD1 and the 'Round of 16' cost me heavily; and I never quite managed the magical ton-up in a round to redeem those set-backs.]

In the Many Universes,  I imagine at least 75% of them see Paris St Germain cruise to the title quite comfortably. But I have an inkling we might live in one of the other ones - one of the ones where Palmer and Joao Pedro, and Cucurella and Gusto, pull off something remarkable. 

Either way, it should be a cracking game!!

An ADDENDUM

I realise I omitted one small but quite important little wrinkle in my earlier post on Fantasy tactics for a knockout tournament like the current Club World Cup.

I did so because the main post was getting over-long. And also because I felt this was pretty obvious. But tournaments of this type come up so rarely - and are so brief compared to the 9-month week-in/week-out grind of a Fantasy Football game based on a domestic league - that many Fantasy enthusiasts really seem to struggle to get their heads around them. (I suspect, in fact, that many people only play the Fantasy Euros tournament once every 4 years or so. World Cup Fantasy ought to be HUGE; but it isn't, because FIFA is crap - the game is badly put together, and receives almost no promotion. And I don't even know if there is a Fantasy game for AFCON or the Copa America...?)

Hence this supplement....

One way you can spread risk a little, to try to contain the problem of possibly disastrous losses of players to elimination if one or two results go against you in the knockout rounds of the tournament is.... to balance up the number of players you have from each side in a tie. If you have 3 players from both teams - or 4, or 5, or 6 - you're bound to lose that many players whatever the result, but you also know how many you're definitely going to be keeping. (And, of course, you don't have to balance the numbers on each side exactly: 5 + 4 or 4 + 3 is fine.)  If you only back one team in a tie, you can't afford to risk taking many players from them.

This possibility of backing both sides in a game is generally of most use in the semi-finals - although it can occasionally be applicable in the quarter-finals too.

And it's most appealing where you have two of the best teams drawn against each other, so you know you're going to want lots of these players in the next round, whoever goes through - but it's dangerous/impossible to predict which of them will.

As I said in the earlier post, I don't usually like to take more than 4 players from one team in the semi-final round. But in exceptional circumstances, you might push that limit a little.

In the Final, you can get by with a light bench, or even no bench at all; and in the Club World Cup, we're getting 6 Free Transfers ahead of the last game (in some tournaments it's 7!), so you could in theory risk losing up to 10 players from the semi-finals and still muster a full starting eleven for the Final, without having to spend any points on additional transfers. The most obvious way to do this with the current semi-final match-ups is to take 5 players each from Paris St Germain and Real Madrid (you might even go to 6 players from one of them) and a lesser number from Chelsea (few or none from Fluminense, since no-one seems to fancy their chances very highly; though you might perhaps have one or two budget-saving gaps on the bench by now - so, only 2 or 3 or 4 Chelsea players, 1 or 0 from Fluminense). 

This way, even with 6 players from one of the favourites, you couldn't possibly lose more than 10 players to elimination. If you took 5 or 6 players each from two teams in different ties, it could be disastrous for you if they both lost (however remote that possibility might appear, it could happen!). Therefore, if you want to take a large number of players from two teams in a late round of a knockout competition - you can only afford to do it if they're playing each other.

However,... it is extremely likely that you will also lose 1 or 2 players at least to injury or suspension (or falling-out with their manager, or 'family issue', or whatever...). And, as I said, a lot of people have already opted to leave 1 or 2 gaps in the squad, so the number you can lose to elimination is reduced by that amount. Plus, you'd probably really like to have some Free Transfers still available to be able to make some elective changes - swapping in players who look to be coming into stronger form than some of the ones you have already.

So, you really don't want to take such liberties with the elimination risk by exposing yourself to the maximum possible loss - or anywhere near it, ideally (though, generally, that's just about impossible to avoid getting pretty near that scary limit).

But actually, an even stronger reason to avoid taking a large number of players from one team is that it probably won't do you much good, even in the current round. There are only a handful of players, even in a really elite team, who are going to produce good Fantasy returns in a game. You usually do better to identify one or two of the most promising prospects from a less fancied team than by loading up on more Galacticos....  And this is even more the case where two top teams are facing each other, as we will soon have with PSG and Real. Hopefully, it will be a feast of football; but it is also likely to be a pretty tight, and possibly quite a low-scoring game - in which few if any of the players deliver big Fantasy returns.

Fantasy football tactics for a short knockout tournament (in a nutshell)

I've already touched slightly on the Fantasy tactics for knockout tournaments, in relation to the inaugural FIFA Club World Cup currently going on, notably in this post last week, But I thought I'd take a moment to sketch out the basics in a little more detail now.

The main points to watch out for are:

1) Not quite the game you're used to

Be aware of the rule differences (particularly in points allocations!) from Fantasy Premier League, or any other Fantasy football games you play more regularly. Small differences in the points weightings for different positions can have quite a big impact on the players you choose for certain positions, or the optimum formation you might go with for different sets of fixtures.

2)  The group phase lottery

In the group stage, be aware of the wide variation in fixture difficulty from one batch of matches to the next, and of the likelihood of heavy rotation in squads. It is very, very difficult to plan effectively for the short group stage of tournaments like this - usually only three matches - because: a) You're largely playing blind on MatchDay 1, having very little idea of the likely form, fitness, or selections even at the teams you're most familiar with; and it's inevitable in a bigger tournament that there will be at least a few teams about whom you know next-to-nothing,... some of whom might turn out to be better than you expect.  b) There are probably a few very weak teams who offer the prospect of big points for almost any opponent; but you might not be quite sure who they are until after MatchDay 1; and, in any event, you don't have enough Free Transfers to keep optimising your team against these weaker competitors from one MatchDay to the next. Moreover, stronger teams may be tempted to rest some of their best players against opponents like this, even if qualification is not yet completely settled. c) There will usually be some 'dead rubbers' on MatchDay 3, where teams have little or nothing to play for (other than pride!), and may field a weakened lineup or be lacking in motivation. d) It is quite common for top players recovering from an injury to be brought to a tournament in the hope that they will be able to participate in the later stages. Even if they are 'fully fit', concerns about fatigue after the domestic season may lead to them getting rested in the earlier games. Just because a big name is included in the squad, it doesn't guarantee he's going to appear - much, or sometimes at all - in the group games.

3)  'Second chances'!!

Make the most of the 'manual substitutions' feature! Being able to swap out disappointing players for ones who have yet to play (and in some games, like the current Club World Cup Fantasy, also to have a second chance at picking the recipient of your captain's bonus) can be enormously valuable. So, you should always have not just a full bench, but a strong one; and you need to make sure that the players you initially leave on the bench are playing as late as possible in the MatchDay, so that you will have the maximum opportunity to to review the performance of your players playing on earlier days and consider switching them out. (Remember, there's a lot of flexibility as to formations; so, you're not restricted to swapping a forward for a forward, etc.; you can usually sub out a player from any position [except goalkeeper, of course] for one of any other position.)

4)  Emptying the bench cautiously, later on

However, in later rounds, you might consider gradually emptying your bench. As the games in each round become fewer (and less far apart; and, often, much more closely contested - meaning there might be low points for all attacking players, and perhaps scarcely any for keepers and defenders), the value of the manual substitutions is gradually diminished. In the Final, manual substitutions are no longer posssible, and the remaining value of your bench in being able to replace any unexpected non-starters by automatic substitutions (as in the regular Fantasy Premier League game) might be fairly minimal; so, you can consider having at least one or two gaps on the bench for that last game, perhaps even leaving it completely empty. For the 'Round of 16' - and sometimes, perhaps, for the Quarter-Finals too - with multiple games spread across multiple days, it is still worth trying to keep a full and strong bench; but after that, you can hang on to one or two eliminated players - ideally a cheap goalkeeper or defender - as a 'budget enabler' to help you spend a bit more on the rest of your squad. However, leaving gaps in the squad puts you more at risk of needing to use large numbers of extra transfers to rebuild the squad if some of your players are unexpectedly eliminated from the competition (see next point).

5)  Elimination roulette

In the knockout phase, you need to take care to spread risk by never taking too many players from one club. You can't afford to leave yourself short for the subsequent round by landing yourself with a lot of eliminated players. (The game tempts you toward self-destruction by usually allowing you to take far more players from one team than you should sensibly want. And the larger number of transfers than we're used to in extended league format competitions encourages the dangerous hope that we might get away with it, that one wrong guess about a result won't leave us having to take 'hits' for additional transfers. But, oh yes, it can; it very often does.)  As a general rule of thumb, I'd say - try to take no more than 2 players per team in the 'Round of 16', 3 players per team in the Quarter-Finals, and 4 players per team in the Semi-Finals. (Of course, this may vary, depending on whether there are any fixtures in the round that you feel you can trust as absolute gimmes [always a bit of a gamble!], whether you're making do with any empty spaces on your bench, and how many Free Transfers you're allowed for the next round. Also, of course, in the nations' World Cup, there's a Third Place Play-Off game, so you don't necessarily lose anyone from the semi-finals [although you'd rather have as many players in the Final as possible, because it will be a more competitive match, and isn't likely to omit any of the teams' top players].)  And you need to be mindful that, if you max out your number of Free Transfers replacing eliminated players, you may be further screwed by injuries or suspensions; and you have absolutely no wiggle-room for additional elective transfers to swap out players who've shown disappointing form. [I added a footnote to this point a little later.]

6)  Heightened risk-awareness

Remember that this additional hazard of potentially losing players to elimination after each knockout round means that you also have to be extremely careful with other players who present any risk of not playing - those who are an injury doubt, or are threatened with possible rotation, or could be likely to pick up a suspension. In the knockout rounds, you want to try to pick not only players who will do well in this round, but are also virtually certain to play in the next round as well (and, ideally, in the one after that too!).

7)  Chip strategy

The types of 'chips' available vary from tournament to tournament, so you need to be careful to assess what each one may be worth.

There's almost invariably a Wildcard - an 'unlimited transfers' rebuild option, just like we have in FPL. Since you're always allowed a full rebuild anyway after the group phase, the choice on this one is a simple binary: use it to optimise your team for MatchDay 2 (when there are usually a lot of unbalanced match-ups that could produce high points scores, and you should have a better idea of everyone's form and fitness after the first batch of games,.... and you may have found that a lot f your inital picks are not looking too good, not just for MD2 but in general), OR save it for the quarters or semis, as insurance against getting hit hard by eliminations (and injuries and suspensions) in one of those key rounds.

There's sometimes an additional rebuild chip. If it's a Free Hit style of rebuild, reverting to your previous squad after one MatchDay, it's better used in MD2 - as it's very dangerous to use a chip like that in the knockout rounds, unless you're very, very confident in how well you've done in the last round,... that all of your players are going to get through the next round as well (but if you think that, why would use a Free Hit to replace a bunch of them??). Such a chip often boasts the additional advantage of an unlimited budget, but I generally find that to be of little or no practical use as FIFA and UEFA games rarely put any serious pressure on your budget. If it's a simple Wildcard type of chip, it's better to save it for the later rounds, where you might have been badly hit by eliminations in the previous round.

Because of the 'manual substitutions' facility usually available in these games, there's no Bench Boost option. 'Bonus Chips' are typically a 'Maximum Captain', where your captaincy bonus points are automatically ascribed to your highest-returning player (I actually rather prefer this to FPL's Triple Captain), and/or an 'Extra Man', where you can get points from an additional player (outside of your squad, and your budget limit - the purest Fantasy indulgence: "If I could have the points of one player I couldn't afford to fit in my squad, who would it be.... and which Round would that be in??").

'Bonus chips' are almost always of most value in the 'Round of 16' and the 'Quarter-Finals', because there are more games being played, and at least one or two of them should usually have a fairly obvious winner and the prospect of some good points for leading players. There may be a case, depending on form and fixtures, for trying one in the group phase occasionally; but, for me, there is usually too much uncertainty early in the competition. It's probably more valuable to optimise your entire squad for favourable fixtures in MD2 (which will probably require a Wildcard, and thus preclude you from playing a bonus chip); while in MD3 there's too much risk of top players being rested, even if qualifcation is not yet fully assured. And in the later rounds of the competition, games become increasingly cagey, and often the outcomes are impossible to predict with any confidence; we tend to get fewer goals, but also few or no clean sheets - so, no-one earns that many Fantasy points any more (at least, not in any kind of predictable way!).

The inaugural Club World Cup fantasy game also has a novel bonus chip called the 'Qualification Booster' (which, again, I rather like - and hope to see reappear in World Cup Fantasy next summer...): in a knockout round, we get 2 extra points for every player who progresses to the next match - a reward for being able to guess team results correctly. That's almost certain to be best used in the 'Round of 16', because matches become closer and outcomes more unforeseen the further we go into a tournament: even if the matches in the first knockout round seem hard to call, it's bound to become harder still in the subsequent rounds.

Sorry, this ended up being rather longer than I'd intended. But I think it is just about everything you could possibly need to know about Fantasy games for knockout tournaments. I hope some folks will find it useful. (Now a bit late for the 2025 Club World Cup, of course, but there will be other tournaments of similar format soon enough....)

Definitions, explanations?

It is a source of constant frustration to me that Fantasy Football games - and the companies collating football statistics in general - never seem to offer any attempt at defining the terms they use to designate various aspects of performance. 

And, heck, even carefully framed definitions would not be enough. There is always scope for some ambiguity, for some borderline cases which defy convenient classification within one description rather than another. Ideally - as with exam marking schemes and tax regulations - you need not just the basic rule, but amplified interpretation guidelines, and detailed discussion of some illustrative example cases. I fear there's no chance of ever getting anything like that from FPL or Opta.  [And while we're dreaming of a better world, fuller 'implementation guidelines' for our referees from the FA and PGMOL would be helpful too!]

This omission is particularly galling in the current Fantasy Club World Cup game, where, instead of awarding general 'bonus points' based on a range of indicators of overall player performance, we are supposed to be getting extra points for certain individual game actions. But it is very unclear how or even if this is actually working, as the game site doesn't provide any tabulated player statistics [one of the most galling of its many, many shortcomings], and it's a bit of a rigmarole even to root out MatchDay figures for players in your current squad; and when you do find them, there's no justification given for them.

Far fewer points seem to be being awarded under these additional categories than we would have reasonably expected before the tournament. Often, it's been a struggle to find any such points being awarded in a MatchDay.

Are goalkeepers somehow making hardly any saves in this tournament? Are forwards not having any shots on target? Are midfielders not completing any tackles, or creating any chances??

That doesn't accord with the viewer's subjective experience - that it has been a high-quality tournament, with lots of excellent attacking play, and, in most games, quite a large number of scoring chances for both sides.

We must conclude that either the game is sometimes omitting to apply the appropriate points for these game actions, or the stats provider is somehow egregiously miscounting/misrecording them, or.... they're using extremely narrow definitions which exclude the majority of game actions that most people would expect to be eligible for counting under a commonsense view.

Chances created - does that mean only 'missed chances' and exclude actual goals?! If it encompasses 'missed chances', does that include instances where the attacker was put in a good position for an attempt on goal, but shanked his shot, or miscontrolled the ball initially, or hesitated for a moment before shooting and so allowed defenders to recover and get a block in, or was dispossessed just as he was pulling the trigger by a heroic last-ditch challenge? Or does it include only actual goals? (But if so, how is that different from the more familiar term 'assists'? Why not just use that instead??) I imagine there's a lot of definitional overlap here with what constitutes a 'shot on target' (see next point, below), so probably also includes at least efforts that required saves to be made by the keeper. Does it include players who 'make a chance' for themselves by - carrying the ball forward a long distance, or jinking past a couple of defenders to break into the box, or cutting inside and racing away from a marker to find room for a shot? Common sense would say 'YES' - but heaven knows what FIFA and their Fantasy game has decided. And I'd really love if it included key contributions earlier in the move - the tackle that wins possession, or the early pass that carves open the defence - rather than just the final 'assist' (which is often just an easy lay-off, or sometimes even a miskick or an accidental deflection).

Alas, I think the definition the game is using can include none of these latter possibilities, since only a handful of players in the whole competition so far seem to have been credited with even 2 'chances created' in a match.

Shots on target - that ought to be a bit less problematic, but it's not entirely straightforward either. It's always frustrated me that stats compilers treat attempts that strike the woodwork as 'off-target' - which seems very harsh. (We really need an additional category of 'near miss' to give proper recognition to such efforts.)  Presumably headers, etc. count as well as shots with the foot; so, that's clumsy wording right there - why don't they say 'attempts on target'? And do they draw any distinction between shots blocked close to the player and further away? A player who just fires off a shot when there's a crowd of players in front of him, hoping that his effort might somehow find a path through their legs, probably doesn't deserve to have that considered a 'shot on target'; and it's difficult to see where the shot is bound anyway, when it hits another player almost immediately - on target or not? But... sometimes such hit-and-hope efforts do end up going in! Where do you draw the line on this - between a shot that never had much chance of getting past an intervening player and one where you're crediting the defender with making a fine block?  And what about 'tame' shots that are hit too softly and/or too close to the keeper to be of any real danger - do they not count? Again, occasionally a keeper will make a complete pig's-ear of such an unthreatening attempt and fumble it into his own goal,...... so, perhaps they all should count??? And, wait.... are actual goals excluded from this 'shots on target' count?? (It looks to me as if they must be.)

Saves - that last point feeds into this as well: does a keeper get credit for catching a ball that's kicked pretty much straight at him? What about if it's hit with a lot of pace, and maybe swerving in the air a little, but still straight at him? And I rather fear that 'saves' are only seen to encompass blocking, diverting or catching attempts which are bound directly for goal; but smothering the ball at an attacker's feet or pawing it away from him (especially if the keeper is the last man) or diverting a square-ball across the six-yard box heading towards an onrushing attacker, or catching a cross that's bound for an unmarked opponent at the far post - these are also 'goal-preventing actions' and really ought to receive the same credit as conventional 'saves'.

In the Euros last summer, they were awarding defenders and midfielders points for 'ball recoveries'. That seemed to work a bit better, in that it was fairly consistent and predictable which players would benefit most from this, and - in the absence again of conventional 'bonus points' - it had a significant impact on points returns and was a major driver of selection decisions. But even there, there was an opacity about what the hell the term actually meant.

Ball recoveries - presumably refers to 'turnovers of possesion' (but why didn't they just say that?); but it sounds as if it should mean only recovering possession after a ball has run loose, after it has not been clearly under either team's control for a short period; and that would be a very narrow category indeed! They probably wanted to come up with a term that suggested all forms of recovery of possession - but why didn't they just say that? Or why didn't they content themselves with using 'tackles' or 'duels' instead? Those terms aren't completely free of ambiguity, but they're more common and more straightforward than 'ball recoveries'. 'Duels', I suppose, encompass both tackles with the feet and aerial challenges - and perhaps also shouldering an opponent off the ball or using your body to stop him reaching the ball (without it being a foul!)? 'Duels' would have been a more readily understood category description to adopt than 'ball recoveries', I think. But 'duels' can be both active and passive: taking the ball off an opponent (or prevailing in a '50/50' contest) or resisting having the ball taken off you. I suppose 'ball recoveries' refer only to the former - but it wouldn't be too difficult to make that clear.

Tackles - this would appear to be the simplest and most uncontroversial category for deciding additional points allocations of this sort, and I wish they'd use this instead. But even with this, there are some potential problems. Is a tackle 'won' the moment it dispossesses an opponent, or does the tackler have to retain possession of the ball himself?? Very often a ball will break to a teammate - perhaps somewhat fortuitously - rather than being retained by the tackling player. And sometimes the ball will just run loose into space, with neither team immediately having possession of it, but a teammate of the tackler will be able to respond quickest to recover it. Are these 'tackles won' or not?

Definitions MATTER. And they're too complex to be encapsulated in a simple phrase or sentence; they require extended explanations to clarify them.

What next?

Well, hats off to Fluminense! I have made the classic mistake of dismissing - or at least undervaluing - someone's chances without sufficient information. I now realise they are one of the very few teams (the only one in the last eight) that I hadn't seen in action for at least one full game in this tournament. Watching only the extended highlights and reading multiple match reports just aren't an adequate substitute for your own 'eye test'.

The other games played out much as I expected: Real winning fairly comfortably against a lacklustre Dortmund; PSG and Chelsea also progressing, but in much tighter contests.

It was a disappointment that Al Hilal, after their sterling performance against City in the quarter-final, just didn't turn up for this one. It might have been an emotional reaction, a heavy comedown from the high of that achievement; and some of their players might have had their heads taken out of the game by the sad news about the death of Diogo Jota (his Portuguese teammates Joao Cancelo and Ruben Neves were, of course, particularly emotional; but the whole team looked very shaken during the moment of commemoration before the start of the game; poor Neves, a very close friend of Jota's, was in floods of tears). Or maybe it was just the physical toll of having had to play extra time in such suffocating heat and humidity in the previous match against City. That drain of extra time in extreme weather to get past Benfica might have been a problem for Chelsea too, who dominated comfortably for the first 20 or 25 minutes and took an early lead, but then unaccountably took their foot right off the gas to let Palmeiras walk all over them for the next two quarters of the game.

Al Hilal can also feel rather ill-served by the officals in their match. I've long had reservations about Danny Makkelie's competence for top-flight refereeing: he strikes me as one of those somewhat arrogant, prima-donna-ish refs who are perhaps insufficiently self-reflective.... and hence prone to being wildly erratic in some of their decision-making. Perhaps his unfortunate reputation for major errors in high-profile matches is just a function of the fact that he gets put in charge of so many high-profile matches; but it seems to me that with such a long record of controversy now, FIFA really ought to be downgrading him a little bit, not putting him in the firing-line quite so often (maybe they thought they were giving him a low-pressure assignment by allocating him to the tie with the two least glamorous teams remaining in the competition?). To be fair, he was perhaps a bit unlucky that, in a hard-fought game, there was an exceptionally high number of close calls: challenges where he thought there wasn't any contact, but there was; and challenges where he thought there was contact, but there wasn't - or not enough for a foul. And it probably is just an unfortunate coincidence that very nearly every one of these bad calls was to Al Hilal's detriment. 

And the three most contentious decisions - the three penalty shouts turned down - in effect rested with VAR rather than him (or at least, they should have done; maybe the off-field team felt hamstrung by the 'clear and obvious error' nonsense; although in the first instance, they did direct Makkelie to take a second look - which prejudiced him towards reversing his onfield decision when he probably shouldn't have). Admittedly the victim 'went down easily' in all three cases; but in all three cases, there definitely was contact - in the middle instance, full-on wrestling. I do not see how that 'possible holding' cannot have at least been worth a second look. For the last one, replays from behind the goal showed that the defender clearly trod on the attacker's heel - which Makkelie probably couldn't see. That kind of thing is given as a penalty 99 times out of 100; and it was certainly worth the referee having a second view of it. The victim going to ground somewhat theatrically should not disqualify him from receiving the penalty. (And with that kind of foul, it takes a moment for the pain to become noticeable and start to spread; indeed it may create a chronic soreness at the base of the Achilles, which you won't fully feel until you try to push off on that leg - and then perhaps suffer an awful moment of panic that you have have suffered a tear to that tendon. Collapsing a second or so after an impact like that is quite a natural reaction, not necessarily forced, exaggerated, 'play-acting'...) And for the first one, where Makkelie reversed himself, he came up with the - to me - bizarre justification that the incident had been just 'a normal football contact' - which smacks of him inventing rationalisations that don't necessarily accord with the rules. I am not aware of that phrase occurring in the Laws of the Game, certainly not as a defining criterion for contact fouls. The defender caught the attacker's heel with his foot, and it unbalanced him, brought him down; it doesn't have to be deliberate - it just has to be causally decisive.

If a team has three such solid appeals for a penalty in a game, they usually get at least one of them! So, in that regard, Al Hilal may feel they were robbed. But honestly, while the dubious refereeing cast a shadow over the match, it probably wasn't really decisive. Fluminense were much the better team on the day, and well worthy of the win.

PSG and Real clearly have much the strongest squads in the tournament, but... neither have really showed their best yet. Ousmane Dembélé is only just back from his injury, and while he looked very sharp in his 20-minute cameo at the weekend, it seems unlikely he's yet ready to start a game. Ditto Kylian Mbappé, returning as a late impact sub after a debilitating spell of stomach illness. I would favour PSG to prevail in that semi-final - but it's really a bit of a coin-toss: one or two moments of genius from one of the several outstanding talents on either side could turn the match on its head.

And whoever comes through that 'de facto Final' could still face an unpleasant surprise in the actual Final. The two giants of Europe might have the star-studded rosters, but it's the teams in the other semi-final, Fluminense and Chelsea, who seem to have got some momentum going for them in the tournament. I've been really impressed by how Chelsea, despite suffering potentially devastating setbacks in their last two games (an unjust last-gasp penalty award against them in the Benfica game, and then a wondergoal [or 'outrageous fluke'.... or yet another Sanchez cock-up.... depending on your persuasion] from young Estevao Willian in the Palmeiras clash). bounced back confidently to power through to victory anyway. But Fluminense are looking like the best team in the tournament; not the best club or the best squad or the team with the best players, but the team that is playing together best as a team.... and hence 'punching above their weight'. Without any 'big names', they are just functioning superbly well as a unit, consistently showing themselves well-organised, hard-working - and giving up very few chances.

The odds are, I fear, that either of these two will choke when they face such a daunting and glamorous opponent in the Final; but they are potentially good enough to win it, if they can hold their nerve and concentration. But I haven't a clue who will win their semi-final against each other.

With all three of the remaining games in this Club World Cup probably being too close to call with any confidence, where does that leave us with selections for the Fantasy game?

Well, as I said the other day, I think we just have to hedge our bets a bit, by not taking too many players from any one club. (Even in a tournament where one of the ties does look very one-sided, it's still a huge risk to go all-in on a team by taking 5 or 6 of their players. An upset result could devastate your prospects in the subsequent round.)  I should try to put together a separate post on tactics for knockout tournaments in a day or two.

GOOD LUCK, EVERYONE!!!

What next?

 

Well, well, well - the big 'upset' I barely dared to wish for has indeed come to pass, with Pep's Manchester City being well-beaten by Al Hilal on Monday night (turns out that, even with new players onboard and tweaks of set-up.... City are still defenceless against counter-attacks!). And on the same day, Inter Milan, who came so close to winning Serie A and the Champions League this season, were booted out of the Club World Cup by lowly Fluminense.

After two such expectation-defying results in quick succession, we should be very wary of prognosticating on the quarter-final round of this fascinating competition. But I'll try....

It is unfortunate that, thanks to Bayern screwing up in their final group game against Benfica, the two teams which I - and everyone else! - had expected to be the leading contenders for the title wound up in the same half of the draw, and are playing each other in a quarter-final. It is hard not to regard this as probably the de facto final, since no-one else in the competition - not even Real Madrid - has looked anywhere near these two so far.

The additional excitement/uncertainty in this clash of the titans centres on the possible impact of Ousmane Dembele and Jamal Musiala. Both have been struggling with injury, but seem to be possibly poised for a full return. I fear it's unlikely that either of them will in fact play the full 90 minutes, and they're unlikely to be anywhere near their best, even if they do; but even a cameo from players of this calibre can turn a match...

Bayern have struggled for consistency so far, and there are question-marks over their somewhat makeshift defence. Harry Kane appears to have brought his scoring boots to the tournament; but we haven't seen that much of a threat from anyone else (except in that Auckland game, which obviously doesn't count). Before the tournament kicked off, I worried that their Champions League triumph might have taken some of the edge off PSG's appetite-for-glory - but it doesn't look like it; they seem eager and determined to me, intent on further success. So, I'd be betting on PSG for this one - although it might be very close, and I'm hoping above all for a really good game. (A few weeks ago, I would have said that this match-up was almost bound to be the 'Game of the Tournament'; but now it's going to be very hard to top Al Hilal's stirring demolition of City!)

Real Madrid have been misfiring a little so far (also nearly getting beaten by Inzaghi's Al Hilal in the group stage). With Mbappe out with illness, and Vini Jnr and Rodrygo blowing hot and cold with remarkable rapidity, they've lacked much incisiveness up front. But there are signs that new manager Xabi Alonso is starting to put his stamp on them, and I'd expect them to get better with each game. And they are a club that loves to win big trophies, so they might have a very good chance in the likely semi-final against PSG or Bayern, (Yep, sorry, Dortmund, you just haven't looked very good in this tournament so far, and it will be a cold day in hell before you can upset Los Blancos here....)

For sentimentalists it's perhaps a pity that the last round's two 'giant-killers', Fluminense and Al Hilal, have to go up against each other now; but at least that guarantees there'll be at least one non-European team in the semi-finals - which must be good for the tournament, and for its aim of promoting the development of the world game across other continents.  Alas, I feel Fluminense have relied mainly on defensive stubbornness, and they've probably now gone a bit further than they really deserved to. Meanwhile, Simone Inzaghi, one of the most inventive and inspirational coaches to emerge in the last few years, seems to have been able to work some of his magic on Al Hilal immediately - and they now look like they wouldn't be at all out of place in the semi-final, or the final,.... or even winning the Cup (if the European big boys from the other half of the draw should happen to have a slightly off day against them). Would that console Inzaghi for the pain of his parting from Inter, would it make up for that damp squib of a performance in the Champions League Final? Will he have an opportunity of revenge against PSG??  It would be quite a fairytale! I wouldn't bet on it. But I do dream fondly of the possibility.

Palmeiras v Chelsea might be the toughest of the lot to call. The Brazilian side have looked very good so far, but, as with Fluminense, I have a feeling that their charge may have run out of steam now - having already progressed a little bit further than they probably expected. And the loss of Joaquin Piquerez and Gustavo Gomez to suspension is bound to weaken them in defence. Chelsea will similarly be missing their midfield lynchpin Moises Caicedo after he picked up a second yellow card against Benfica (there's an amnesty on accumulated yellow cards after this round, so we can probably expect some uninhibited tackling in these games!!), but hopefully that won't have quite such a damaging impact, so long as Romeo Lavia's still fit (presumably Enzo Fernandez will drop back alongside him in the double-pivot, which will reduce their attacking options - but it shouldn't be the end of the world). Cole Palmer has started to show some of his magic again, having a fierce near-post shot heroically clawed away by Trubin in the Benfica match, and being credited with assists on two of the four Chelsea goals. It would be nice to see him really catch fire again in this tournament; and Palmeiras look like a good opportunity for that to happen. Moreover, the spirit Chelsea showed the other night in not being disheartened by the unjust penalty award against them in the dying minutes of regular time, but immediately refocusing again and powering on to a comfortable win - that was really very impressive. Sure, Benfica having a man sent off almost as soon as the extra time started was a big help, but that didn't really appear to be the decisive factor; Chelsea were playing with a determination and self-belief that would surely have carried them through against a full-strength opponent. I think that could be the kind of momentum shift that can help carry a team to a title. But we shall see. I'm not completely convinced of Maresca's acuity as a coach, and I can equally imagine them suddenly reverting to the under-performing mess they were from December to April last season.

And from the Fantasy point of view - many people have just received a painful reminder about the importance of spreading risk in your selections in a knockout tournament like this. I've come across a number of opponents in my mini-leagues who are now left without 7 or 8 players (just through eliminations - never mind possible injuries or suspensions, or elective changes you might hanker to make on grounds of form or whatever), and have only 4 Free Transfers to work with going into this round. Alas, you just have to restrict yourself to 2-players-per-club in the 'Round of 16' (never mind that the game allows you more...), even if you're really confident they're bound to go through to the next round (so many people felt like that about City!!). And you can't afford to take any players from clubs that you're not really confident will go through. (It's unlikely that even an outstanding points-prospect like Yildiz or Otamendi can produce a good haul in a game they don't win. And even if, by some miracle, they did - you have to weigh that against being left with a short squad when they're eliminated; and against not getting any of those juicy extra points from them under the 'Qualification Bonus' chip [which really should have been played on the 'Round of 16' - as the games are only going to get even more difficult to predict from here on...].)  Indeed, you really want to focus on the clubs you think will win not only the quarter-finals, but the semis too - to put yourself in the strongest possible position for the Final; but with unpleasant surprises always possible in a knockout competition, you can't afford to lean too heavily into any one team. (still no more than 3 or 4 players-per-club for the quarter-finals, I'd say).

However, given the facility in this Fantasy game to make multiple 'manual substitutions' - and take a second guess at your captaincy choice mid-stream! - during the MatchDay, your bench has enormous value. (In every round so far, I've had at least 3 or 4 of my original starters who returned only 2 or 3 points - or 1, or 0,... or -1! - but who I was able to replace with a bench player who produced at least 5 or 6 points. On that basis alone, it is certainly worth taking as many 'hits' as you need to in order to restore your squad to full strength (particularly as paid transfters here only cost 3 points rather than the 4 points we're accustomed to in FPL). And even if you're not swayed by the cold logic of mathematics on this (or you just can't be bothered with the additional hassle of attending to in-game substitutions), it's dangerous to leave your squad short because that's just saving up more woe for the next round. You should expect that at least one team in the last eight will go out 'unexpectedly' (plus, of course, either Paris or Bayern must), and if you already had holes in your squad, you could find yourself very short going into the semi-finals. You'll have 5 Free Transfers to address those problems with; but if all or most of those have to get used simply on plugging gaps, you won't be able to do much in the way of elective transfers to bring in the players hitting the hottest form.

In tournaments like this, it's vital to plan to try to minimize the number of players who get eliminated from your squad in each knockout round. And if the breaks go against you, and you lose a lot of players anyway - you just have to bite the bullet and spend points to replace them. 

The one exception is that you might feel able to do without a back-up keeper - particularly in this tournament, as the three best goalies are now adjacent to each other in the draw and will play against each other in a quarter- and semi-final (so, you might want to avoid all of them until the Final...). Keeping a cheaper second keeper from the 'Round of 16', even after they've been eliminated, can be a useful 'budget enabler' to help you strengthen your core squad a little. But for the rest of the bench, I wouldn't want to go light. If you're really confident in your initial starters, you might perhaps leave one empty seat rather than spend points on another transfer - but that's about it.  (Except in the Final, of course; there, with no more manual substitutions possible, the bench suddenly has very limited value, and it probably won't hurt too much to leave it completely empty.)

==