World Cup 2026

[SuspectUsual]

When I heard that my only thought was 'How?!'

All the sensors and gubbins inside it presumably, plus a FIFA markup / Trumplike exaggeration

 

[Jimini]

Anyone else hear Danny Murphy being told off for hitting his microphone after a missed chance for England?

Yeah I heard that. Fulham legend Not as entertaining as his cat update the other week though

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wasn't watching but the rest of my household was.

I took to heart the pre-match postings from website members on this thread which stated the match was meaningless, etc, etc, and watched the original version of Jurassic Park on a different terrestial channel,

Someone had said there were many unsoid tickets for this match, so did the stadium have plenty of spectator-free spaces on view. What was the match attendance?

 

[Peterthegreat]

I took to heart the pre-match postings from website members on this thread which stated the match was meaningless, etc, etc, and watched the original version of Jurassic Park on a different terrestial channel,

Someone had said there were many unsoid tickets for this match, so did the stadium have plenty of spectator-free spaces on view. What was the match attendance?

64,478

 

[Falcon1200]

Mbappe would expect to "make hay whilst the sun shines" against an England defence

France certainly did make hay, albeit only in the second half, but England made a whole field's worth!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Wasn't the 1950 World Cup decided by a final group stage?

Yes, Uruguay, hosts Brazil, Sweden and Spain, all winners of their respective first round groups, then all played each other once in a final group of four. Two points for a win, one for a draw. Whoever finished top, were declared tournament winners. Not a final as such, but Uruguay needed to beat favourites Brazil in their third of these final group games to finish top of the group and so win the tournament by one point, and did. Similarly, Sweden needed to beat Spain in their final group game to finish third, and also did.

 

[Spamcan81]

6-4 - remarkable. An utterly pointless game but at least a fun game to watch!

It’s never pointless when you beat the French

 

[martin butler]

It’s never pointless when you beat the French

Ian, Oldest pastime the English have ever had, Beating the French,

I didn't watch the game, thinking it would be a nothing burger match, I wish now that I had, reading the match reports, we played the French, how we should have played Argentia, with pace, not allowing them to dictate the match.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ian, Oldest pastime the English have ever had, Beating the French,

I didn't watch the game, thinking it would be a nothing burger match, I wish now that I had, reading the match reports, we played the French, how we should have played Argentia, with pace, not allowing them to dictate the match.

I said something similar about not watching the match in an earlier posting on this thread, but was guided in that decision by far more football-knowledgeable website members thread postings.about the match being pointless..

 

[DarloRich]

It’s never pointless when you beat the French

in a glorified friendly? Lets get real. It means nothing

I didn't watch the game, thinking it would be a nothing burger match, I wish now that I had, reading the match reports, we played the French, how we should have played Argentia, with pace, not allowing them to dictate the match.

France weren't bothered in the first half. They turned it up in the second half and should have scored several more than they did. A couple of chances the failed to take were harder to miss than score! I wouldn't hold anything by this game.

England played very well first half but France didn't play at all. They were sat on the bus waiting for the flight home. When they did we got a bit of a lesson. France absolutely dictated the game in the second half and England looked all over the place at times. If they had bothered for 90 minutes we would have lost.

Watch it on I player and decide for yourself. The media have lost their minds over this game.

.about the match being pointless..

It is an absolutely pointless match. Utterly so. The BBC commentator said he had to check who was in the last one and he commentated on it! The one saving grace was that this version of the pointless match was at least fun.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The BBC commentator said he had to check who was in the last one and he commentated on it! The one saving grace was that this version of the pointless match was at least fun.

Are you really surprised by the lack of knowledge of BBC commentators?

 

[DarloRich]

Are you really surprised by the lack of knowledge of BBC commentators?

I think the point is that this is a forgettable game that even people involved with struggle to recall. I don't know who played in the last one and I don't care. I was told on TV yesterday and I have already forgotten. At least this example of the game will be memorable. Memorable but meaningless.

 

[Haywain]

France weren't bothered in the first half. They turned it up in the second half

Nothing to do with the four changes they made? I think you are being rather unfair to England on this - France made 4 changes and England subbed off Rashford which significantly reduced the threat that had caused so many problems in the first half. Yes, France created a good number of chances but the balance moved again when Bellingham was brought on and the utterly ineffective Toney taken off.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think the point is that this is a forgettable game that even people involved with struggle to recall. I don't know who played in the last one and I don't care. I was told on TV yesterday and I have already forgotten. At least this example of the game will be memorable. Memorable but meaningless.

As has been stated previously, the 3rd place play-off with the exception of the early 1930s and in 1950, has been a long-standing tradition. It is not just something conjured up by the organisers in recent years.

64,478 people were in the stands watching the England v France game and I am sure it was not "free admission". British football supporters always decry matches that their teams have normally not played well enough to reach thid level. If the organisers thought such a match was meaningless, they would not award the level of prize money that is paid to the two teams and certainly no award of medals to the winners

Would you ban all those countries such as those not from Europe or South America as such matches are thought to be meaningless?

 

[Northumbriana]

Nothing to do with the four changes they made? I think you are being rather unfair to England on this - France made 4 changes and England subbed off Rashford which significantly reduced the threat that had caused so many problems in the first half. Yes, France created a good number of chances but the balance moved again when Bellingham was brought on and the utterly ineffective Toney taken off.

I was desperate for him to bring Bellingham on earlier then he did just to disrupt France's momentum whilst they attacked at will. It was a bit like the Argentina game where we really just needed to stop the flow of the game for a bit.

 

[EYFanatic]

France weren't bothered in the first half. They turned it up in the second half

Like the summer of 1940 then

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I wonder how many goal attempts were actually made by both England and France in the full period of this match.

 

[Haywain]

I wonder how many goal attempts were actually made by both England and France in the full period of this match.

The stats on the BBC website say there were 38 shots altogether, split 19 each, with 11 on target from England and 9 from France. Curiously, shots on-target and off-target (En 2, Fr 6) don't add up to the total number of shots. The "xG" (I have no idea) was 2.89 to 2.80 in England's favour.

 

[Trackman]

The stats on the BBC website say there were 38 shots altogether, split 19 each, with 11 on target from England and 9 from France. Curiously, shots on-target and off-target (En 2, Fr 6) don't add up to the total number of shots. The "xG" (I have no idea) was 2.89 to 2.80 in England's favour.

xG=Expected goals

 

[CaptainHaddock]

The stats on the BBC website say there were 38 shots altogether, split 19 each, with 11 on target from England and 9 from France. Curiously, shots on-target and off-target (En 2, Fr 6) don't add up to the total number of shots. The "xG" (I have no idea) was 2.89 to 2.80 in England's favour.

I believe "blocked shots" are also included in the total number of shots, hence the disparity.

 

[Haywain]

xG=Expected goals

I know what xG is supposed to mean in terms of words but it's just nonsense for the statisticians. No football fan has ever left a ground taking about their team's 'xG'.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Jul 2026 ==

I believe "blocked shots" are also included in the total number of shots, hence the disparity.

But some of the on-target shots must have been blocked because the score wasn't 11-9.

 

[HSTEd]

But some of the on-target shots must have been blocked because the score wasn't 11-9.

I believe saves by the goalkeeper are not counted as blocked, they are simply on target.

 

[DarloRich]

Nothing to do with the four changes they made? I think you are being rather unfair to England on this - France made 4 changes and England subbed off Rashford which significantly reduced the threat that had caused so many problems in the first half. Yes, France created a good number of chances but the balance moved again when Bellingham was brought on and the utterly ineffective Toney taken off.

see above at post #611

 

[SuspectUsual]

The stats on the BBC website say there were 38 shots altogether, split 19 each, with 11 on target from England and 9 from France. Curiously, shots on-target and off-target (En 2, Fr 6) don't add up to the total number of shots. The "xG" (I have no idea) was 2.89 to 2.80 in England's favour.

I think the numbers do add up for shots on target

France attacking:
Shots 19
On target 9, of which 4 goals and 5 saves (goalkeeper saves in the England stats)

England attacking:
Shots 19
On target 11, of which 6 goals, 4 goalkeeper saves and 1 clearance off the line (both in the France stats)

I think the data for blocked shots exists but isn’t in the BBC data, and if I’m right all blocked shots are considered as shots off target

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Did any of those shots hit either the post or the crossbar?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Did any of those shots hit either the post or the crossbar?

Technically, shots that hit the goal frame and don't then go in, are "off target".

 

[brad465]

What's the betting that the trophy presentation will also see Trump himself receive some sort of manufactured "award"?

 

[SuspectUsual]

What's the betting that the trophy presentation will also see Trump himself receive some sort of manufactured "award"?

My money is on the winning captain being "asked" to wear one of those red MAGA baseball caps

 

[DarloRich]

What's the betting that the trophy presentation will also see Trump himself receive some sort of manufactured "award"?

My money is on the winning captain being "asked" to wear one of those red MAGA baseball caps

can it be any worse than having some sort of celebrity chef involved in the trophy presentation as per Qatar?

 

[SuspectUsual]

can it be any worse than having some sort of celebrity chef involved in the trophy presentation as per Qatar?

And the captain being draped in some sort of crocheted nightie