Alf Bentley

A proviso.... I've watched all matches on at a civilised hour (5pm-11pm), tried to watch Panama v Ghana but fell asleep, only seen 8-min highlights of the other matches..... Another proviso....There are always teams that start well, then bomb out - and teams that start slowly, but improve and go the distance... Generous 1. England: Second half performance deserves a high rating, but chaotic and vulnerable in the 1st half. If they play like that in the knockouts, they'll be knocked out by any good side. Hopefully, they've learned some important lessons: e.g. quick passing, stronger closing down, more courage going forward (as per 2nd half). 8. Austria: From what I saw, Austria should be ranked about 24th. Seemed OK but moderate. 9. Scotland: Based on highlights, should be rated about 40th - played poorly to scrape a 1-0 against weak opponents. Unless they raise their game markedly, won't make the knockouts. Friends who watched the whole match agree. 34. Czechia: Based on highlights, they seemed a bit crap to me! 39. Paraguay: Were even worse than 39th, on the day. May yet recover... 40. South Africa: See above, but I wouldn't expect them to recover.... 47. Curaçao: Not the worst side based on ability - they gave the Germans a good game for 40+ mins. But that was a terrible capitulation in the 2nd half, suggesting they lack self-confidence and will struggle to get over such a defeat. Could well get hammered by Ecuador & Ivory Coast, too. Harsh 12. USA: Worth slightly higher? Although they did face weak opposition on the day 18. Morocco: Based on highlights, looked a strong side that could've beaten Brazil and could go a long way again. A mate thought they were the best side he's seen. 30. Cape Verde: Would rate a bit higher. That deserved result was based on outstanding concentration and organisation. Might've taken too much out of them for subsequent matches? 33. Croatia: England beat better opposition than 33rd. I expect Croatia to qualify - well organised and created problems for England, scoring 2 excellent goals. 42: Senegal: Should be at least 20 places higher. Gave France, one of the favourites, a very decent game. Tough group, but wouldn't surprise me if they qualify. 43: DR Congo: Again, should be at least 20 places higher. Earned a creditable result (and could've won) on their merits: strong, well-organised, have an attacking threat and, above all, great strength of character, which shouldn't be a surprise, as they overcame Nigeria and Cameroon in playoffs to qualify. I'd expect them to make at least the last 32. 48. Ecuador: Should be around halfway in the league table. Based on highlights, that looked like a high-quality match between 2 good teams, which they lost narrowly at the death. I can see them giving the Germans a game and easily beating Curaçao. All a matter of opinion, of course! Thanks for an interesting thread.

Thanks for posting. I'd not previously seen any media coverage of this.

I started listening to this video, thinking it related to his LCFC appointment. My mood briefly rose when he referred to "the new owners"......but then I realised.

I remember him well as Labour deputy leader to Kinnock, 1983-92, and even as a minister in the Callaghan govt in the 70s. I didn't know he'd been a minister as early as the 60s, under Wilson, though. My family had a tenuous connection with him. My Mum grew up in Sheffield and my Grandma was friendly with Hattersley's mother, so my Mum knew him slightly growing up (he was slightly older than her, but outlasted her by 11+ years).

More qualified than Tony Cascarino, certainly.

Fair comment, though I plead guilty to any charge of pretence. My post was just addressing the charts in the article, not seeking to look at Brexit pros (?) and cons generally. I also probably think less about freedom of movement as, through my Irish Dad, I was able to get Irish passports for myself and my daughter, so as to keep freedom of movement. Though I've not used my Irish passport yet - still used the British one, so far. Come to think of it, there's a massive irony there: British people whose families have immigrated from other EU nations still keep freedom of movement, while "purer" Brits descended from the Normans and Anglo-Saxons don't. Though, to be fair, us Celts were here before them, anyway - our ancestors were mainly pushed across the Irish Sea by the Romans, I think? Perhaps the only fair solution to all the national identity/immigration issues is for all of humanity to return to its roots - and go back to living up trees in the Congo, from where I believe we first descended and started walking, thereby arguably becoming the human race.

I wonder who's taken back control and what of? My guess is that you mean big capital has taken back control of the economy, politics and society to the same extent as in the Victorian era. Either that or you're referring to the Labour Govt taking back control of immigration? Oh well, wrong time to debate as Germany v. Curaçao is almost upon us....

I quite agree that economic stats need to be judged in the longer-term. Politicians (of any party) proclaiming their success or their opponents' failure, based on stats for the latest quarter, are almost certainly making worthless claims for electoral advantage. Mind you, leave it too long and it becomes increasingly difficult to disentangle the economic impacts of a particular event from all the other intervening events/actions. My Dad used to come out with a quote from the 1970s by Chinese politician Zhou En-Lai (?). Apparently, he was asked about the impact of the French Revolution and replied that it was "too early to tell".

Some interesting charts and analysis in this article about the economic and other impacts of Brexit for the UK (not a long or over-complex article): https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/14/how-uk-economy-changed-since-brexit-vote-charts For those without the time or inclination to read it, main points..... - Claims that Brexit would cause an immediate recession & unemployment were wrong - Almost every other prediction of long-term economic damage has proven correct: value of Sterling; growth compared to similar nations; trade in goods; investment & employment all significantly damaged - Trade in services is an exception: UK trade in services has slightly outperformed other G7 nations since Brexit - whereas UK trade in goods has performed much worse. The OBS reckons this is because Boris' Brexit deal created a lot of friction for goods but little for services, so the City of London & big finance has done well, whereas industry, SME manufacturers & farmers have been damaged - Net migration shows more EU citizens leaving than arriving in the past 4 years, but there was a massive surge in non-EU immigration post-Brexit (almost 1m in 2022-23). This happened under Brexit general Boris (& the brief lettuce regime), started to fall in Sunak's last year and has fallen by about 80% since then - Since 2021 (end of transition period), an ever greater percentage of people believe Brexit was a mistake: currently about 58%-31% For those who might suspect The Guardian of bias, the sources for the report seem highly credible: ONS, OECD, G7 & OBS, as well as the authors own statistical modelling.

Whether Vestergaard and Winks would agree and be motivated to play in L1 is one question. They both performed well under Enzoball in the Championship, but I'll be astonished if Winks, at least, doesn't move on. To succeed, they'd also need other good players around them, as if other players are losing possession, they'd be under the sort of attacking pressure that neither is great at dealing with....

This deep possession/manoeuvring style of play only gets teams to the top of a league when a manager has one of the technically best squads in a division. As has been the case with Pep previously, Enzo at LCFC and Martin himself at Saints in the Championship. But.... - Will we have one of the technically best squads in L1 (together with a high level of player motivation, as Enzo did)? That's far from clear yet. Does that mean Top is going to bring such players in? - Even if we did go straight back up, would we then be financially able to upgrade that squad to, at least, start building success at Championship level? If Martin is confirmed as manager, it's going to be very interesting what sort of squad is assembled....

If I was Scottish, I'd certainly be assuming they need another point. It'd be on a knife-edge even if, say, they lose their other 2 matches by 1 goal. If they end up with a GD of -3 or worse, they'd be out, I reckon. There'll probably be 1 or 2 groups where the 3rd place team only has 1 or 2 points - and 1 or 2 other groups where a team scrapes a single 1-goal win, but gets a spanking in another match. So, I reckon the cutoff line will be around a GD of -1 to -3. We'll find out in a week or two, I suppose.

I sort of agree with you, despite not rating either of them particularly highly. Motty always had his positives/negatives (thorough research v. schoolboy nerdishness/over-excitement). Lawro started off fine but descended into a pit of banal, lazy cynicism. But I almost miss them, given some of the rubbish we've been served up thus far. Dreadfully banal, under-informed commentaries interspersed with tedious, under-researched cliche-ridden punditry. I'm enjoying the football so far, but not the commentators/pundits. Even folk who can be good value, like Wright, Richards and Keane, have been dull. I get the impression that many commentators & pundits do very little research into teams, tactics, players etc. That should be the bare minimum, given the massive salaries they're all on.

I posted in another thread that I thought 4 points would guarantee any country 3rd place, at least. I looked at how that prediction compares to recent World Cups - though they had 8 groups, not 12. - In 2022, surprisingly, the 3rd place team got 4 points in 7 out of 8 groups - But, in both 2014 and 2018, the 3rd place team got 4 points in only 2 out of 8 groups. I suspect that 2026 may be more like 2014 & 2018, due to the expansion bringing in weaker teams. I reckon there'll be at least a couple of groups where the 3rd place team has only 1 or 2 points - and quite a number where they have 3 points. So, despite the evidence from 2022, I still think 4 points will mean qualification. I reckon 3 points will mean qualification for some, but elimination for others. So, to qualify I reckon Scotland need either another point or, at the very least, to only lose very narrowly (could be a nailbiter).

If either of those teams beat Qatar, that should take them into the knockout stages. With 8 out of 12 third-placed teams going through, there's bound to be 1-2 groups where the 3rd place team has 1-2 points and several groups where the the 3rd place team has 3 points. 4 points will take any team through, I reckon.

Well, that prediction is off to a good start....

Every thread should have its own theme tune.....

He's going to do something excruciatingly egotistical at some point, isn't he? That could be a whole other poll, but I'll refrain from starting it....

I'd be more critical of the police than you are, but do agree that it was a confusing situation. It can't often happen that the perpetrator of a serious crime calls the police accusing their victim of a lesser crime - though I presume it's more common for someone to call the police, only for them to discover that there are "two sides to the story". I had the same reaction as you to the handcuffing. But, having thought about it, I presume the false accusations that Nowak was drunk may have triggered the handcuffing. The police arrived, probably found Digwa's story quite credible, did a cursory (inadequate) examination of Nowak to check for stab wounds, then assumed he was on the ground due to drunkenness and perhaps having been punched in a scrap - on that (incorrect) assumption, it would've been reasonable of them to think he might "kick off again".... All very sad, both the tragic incident itself and the whole aftermath.

No. The brother of the killer (Digwa) called 999, alleging that a white man (Nowak) had committed a racist assault on them. Apparently, he added that Nowak now needed medical attention, but said that no weapons had been involved. When the police arrived, Digwa was standing and articulate, Nowak was lying on the ground. Digwa repeated the racist assault allegations, also accusing Nowak of having been drunk (subsequent blood tests showed Nowak was under the drink-drive limit). The police should not have just accepted whatever they were told by the people reporting the fictional "racist assault" - otherwise anyone could just accuse someone they don't like of crimes and have the police arrest them. It's understandable that, on arrival, the officers would've expected the aftermath of an assault, perhaps a bit of a scrap - with Digwa as the initial victim, as his brother had reported it. I presume Nowak was handcuffed because a cursory glance didn't reveal signs of a stabbing (the examination should've been more thorough), because an accusation had been made - and because they assumed he was on the ground due to drunkenness and/or getting knocked down in the scrap following an assault. To my mind, these facts suggest inflexible thinking and a grossly inadequate police response, not two-tier policing.

So, I'm still the defender-biting, red card attracting bad boys of South American football... Let's face it, neither Uruguay nor Uzbekistan is going to win the World Cup, but the former has slightly more chance of giving the punter a run for his money. Sorry, @Brizzle Fox, I didn't bribe Stan, honest!

@StanSP You have me down as Uruguay.......and, er, @Brizzle Fox down as Uruguay.... And there we were thinking the biggest WC scandal would be generated by Infantino or Trump.... It looks like nobody is assigned to Uzbekistan. Over to VAR....

Thumbs up for The Fall, Kirsty McColl and The Hitchers, among others. Some shameful omissions.....

Winner - Spain Runner-up - Argentina 3rd and 4th place - England & USA Most Team Goals - Belgium Top Goalscorer - Haaland Most red cards - South Africa Most Goals Conceded - Iraq

1. StanSP 2. Jiggers the Fox 3. Alf Bentley 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 48.