Other Games - 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup Edition (+ warm-up matches): Villa-watch

[Somniloquism]

The US will struggle to beat Belgium with their best striker suspended.

I expect Infantino is already on the phone to get that decision overturned.

With Belgium it will depend upon whether they still think a midfield of De Bruyne and Tielemans works.

[Monty]

It is for various reasons important to me that Belgium beat the US. So, they'll probably lose.

[Brazilian Villain]

Thank fuck Belgium got through. The thought of US playing Senegal makes me sick as they’d probably go through. They might even beat Belgium.

I think Senegal would have been a tougher tie for the US than an ageing Belgium side.

[paul_e]

The US will struggle to beat Belgium with their best striker suspended.

I expect Infantino is already on the phone to get that decision overturned.

With Belgium it will depend upon whether they still think a midfield of De Bruyne and Tielemans works.

Not just them, Trossard, De Ketelaere and Doku are all part of the same problem. All 5 of them want to play in the same spaces. Look at the average position map at the bottom of here: https://www.sofascore.com/football/match/senegal-belgium/rUbsOUb#id:12813013

Before the subs you couldf throw a blanket over the lot of them:


After the subs Lukaku (9) and Lukabakio(14) push the defence out of shape (along with Meunier(15) playing much wider at right back):


Their manager needs to grow a pair and drop 2-3 of them, Trossard and Doku would be first on the block for me because they shouldn't be anywhere near where they ended up playing but both of them have the same problem a lot of thge England players do of thinking they're roy of the rovers and they need to win the game on their own.

[UK Redsox]

I do like the unashamedly massive fuck off stadiums in America.

...and they're not even using most of the largest ones

[Dave]

A couple of controversial takes that might end badly:

(1) I think England will beat Mexico relatively comfortably. The Ecuador result was impressive, but 1-0 against (now seen to actually be a pretty poor) South Korea, 2-0 against South Africa, 3-0 against Czechia is probably par.

I think for lots of teams, when you've done the thing that you hadn't done before it's easy to drop your intensity levels and consider it job done. For Mexico, that's "win a World Cup knock-out game", which they haven't done since 1986. They've now done it, albeit with the help of an expanded tournament. The crowd and the altitude thing feels a bit like how Turkish stadium atmosphere is built up to be something that makes a big difference. Then the English team turns up and beats Fenerbahçe without getting out of second gear, while ignoring all the whistling.

I think England are also likely to play better against a team which they believe to be more on their level (see Croatia), compared to a team that everyone assumes they have to turn up and swat aside (the other three). I reckon an England win by two, everyone getting excited about how Tuchel has turned it round and in a few years time the same people who are sure that Mexico are going to knock them out will be insisting that "it was only Mexico, of course England were always going to beat Mexico".

(2) I think France are being built up to be more than they are. They're obviously very good and before the start I said that it was odd that Spain were being seen as favourites ahead of them.

But in terms of what they've actually done:

Laboured a bit against a capable Senegal side
Beaten Iraq
Beaten Norway's entire second-choice side
Beaten a Sweden side that didn't win a game in qualifying and got destroyed by an alrightish Netherlands.

They're obviously one of the best sides and may well go on to win it. But there are lots of sides in tournaments that look great to start with, they're assumed to be the obvious winners and then somebody pops them out on penalties in the quarter-finals.

[eye digress]

I'd go along with that, Dave.

England remain a powerhouse, even if underperforming to a degree - actually they are performing in line with recent tournament history, which points at least toward a semi final place. The unanswered question being, can they turn it on against a big team?

France look great, but (first half vs Senegal aside) are yet to experience adversity. Who steps up when the big guns misfire? Can we recall any team that has just gone and steamrollered the WC? I can't bring one to mind. So serious tests must lie ahead. How will they respond?

[Pete3206]

France have moved up a gear whenever they've need to.

[paul_e]

I'm ok with both of those. Mexico will have to attack us a lot more than the last 3 have and that should create a little more space for the 'moments of magic' to happen further forward.

France are a good side but I agree they've just been ok so far, but then I don't think anyone has really got going yet, like England a lot of the bigger sides are coasting on the back of a star player or 2 without actually playing particularly well.

[eye digress]

Villa goggles on: how is it that in this crucial game where England were teetering on the brink of elimination, 15 minutes was not found for Morgan Rogers on the pitch?

I ask that in the context of Tuchel's very public enthusiasm for Morgz since last autumn (and coldness towards Bellingham).

Or was that public enthusiasm more a method of indirectly disciplining Bellingham?

If I was Morgz, I wouldn't be overly motivated by playing the useful idiot.

[Dave]

France have moved up a gear whenever they've need to.

I don't think they've needed to yet. As per eye digress, Apart from the first game, they've not really had to do anything. What they've had to do they've done it well but it wouldn't surprise me if there's a Switzerland '21 in their next couple of matches.

[Somniloquism]

There is a bit of a difference between an enviroment that might have a mental effect (hostile crowd in Turkey) and one which actually can affect you physically (being 2000+ metres above sea level). Obviously England being out there a few days beforehand should mitigate this.

[Dave]

There is a bit of a difference between an enviroment that might have a mental effect (hostile crowd in Turkey) and one which actually can affect you physically (being 2000+ metres above sea level). Obviously England being out there a few days beforehand should mitigate this.

Sure. I just dispute that it's a massive game-changer, and I think that different bits of data are being combined and not necessarily giving an accurate reflection of reality.

They've won 70 of 89 matches playing at that stadium, and it's high up so it must be an acclimatisation thing which other teams can't cope with. Or - nearly all the teams that they play there are CONCACAF qualifiers which they tend to cruise through wherever they're played. Even then, they've still lost competitive matches there against the mostly-at-sea-level Costa Rica and Honduras.

As I say, maybe I'm wrong and Mexico will stroll it while Rice et al are on the floor panting for breath. But South Korea didn't look like they were beaten by the conditions. They had more of the ball in a 50/50 game, a chance broke for Mexico and it didn't for them.

[Stu]

Whatever happens, I’m VERY jealous of anyone who has managed to get themselves out to Mexico City for this game. A place I’d love to go and a match at a legendary stadium. Feels like a proper exotic World Cup fixture, finally.

[PeterWithesShin]

I reckon most people think England will win but also think it's a potentially very tricky game especially if England play like they did last night. If I had to bet on it i'd go 2-1 England.