In Reply to: Grading the World Cup (ESPN) posted by ClockBlocker on July 21, 2026 at 10:02:03
Spain, Cape Verde ... no arguments there
Argentina: B (with a stern warning)
Their shenanigans were too much. They were unnecessarily rough and benefited a lot from the football gods smiling on them, but the thing that I always keep coming back to is, they didn't need any of that. It's like Messi always moving the ball around before a free kick. Dude. You're Messi. What difference does it make if you move the ball a yard or two up its spot. It's like you're Gary Kasparov and you're moving your opponents on the board when they're not looking. Why?
Their performance against a team that was clearly their better, Spain, was a big fat F as far as sportsmanship is concerned, but I also have to add that Spain came out swinging physically in that game to let Argentina know that they're not here to take their bullying.
That said, the south South American teams, specifically Paraguay, Uruguay, and Argentina need to drop this "street futbol" sh*t and just play the damn game like the rest of the world.
England: Solid B. Those last 20 minutes against Argentina should not count too much against them, built on the fact that the same tactic worked against Mexico. I can't blame them for trying, but I can blame them from not thinking that one through, which is why they're not an A. Besides, I think they more than redeemed themselves in the consolation game.
US; Agree with the C. I think the game against Belgium was an anomaly both for the US and Belgium with all the extracurriculars around it. The glass ceiling analogy that ESPN uses is extremely premature. Glass ceiling refers to situations where you are ready to move up, are qualified for the next level, but you're being held back for some reason. The US is nowhere ready for the tier that ESPN fancies that they are. The US used to be a good lower tier team that under this coach moved decidedly into lower middle tier, where middle middle tier is completely within reach, IMO. Take that as a win, dude. It's not easy to get to the point where the US is now. The next level completely depends on opening the damn pipeline, liberating the sport from the suburban sports industry mills and giving it back to every kid who can bunch up a ball of newspaper held together with rubber bands, or ultra cheap, fully disposable, plastic balls sold in the local bodega for a quarter, some open field, and two sets of bricks to mark the goal. *That's* where the pipeline starts, not with middle class kids arguing with some youth team coach to make sure their kids get the minutes they need. Soccer needs to be democratic and accessible to all classes in this country. Without that, there will be no moving up to the next level of the next tier.
So I have no idea where the ESPN folks' minds are at.
Germany: F indeed, but not only because they got bumped out early on (sh*t happens), but because they have slid right back to the mind-numbingly boring, monotonous style that they used to play back in the olden days before Klinsmann took over. Under Klinsmasn and Löw, Germany became an interesting team. They were even [gasp] fun to watch. Then that generation of players faded and the replacement guys, the managers, the style of play ... no thanks.
Apparently Jürgen Klopp is now taking over the team, so I'm keeping an eye on where they go next.
Brazil: I think F is a bit harsh. I'll go with a D. It seems like they are maybe kinda sorta realizing that the days of joga bonito is over and Ronaldo (the original) and Ronaldinho are not coming through that door again (other than accompanying Madonna for the halftime show, obviously) and they don't have a Neymar to bail them out. I think I saw them trying to do something maybe different, but they're nowhere there yet.
Why are they dissing France? I'd give them an A (with a friendly warning). I wouldn't hold their loss against Spain against them. If they had faced any other team, they may have been the ones storming towards a win at the final. But Spain is an exceptional team once they are allowed to get in a groove. The warning is obviusly about their first half performance in the consolation game. They should've taken it seriously, if for no reason other than the fact that this was their manager's last game. England is too good a team to spot 4 goals and 45 minutes before you start playing.
Morocco got dissed too. I think they're a B. No dishonor in being taken over by the tsunami that was France before Spain defanged them. Morocco showed that they can play against very different teams with very different styles of play and can pull it off with grit, skills, and talent. That's a relatively young team, from what I understand, and they are poised for much better things down the line.
Another dissed team is Belgium. I'd give them a solid C. They didn't play particularly well (except when roused by Trump) but I can see a new generation on the horizon with this team and they will definitely be worth keeping an eye on as well.
Haaland. Mbappe, Messi, Yamal: agree with all
Tuchel: The last 20 minutes against Argentina was a brain fart, plain and simple. I think when a team consistently "underperforms" despite a bunch of management changes and batches of players coming in and out over the past couple of decades, you may want to start readjusting your base assumptions in the first place. Being an American institution, ESPN makes the fundamental mistake of thinking that the English national team has always been championship material. They are most emphatically not. In fact, they were pretty much a mid-tier team until Southgate took over. Tuchel actually moved them up the scale. This English team overperformed ion this cup. It now looks like they have the players to get to the top tier. I don't know if Tuchel is the guy to do it because I don't know the man's club record, but as far as I can see, they are on the right track. I wouldn't let the perpetually inflated expectations around England downgrade him. He's a B in my book.
Pochettino: What do you mean D? What are those people smoking? He's a f*cking A as far as I'm concerned. I don't get where this illusion that the US team is one good manager away from being a finals-worthy team comes from. I mean, admittedly, I'm not a close follower of the US national team that much, but from my limiyted vantage pooimt, I'd say he did a fantastic job. I'll defer to the judgment of people who both understand the US team's predicament *and* followed the team more closely though, in case I'm missing something here.
Ronaldo: agree. I'll add the note that Portugal will probably be a much better team without him being the central hub of all attacks.
Infatino: Is FF an option?
Bielsa: I have a vague impression of him at this point. They're probably correct on that.