Argentina are a disgrace to football and a disgrace to sport. It would have ruined the sport and made a mockery of the entire World Cup if they had won. Thankfully they lost.
Now after their disgusting behaviour after the final whistle FIFA need to show some backbone and ban them from the next World Cup completely….bug we know they won’t.
The pettiness of people complaining that The Odyssey lacks 'realistic' casting. My dude, it has a one-eyed monster who sucks soldiers' heads like lollipops and a witch who strokes men's heads until they turn into pigs. Realism isn't the point.
I lived dangerously by writing an essay on the Falklands when I was studying Argentine history at night school in Buenos Aires. I am still too ill and woozy to recreate my argument as coherently as I'd like. But here are a few scattered points. 1/
@haaretzcom “The top ranks of Israeli Military Intelligence - which produces the country's national intelligence assessment - concluded that the plan Netanyahu was pitching to the Americans stood little chance of success. The head of Military Intelligence put that assessment in writing.”
the emerging consensus on England and Tuchel, that he made horribly defensive substitutions and threw away the game, is completely wrong. I honestly think it's because most (maybe all) English/British pundits want to blame Tuchel as an outsider rather than face up to how the game actually played out.
the entirety of the game after Gordon's goal was dominated by Argentina. but note the first substitution was 17 minutes later on 72 minutes and the *really* defensive ones were on 82 minutes.
in the 17 minutes before the first sub, Argentina could and arguably should have scored 3 times. in the 10 minutes before the next, they could and should have scored twice more. in that interval, England did absolutely nothing. they had already given up. they strung virtually zero passes together and I don't think touched the ball in the opposition half (never mind box).
I think that Tuchel realized this (because he is an excellent coach) and *correctly* concluded they needed to shore up or Argentina would indeed score 3 or more before long.
one idea I've seen is Tuchel should have thrown on the likes of Rashford and Watkins (who are fast, basically) to better press from the front and give England a route to play out. but imagine he had done this, England became *even more pathetically open* and Argentina had won 4-1. the criticism would have been even worse than now, and would have called for *exactly what he did*.
so, no, he did what he had to do as he watched his team completely collapse for no reason.
and *it could have worked*! after the second set of subs, Argentina had one very long-distance shot and the two goals. but the two goals were a result of astoundingly lazy lack of pressing, not tactics. the chances before were getting sliced apart in open play. the chances after were pathetic individual discipline.
so, no, the substitutions did not throw away the game and Tuchel did not get it wrong. England epically shat the bed, should have ended up losing 4-1, and Tuchel attempted the only viable route to holding on and still winning. it is no way his fault that Bellingham couldn't be bothered closing down Fernandez and Spence couldn't be bothered closing down Messi, amongst the other 5 goals they could have conceded after giving up.
English pundits want somebody to blame, so they blame Tuchel (who conveniently isn't English). what they ought to do is face up to this being one of the most astonishing psychological capitulations in World Cup history.
England have a recurring psychological problem in key matches in major tournaments. They revert to retreating and parking the bus when the game is there to be won.
England have developed a deeply ingrained habit in the biggest games: the moment they take the lead, they instinctively shift into a defensive, risk-averse mode. Instead of using the advantage to push for a second goal and kill the contest, they drop deep, surrender possession, and hand the initiative straight back to the opposition.
This pattern has become a recurring theme — and it has repeatedly proved very costly:
🏴 2018 World Cup semi-final: 1-0 up against Croatia (first half dominance is thrown away as England retreat in the second half and extra time)
🏴2021 Euro final: 1-0 up against Italy (throw away first half domination and retreat in the second half and eventually lose on penalties)
🏴2024 Euro final: 1-1 against Spain (retreat after Spain wobble after England’s equaliser)
🏴 2026 World Cup semi-final: 1-0 up against Argentina (England retreat almost immediately after taking the lead)
There are numerous other examples going back even further, where this trait occurred (Euro 2004 QF v Portugal).
In every single one of these matches, England ended up losing. The pattern is clear: rather than confidently hunting after a decisive second goal, the team retreats. Possession is conceded, pressure mounts, and the opposition grows in belief. What begins as a position of strength quickly becomes one of vulnerability.
It reflects a deeper psychological issue - a fear of losing that overrides the belief required to go and win. England default into trying to protect what they have than having the core belief to stay higher up the pitch to secure victory. The result is a loss of control at the exact moment they should be imposing it.
Until this mindset is addressed - through better in-game management, better ball retention, tactical flexibility, or a fundamental major shift in mentality - England will continue to fall short in the big matches that really matter most.
The Odyssey was really, really good. Very impressive and intimidating, dark and sinister, feels huge, acting and casting are superb, and in particular the way the supernatural stuff was done felt very fresh and believable and original. One big thing that felt jarring was the
Bisschen Lektüre aus der Philosophie: Michael Sandel (What Money Can’t Buy, 2012) und Debra Satz (Why Some Things Should Not Be for Sale, 2010) stellen die entscheidende Frage: Sollte alles, was freiwillig und gegen Entgelt geschieht, deshalb auch zum Markt gehören? 1/2