2026 world cup futures

Optional · 12-16-25, 04:10 PM

I like the odds of Norway to not make it out of group stage +333

I think Senegal and France will be too strong for them.

k13 · 12-20-25, 04:32 AM

Netherlands to win group

ChuckyTheGoat · 12-20-25, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by Optional

I like the odds of Norway to not make it out of group stage +333

I think Senegal and France will be too strong for them.

Opti, that's a solid take. Except that I hate the 3rd-place rule.

True Group Stage should be Top 2 advance. 32/48 is too generous.

I would much prefer if the World Cup used BIGGER groups. Eight 6-team groups, play five games and take top 2/6. 32/48 is way too heavy on Knockout stage.

packerd_00 · 12-20-25, 09:28 AM

I'm going to keep pounding England until they finally win one of these tournaments. Everyone says how great of a manager Thomas Tuchel is. Well see.

ChuckyTheGoat · 12-20-25, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by packerd_00

I'm going to keep pounding England until they finally win one of these tournaments. Everyone says how great of a manager Thomas Tuchel is. Well see.

Salud, Pack. Not a bad plan. Only been 60 years since they won it.

I would have thought that the Beckham era England team would have won it:
1) England teams always have this talk of Chemistry. Can you play WITH players who were your arch-enemy during the EPL season?
2) In Intl-football, I think that star-laden teams are tricky. You'd prefer to have team-first guys, instead of guys who want to get their name on the score-sheet.
3) The pundits talked about that Beckham team. Some thought that Lampard and Gerrard canceled each other out in MF. IE, how do you maximize both of their talents?

GL on the Eng play. They always look to have plenty of talent. Maybe the market has forgotten that they just might win it.

Optional · 12-20-25, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by ChuckyTheGoat

Opti, that's a solid take. Except that I hate the 3rd-place rule.

True Group Stage should be Top 2 advance. 32/48 is too generous.

I would much prefer if the World Cup used BIGGER groups. Eight 6-team groups, play five games and take top 2/6. 32/48 is way too heavy on Knockout stage.

Yeah it feels a bit like everyone gets a prize compared to how tough it has been to make knockout stage of WC before. But I'm looking forward to seeing some minnows surprising. I'm open minded about everyone qualifies until we see how it plays out.

ChuckyTheGoat · 12-20-25, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Optional

Yeah it feels a bit like everyone gets a prize compared to how tough it has been to make knockout stage of WC before. But I'm looking forward to seeing some minnows surprising. I'm open minded about everyone qualifies until we see how it plays out.

Opti, that's part of my rationale. 48 teams opened the door for some really small nations. Props to CURACAO, but teams like that look like total outsiders to me.

packerd_00 · 12-21-25, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by ChuckyTheGoat

Salud, Pack. Not a bad plan. Only been 60 years since they won it.

I would have thought that the Beckham era England team would have won it:
1) England teams always have this talk of Chemistry. Can you play WITH players who were your arch-enemy during the EPL season?
2) In Intl-football, I think that star-laden teams are tricky. You'd prefer to have team-first guys, instead of guys who want to get their name on the score-sheet.
3) The pundits talked about that Beckham team. Some thought that Lampard and Gerrard canceled each other out in MF. IE, how do you maximize both of their talents?

GL on the Eng play. They always look to have plenty of talent. Maybe the market has forgotten that they just might win it.

Yeah I think the issue with Beckham's era with England was the players were not working together as a team. Rio Ferdinand made a comment a number of years ago about playing for England and how it was more like a civil war between the different club players. It was filled of mostly of players from Manchester United, Chelsea, and Liverpool.

That's why I like what Southgate did with his player selections. He picked players from a lot of the smaller clubs.

Thank you by the way. I do have a lot of respect for what Southgate was able to build. I just hope this new manager can build upon it. Are you supporting the States in the WC?

ChuckyTheGoat · 12-21-25, 09:19 PM

Originally posted by packerd_00

Yeah I think the issue with Beckham's era with England was the players were not working together as a team. Rio Ferdinand made a comment a number of years ago about playing for England and how it was more like a civil war between the different club players. It was filled of mostly of players from Manchester United, Chelsea, and Liverpool.

That's why I like what Southgate did with his player selections. He picked players from a lot of the smaller clubs.

Thank you by the way. I do have a lot of respect for what Southgate was able to build. I just hope this new manager can build upon it. Are you supporting the States in the WC?

Hi, Pack. Will be ROOTING for Team USA. But I have my doubts (even on US soil):

1) Given the HomeFieldAdvantage, I'll view anything < Final 8 as a failure.
2) People have been talking about the US emerging as a "soccer nation" for 40+ years. It's not in the culture like it is in other traditional nations.
3) And I honestly question the personnel. Guys who are making $$ at big clubs. When I watch them, however, they're mostly of slight-build and not rugged.

Call me a doubter. But maybe I'm a realist. I'm not calling for USA to lift the cup.

k13 · 12-21-25, 09:35 PM

England is not winning with a loser like Kane as their starting striker.

packerd_00 · 12-22-25, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by ChuckyTheGoat

Hi, Pack. Will be ROOTING for Team USA. But I have my doubts (even on US soil):

1) Given the HomeFieldAdvantage, I'll view anything < Final 8 as a failure.
2) People have been talking about the US emerging as a "soccer nation" for 40+ years. It's not in the culture like it is in other traditional nations.
3) And I honestly question the personnel. Guys who are making $$ at big clubs. When I watch them, however, they're mostly of slight-build and not rugged.

Call me a doubter. But maybe I'm a realist. I'm not calling for USA to lift the cup.

People often think all it takes is money to turn the U.S. into a soccer superpower, but it’s never been that simple. Look at countries like Argentina or Croatia—they don’t have the same resources, yet they manage to perform at a solid level. Like England football needs to be in the blood.

I actually picked you guys over the Dutch in the last World Cup, so I’ve seen the potential—maybe a QF berth this time, but I’m not expecting a Cup win.