Latest Sports Stories

Football News

Banner refers to Falkland Islands conflict in 1982Players celebrate on the pitch with the messageThe Argentina players celebrated their World Cup win over England with a banner saying “Las Malvinas son Argentinas”, making reference to the 1982 Falklands war.Argentina were 1-0 down with five minutes to go of the semi-final in Atlanta but rallied and scored twice in quick succession to reach a second straight World Cup final, where they will face Spain in New Jersey on Sunday.The banner refers to the dispute over the territory, which is referred to as the Falkland Islands in Britain and Islas Malvinas in Argentina, which led to a 74-day conflict 44 years ago. More than 900 people – 649 Argentinians and 255 Britons – lost their lives in the conflict.Lisandro Martínez and Giovani Lo Celso held up the banner, grinning, and waved to fans in the stands. It was unclear where the banner had come from.It is ​not the first ​time the question of ​political banners has come up ­during the World Cup. ​Last month ‌in Los Angeles, ​Iranian Americans ​waved pre-revolutionary flags that are symbols of protest against the Tehran government when Iran played. Those matches proceeded without incident.After beating Switzerland in the quarter-final to set up a meeting against England, some Argentina players could be heard chanting: “For the Malvinas, for Diego [Maradona] and for Leo [Messi]’s last one.”The Argentina midfielder Rodrigo De Paul said: “We understand it’s a football game that transcends; it brings back memories of what Diego did. We sing songs about our Malvinas heroes, mainly to remember them, but we have to understand that it’s a football match and that the Malvinas have to be discussed elsewhere. What happened was an atrocity and we always remember the fallen, but what we want is to win this match to get to the final.”Fifa’s stadium code of conduct bans “banners, flags, flyers, apparel and other paraphernalia that are of a political, offensive, and/or discriminatory nature” inside stadiums. Fifa did not immediately reply to a request for comment.Argentina’s security minister, Alejandra Monteoliva, said on Tuesday that ‌enhanced security had been discussed at a meeting in the US on Monday. “There will be 1,600 officers. We want the celebration to be peaceful,” she told local radio in Argentina. “The entry of elements that have any type of provocative message, whether of political or racial content, is prohibited.”

Football News

Lionel Messi was at his effervescent best while Harry Kane struggled to make an impactJordan Pickford Had little chance with either goal. Pulled off a sensational save from González but that will be forgotten now. 7Reece James Dominated his flank and fully justified being brought back into the side after injury. 7John Stones A rock at the back until the last 10 minutes when his lack of game time caught up with him. 7Marc Guéhi Mr Reliable in England’s defence didn’t put a foot wrong again and was unlucky to be on losing side. 7Djed Spence Has won over the doubters and then some. A Bobby Moore-esque tackle to stop Simeone. 8Elliot Anderson Another all-action display. Booked for taking out Messi brutally but belongs at this level. 7Declan Rice Looked far more his usual self. But had to be taken off as England tried to protect their lead. 6Morgan Rogers Preferred in unusual role on right flank and showed why, by setting up Gordon brilliantly. 7Jude Bellingham Fired up from the start, came close to losing his rag in injury time – couldn’t save England this time. 6Anthony Gordon Has come of age at this tournament. Will never forget scoring in a World Cup semi-final. 8Harry Kane It was from his long pass that England scored. But he will be hugely disappointed not to have had more of an impact. 5Substitutes: Ezri Konsa (for Gordon, 72) Slotted into back three but at fault for Martinez’s equaliser, 5. Dan Burn (for James 83) Third time unlucky after his cameos against Mexico and Norway, 5. Nico O’Reilly (for Rice 83) Could not prevent Messi’s cross for the winning goal. Ivan Toney (for Stones 90+3) Far too late to make an impact, 6. Marcus Rashford (for Spence 90+3) Tried his best to drag England level, 6.Emiliano Martínez No chance with Gordon’s goal but was largely a spectator for the rest of the match. 6Nahuel Molina Struggled to contain Spence’s and Gordon’s strong combination play down England’s left flank. 6Cristian Romero Squared up to Bellingham inside the first minute and showed some nifty footwork to get himself out of trouble. 8Lisandro Martínez Walked the tightrope after being booked in the first half so was no surprise to see him taken off. 7Nicolas Tagliafico Had his hands full with Rogers and it was from his error that Gordon was able to score. 5Leandro Paredes Early reducer on Anderson set the tone, but he could not exert his usual dominance in midfield. 5Enzo Fernández Inches away from an amazing goal in the first half before breaking England’s hearts with a stunning equaliser. 8Alexis Mac Allister So unlucky not to score after hitting both posts. The Liverpool man was back to his best. 8Giuliani Simeone Like father, like son. Always in the thick of things but couldn’t take his chance when clean through. 6Lionel Messi Some imperious touches and mazy runs that belied his age. Deserves to sign off on the biggest stage of them all. 9Julián Alvarez Caused huge problems for England down Argentina’s left flank all afternoon. Messi’s heir in waiting. 8Substitutes: Nicolás González (for Paredes 65) Denied equaliser by Pickford but added impetus to Argentina’s attacks, 8. Nicolás Otamendi (for L Martinez 72) Incredible that he is still playing at his age, 7. Gonzalo Montiel (for Molina 72) A massive upgrade on Molina as Argentina chased an equaliser, 7. Rodrigo De Paul (for Simeone 72) Surprise omission but made up for it by helping to change the game, 8. Lautaro Martínez (for Tagliafico 81) Argentina’s hero with a brilliant header, 8.

Football News

England’s destiny is tournament heartbreak. The only question concerns when it comes and how the fates will contrive to make it as painful as possible. This was an implausibly brutal new low.Thomas Tuchel’s team had fought fire with fire on an occasion that was overloaded with shredded nerves. The first half was a physical fight; it was gripping all the same. And the possibilities seemed endless for England when Anthony Gordon put them in front shortly after half-time. A first appearance in the World Cup final since 1966 looked on.Argentina were not finished. There has been a feeling during this tournament that they are beatable, and yet nobody has beaten them. There is a reason for that. Their champion courage. They dug deep into it in the closing stages to complete one of their greatest fightbacks. That it came against England, the old enemy, made it even sweeter.The regrets belonged to England. Tuchel sought to preserve what he had in the final quarter with a switch to a back five, Ezri Konsa coming on for Gordon and playing as the right‑sided centre-half. The head coach had successfully seen out the 3-2 win against Mexico in the last 16 with five defenders on a night when his team were down to 10 men. There was no repeat here.The frustration was that the tactical shift invited Argentina to press on to the front foot. Tuchel played with fire. Argentina dominated the closing stages. It was their attack versus England’s defence and the equaliser was well signposted. That it came as late as the 86th minute only added to England’s devastation. They were so close.Enzo Fernández scored it with a fierce drive after Argentina had worked a short corner via Lionel Messi and England were floored before they could stagger on into extra time. They thought they had escaped when Alexis Mac Allister sent a low shot against the post. It was the second time he had hit the woodwork. But Messi recycled the move on the right, jinked and crossed deep. Lautaro Martínez was unmarked and when the Argentina substitute headed home England were primed to do likewise.It has been a strange tournament for Tuchel and his players, the feeling difficult to shake that the results up to this point had outstripped the performance levels. They did not do enough when it mattered the most against Argentina, especially in creative terms. They barely threatened Emi Martínez’s goal. And when defensive resilience was demanded towards the end, it was not there.Argentina deserved to advance to the final against Spain on Sunday. For England, there was only the beginnings of a familiar inquest.It was a night when the history framed everything. Nobody could ignore it and not only because of how loudly the Argentina supporters chanted the line about Las Malvinas in their World Cup song. The echoes could be felt from the pitches of Mexico 86, France 98, and Japan & South Korea 2002 – the most recent tournament clashes between the nations.The nervous tension pulsed and the first half was best summed up by the expected goals statistic: England’s stood at 0.05; Argentina’s was 0.03. The first effort on goal of any description did not arrive until the 33rd minute, John Stones heading well wide from a Declan Rice free‑kick. Fernández fizzed a drive high on 38 minutes.The tackles flew in and tempers were rarely far from boiling point. A snapshot of the first 45 minutes? It was when Messi got the better of Djed Spence in the 37th minute and then evaded challenges from Harry Kane and Gordon. A split second later, in came Elliot Anderson to halt him with a body check. The England midfielder, who revelled in the intensity of the contest, was booked. It was a long way from being the only tactical foul.England felt they shaded the war of attrition in the first half. They just had to stay patient and wait for their moment. It came in the 55th minute, shortly after Jordan Pickford had denied Julián Álvarez at the other end.One of Tuchel’s main moves at the start was to play Morgan Rogers at right midfield. The idea was to add a bit more physicality. But Rogers is a creative force and he was at the heart of the breakthrough. After Kane’s searching ball up the inside right was repelled only in part by Nico Tagliafico, Rice went wide to Rogers and it was just a lovely cross from him. Gordon worked the position on Nahuel Molina and the cool close-range finish had England in dreamland.At that point England had the belief and, in Spence, a man on a mission. The left-back had started with a determination to take on his opponents, to surge forward. He was fearless. And as Argentina tried to respond to the Gordon goal, they were denied when Spence crashed into a saving slide tackle on Giuliano Simeone. Spence celebrated it like a goal.Pickford did well to keep out a close-range Leandro Paredes header before the second-half hydration break but the tide had begun to turn. The feeling only intensified after England emerged for the final quarter in the back five. It was all Argentina. Mac Allister hit the post with a header when he had to score and Fernández forced Pickford into another save. Argentina would not be denied. England are coming home. Football is not coming with them.

Football News

⚽ Kick-off in Atlanta is 3pm EST/8pm BST/5am AEST⚽ Golden Boot | Player guide | And get Football DailyThomas Tuchel believes England will face an Argentina team “fuelled by history” in their World Cup semi-final in Atlanta on Wednesday. It will be the sixth time that the nations have met at the tournament with the previous three coming after the Falklands war of 1982.The most controversial game was in the 1986 quarter-finals when Diego Maradona scored his “Hand of God” goal and Argentina won 2-1 en route to the title. Argentina triumphed on penalties in the last 16 in 1998 when David Beckham was sent off. Beckham gained a measure of revenge four years later when he scored from the penalty spot for a 1-0 group-stage victory. England won 3-1 at the group phase in 1962 and 1-0 in the quarter-finals in 1966, when they went on to become champions. Continue reading...

Football News

England World Cup winner died in 2020 but his death was never reported by authorities to the coroner’s officeThe England footballer and World Cup winner Nobby Stiles died with a brain condition caused by repeatedly heading a football, a coroner has ruled.Stiles, a tenacious, tough-tackling midfielder described by Geoff Hurst as the “heart and soul” of the 1966 World Cup-winning team, died in 2020 but his death was not reported by authorities to the coroner’s office.His family have campaigned for a full investigation into his death. Stiles’s son John has previously said that football “killed” his father.On Wednesday in Stockport, the coroner Alison Mutch said the death of 78-year-old Stiles was contributed to by a brain condition caused by repeatedly heading a football.The inquest heard that Stiles, who played for Manchester United, headed a football about 140,000 times during his career.At the end of his life Stiles had Alzheimer’s disease and had to sell his World Cup winner’s medals to fund his care.Analysis of Stiles’s brain showed that his severe dementia was as a result of Alzheimer’s disease but also the condition chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE), which has been associated with head trauma from heading a ball.Dr Daniel Du Plessis, a neuropathology expert, told the court: “I’m quite convinced his heading the football that many times has caused his CTE.”Mutch, the senior coroner for South Manchester, asked Du Plessis: “You are saying repeated heading of the ball is the cause of his CTE?”Norbert Stiles, born in Collyhurst, Manchester, was capped 28 times by England and played for United nearly 400 times. He is fondly remembered for his victory jig at the 1966 defeat of West Germany, clutching the Jules Rimet trophy in one hand and his false teeth in the other.His family have been campaigning for football authorities to do more to help ex-players cope with injuries they claim were caused during their playing days.John Stiles, the head of the Football Families for Justice (FFJ) group, told the inquest that his father was “very humble” about his achievements.“It never really changed him,” he said. “If you went into his house you would never know he was a footballer. He was very much a family man, football was left at the door. The family was always the first priority.”He said his father “never talked, he never bragged” about being a World Cup winner. “He was proud of it but we were always much more proud of the father he was than the footballer,” he said.John Stiles said footballs in his father’s days weighed about 16 ounces (450g) but would get heavier when wet.Dozens of former footballers and their families, including Stiles’s, are suing the Football Association, the Football Association of Wales and the English Football League over claims they were “negligent and in breach of their duty of care” to the former players.In January an inquest into the death of Gordon McQueen, 70, an ex-Scotland, Manchester United and Leeds United defender, found that heading the ball was “likely” to have contributed to a brain injury which was a factor in his death. McQueen was also diagnosed with CTE.

Football News

We often call England v Argentina a grudge match – a simple story of mutual hatred. But the truth is far more complex, says the Guardian’s Jonathan Liew.It began with British influence, raising Argentina as a ‘faithful son’ in their own image through polo, tea, and football. But decades of nationalist rejection, iconic World Cup clashes, and a war over the Falkland Islands turned them into ultimate footballing antagonists.Yet, the two teams haven't played a match in over twenty years. Lionel Messi has never faced England. In an era of over-saturated, commercialised sport, this scarcity has kept the romance of their rivalry alive. Because underneath the bad blood, there is a deep, mutual fascination: two nations that probably revere each other far more than they’d ever care to admit.

Football News

Whether it is our ‘identity maths’, naked nostalgia or diaspora experience. All seem scarred by the political contexts bearing down on this tournamentI have measured my life in World Cups. The first blurry moments of childhood memory, the passing into adolescence, starting university. Each tournament marks a season of life. Each one is also associated with potent, formative emotional events: Roger Milla dancing around the corner flag when Cameroon became the first African team to reach the quarter-finals in 1990; Roberto Baggio’s devastating goal that knocked out a Nigeria that had been on a thriller streak in 1994; Zinedine Zidane’s tragically ignominious head-butt in 2006 during his last-ever match. But this World Cup has felt different from the start.Watching the World Cup as a Black diaspora viewer is a broadly unhinged exercise that still adheres to an elegant logic. You might describe the process of deciding your allegiance as a sort of “identity maths”. You support the African teams until they get knocked out (and thanks to the extended format, this time around we had so many more heroic teams such as Cape Verde and the DRC). Then you move on to a combination of Black diaspora teams from elsewhere, then adopted homelands, and then just adopted teams because you like their vibe or their country’s politics. The last category is really tenuous and involves a lot of projection. Spain is a good example of this, a country that has a sort of unproblematic European outlier aura that imbues it with more political proximity to the post-colonial experience than, say, Norway. Then there’s France, which, despite being an ex-colonial power, has a majority-Black team and therefore trumps Spain. I do not make the rules of identity maths.This chopping and changing of our loyalties seems to echo a wider state of diasporic orphanhood, and the more that players of African descent come to play for big footballing nations, the more these loyalties become complicated by what individual players come to represent. They, often unwittingly, become avatars of our political frustrations and aspirations, rather than just players we feel we have some affinity with.This World Cup, more than all the others I recall vividly, has the weight of so many political contexts bearing down on it. There is anger at the United States under Donald Trump – a host country whose president has desecrated the tournament by interfering and securing a reversal of a red card for a US player. Anger at Fifa, an organisation that is increasingly seen as irredeemably and nakedly corrupt. And underlying it all, anger at anti-immigration discourse and policy across the United States and parts of Europe, which has formed the backdrop for this tournament.The result is that the identity maths has become notably less frivolous and fun, taking on more political gravity. Figures like Frenchman, Ousmane Dembélé, and his hijabi (low-key niqabi) wife, Rima Edbouche, become not just a totem of multicultural society, but a rebuke of Islamophobia and racism. Kylian Mbappé can’t just play, he has to fend off wildly racist attacks from a Paraguayan senator. The England team is majority Black, representing a country in one of its darkest eras of anti-immigration and far-right politics. The rightwing Reform MP Robert Jenrick posts “Come on England” in one breath, and announces that he wants immigration to be “less than zero” in another. As if these children of immigrants are different to those he maligns – a sort of permissible minority, supported temporarily, for accolade purposes. Black footballers carry the burden of achievement while constantly being subjected to personal abuse and political erasure. And so being a Black diaspora football lover in these contexts is to constantly be veering between anger and concern, happiness and disgruntlement, celebration and resentment. Come on England, yes. But also, how dare you?This tournament comes at a unique global moment in which we are suspended in a sort of interregnum of trauma. We are post-pandemic, post-Gaza, post-Black Lives Matter backlash, post-death of the rules-based order. And, of course, post-enshittification of X under Elon Musk. Together, these forces intersect in a swirl of digital and real life conspiracy and intrigue. These dynamics finally curdled last week, when Egypt’s goal against Argentina was disallowed, setting up Argentina’s eventual last-minute victory. It was all a fix, many said, with all sorts of lurid allegations about Fifa backing Argentina and Egypt being punished for its coach’s post-Gaza remarks. I get it. So much trust has rightly haemorrhaged from sporting institutions and political establishments – can you blame people for thinking something sinister was afoot when the actual president of the United States admits he had a word about a red card? When Trump has been awarded a risible Fifa Peace prize?I’m not being a football purist. The World Cup is fundamentally about, and in fact structured around, political tribes and the nation state. It is the very magic of the tournament that each team becomes a projection of a country. For better or for worse, states are how we are organised and socialised. But the beauty of it all was in the ability to micro-dose the politics, and not become engulfed by it.All I want is to watch football as I always have: on a laptop, with my back turned to it because I can’t handle the stress. I want to feel sick because the team that I chose only this morning, but who I will now die for, is losing. I want to gulp down tears along with the weeping players because life is beautiful and tragic, and not because a dodgy official or politician decided their fates. I don’t want a seminar after every match. I don’t want a Cup where every game becomes a metaphor for colonialism or the state of geopolitics or where every refereeing decision is scrutinised and overruled and dispatched as motivated. I don’t want our diaspora chemistries and playful underdog solidarities to harden into paranoia and disgust. I hate it!But still, as the tournament draws to a close, I find myself in awe of the way that the World Cup – despite its inexorable technical optimisations, commercialisations and organisational cynicism – remains stubbornly porous to whatever we are collectively feeling and going through. Because, ultimately, the World Cup is the only event that sees so many of us turn up, bringing our fears, frustrations, hopes and aspirations with us. It is the biggest and also most finely tuned compass for where we are, marking our coordinates, every four years. And this is where we are. I shall measure my life in this one, too. To receive the complete version of The Long Wave in your inbox every Wednesday, please subscribe here.What have been your highs and lows of this World Cup? Tell us by replying to this, or emailing us at thelongwave@theguardian.com and we may include your response in a future issue.

Football News

Look beyond the flashpoints and flare-ups and perhaps this is the greatest and most romantic of footballing rivalriesIt’s about the ball, right up until the moment it isn’t. On Sunday afternoon Godoy Cruz played Defensores de Belgrano in Nacional B, the second division of Argentinian football, and among the sea of blue home banners were two crosses of St George, apparently expropriated from England fans at the 2014 World Cup. One reads: “Boys & Girls From Oakwell Barnsley.” The other: “Big Al – Y-Bird – South Croydon – CPFC.”Now I want you to reflect on the levels of pure and gorgeous malevolence – pettiness doesn’t quite cover it, nor does spite – required to travel to Brazil, obtain an English flag, fold it away, bring it home in your luggage, keep it in pristine condition for 12 years, only to unveil it in your second-tier football stadium in the week Argentina play England in a World Cup semi-final. The restraint and optimism required to allow your minor act of territorial banter to fester and mature for over a decade. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a footballing rivalry.And of course it is a rivalry that strikes so many other notes: war, culture, empire, nationalism, collective memory, the role of rules and law in constructing a society, and above all a mutual fascination that time seems to have deepened rather than dissolved. Often you will see Argentina v England described as a “grudge match”, but really this is a feeling so much more complex than hatred, so much more nuanced than tribal revulsion: a dialogic relationship defined not only by distance and difference, but by a weird and long-repressed kinship. No, we do not have more in common than what divides us. But the first does help to explain the second.For one thing, it’s often overlooked just how much of an influence this country has had on Argentinian culture. Unlike Brazil, which in the British imagination existed as an exotic, sensory jungle paradise, Argentina was raised as a kind of faithful son, the “sixth dominion” of the empire. From place names to street names, from the rugby and polo clubs established by the colonial elite to the culture of “merienda” derived from English afternoon tea. The only ever overseas branch of Harrods was in Buenos Aires from 1912 until 1998. English rock bands such as the Smiths and the Cure are wildly more popular in Argentina than in other similar-sized countries.In football this is evident in club names such as Newell’s Old Boys, River Plate, Arsenal, as well as more informal terms such as “crack” (a star player) or “orsai” (offside). For many years amateur matches would begin with a cry of “aurieli?” (are you ready?) from one captain to the other. Look hard enough and you can spot so many similarities between their footballing cultures: the depth of the pyramid, the neighbourhood club as an expression of local tradition, the role of song and mass overseas travel as bonding rituals, the preponderance of war and military tropes. For many Argentinian fans the Falklands war seems to occupy the same spiritual space that the second world war does in England, visible to this day not only on banners and murals but even tattoos, referenced not only on the terraces but even by the players themselves.“For the Malvinas, for Diego, for Leo’s last one,” the Argentina squad belted out in the dressing room after their quarter-final win over Switzerland. Rodrigo De Paul sent his framed shirt from the 2022 World Cup to the Malvinas veterans centre in Lomas de Zamora. And in fairness this is a process that was in train long before 1982, a postcolonial insurgence that arguably began in the 1940s and 1950s under Juan Perón, a gradual and deliberate refusal of English influence, through which football acted as a kind of rhetorical conduit.“Very early, an Argentinian way of playing football was born that clearly distanced itself from the English influence,” said Jorge Valdano, a veteran of the famous 1986 World Cup quarter-final against England. “We tried to be antagonistic to the English. If they liked long passes, we favoured shorter ones. If the English favoured passing, we’d focus on dribbling. Against England, there was something else at stake, and at the time it was worth more than the championship.”Over time the feeling became mutual, if not quite equal. If Argentina was once a favoured son, then perhaps the vitriolic reaction to its subsequent turn lay in a kind of guttural, butthurt disappointment. An ill-tempered friendly at Wembley in 1974 was marked by chants of “animals” every time Argentina touched the ball, echoing the accusation of Alf Ramsey eight years earlier. By 1986 Jimmy Greaves was cracking Falklands jokes on ITV’s World Cup coverage and proudly waving a German flag before the final against West Germany. “Just no class at all,” Sol Campbell said of the 1998 team who knocked them out in Saint-Étienne. “Whirling their shirts around, banging on the window. Just a bunch of idiots.”Yet whereas most sporting rivalries eventually become commodified and crushed by the capitalist machinery of Big Sport, somehow this one has remained pure through scarcity. The two countries have not played competitively since 2002, and for such a consequential footballing culture, Argentinian influence on English football remains modest. We got Ossie Ardiles and Sergio Agüero but never Gabriel Batistuta or Juan Román Riquelme, Mauricio Pochettino but never Diego Simeone, and of course never the two greatest of all, Lionel Messi and Diego Maradona, who even in the age of saturation still feel somehow remote and mysterious to us, a secret on which we were never quite let in.Too different and distant to be friends; too entwined and alike to be purely enemies; neither a clash of pure equals nor a simple parable of coloniser versus colonised. Perhaps this is why Argentina v England has a fair claim to be the greatest and most romantic of the footballing rivalries, less a blood feud and more a messy, century-long break-up.Look beyond the flashpoints and flare-ups and there is something more profound at work here. The teeth-baring may as well be a mark of respect: a shared and illicit admiration, perhaps even a love that dare not speak its name.

Football News

The Argentina captain conserves his energy for bursts in key moments and his top speed compares favourably with his contemporariesEngland’s defenders will face an extreme challenge when they come up against Lionel Messi in their World Cup semi-final. It is not just that he is the greatest player of all time but the almost unique way in which he plays.The 39-year-old is renowned for ambling around for much of a game, saving his energy for when truly required. It makes him incredibly difficult to defend against. Messi finds pockets of space that appear harmless when the ball is not in his orbit, but he springs to life when an opportunity to produce presents itself.It helps explain why no player at this tournament has ended their ball carries of at least five metres with as many shots and key passes combined. Messi has delivered 22 such moments through knowing exactly when to step up a gear.Although he did not score or provide an open-play assist against Switzerland in the quarter-finals, running statistics from that group of matches provide a good snapshot of how Argentina’s captain differs from other elite attackers.It represented 64.8% of his total distance. This proportion was way above the figures that Harry Kane (40.5%), Lamine Yamal (45.4%), Kylian Mbappé (52.6%) and Erling Haaland (55.7%) recorded in their matches.However, far more of their movement was made in the speed categories covering 7 to 20 km/h. There was little difference between Messi and his peers for their percentage of running classified as a sprint by Fifa (at 20 km/h or more).Although a similar proportion of sprinting as younger forwards looks impressive, Messi does not record as many in total. Yet the margin is not always huge. The veteran made the equivalent of 85 sprints per 90 minutes in the quarter-final, more than Haaland (74) and not too far adrift of Mbappé (97).And when Messi hits top speed, he can still go at a decent pace. Data on Sofascore shows his top sprint at this World Cup was 30.9 km/h. That is faster than any run Lautaro Martínez (30.5) or Alexis Mac Allister (30.2) has made for Argentina, despite their being more than a decade younger. It is not far behind the best Kane (31.4) or Jude Bellingham (31.1) have offered either.A positive for England is that their top speed was recorded by Nico O’Reilly (35.6 km/h), one of the players likely tasked with keeping Argentina’s talisman at bay. But being fleet of foot isn’t the only challenge. Monitoring Messi and judging when best to move are much harder tasks.

Football News

Decades after the Falklands war and Maradona’s ‘Hand of God’ goal, the fixture is once again being discussed as far more than a gameWhen Argentina’s national football team burst into the dressing room after beating Switzerland 3-1, they celebrated by singing The Fourth Star, the country’s unofficial World Cup anthem.“For Malvinas, for Diego,” Lionel Messi and his teammates chanted, invoking both the Falkland Islands – known as Islas Malvinas in Argentina – and their football legend Diego Maradona.The lyrics had already become ubiquitous in Argentina during this tournament, but they took on a new significance once it was confirmed that Wednesday’s World Cup semi-final would once again pit Argentina against England.Almost four decades after Maradona’s “Hand of God” goal and his celebrated solo strike helped Argentina triumph in one of football’s most politically charged matches – which followed the 1982 Falklands War between the two countries – Wednesday’s semi-final is once again being discussed, in both Argentina and the UK, as far more than a game.“Behind the Argentina team, there are people who still carry pain, who don’t want to forget their history, and who want to win on the football pitch,” said Pablo “Palmito” Quintana, the musician who wrote the song, explaining why he put “Malvinas” into the lyrics. Quintana, 30, was not alive during the war or during the 1986 quarter-finals, but agrees that these matches “are not just matches”.“The 1986 match was a balm for everyone who had lived through the war,” said Aldo Leiva, a Falklands/Malvinas war veteran and Peronist congressman.“Football has rules and referees. There was none of that in the war. Many Argentines saw the victory – and the ‘hand of God’ – as a form of vindication because they believed Britain had acted outside the rules, especially by sinking the General Belgrano,” he said, speaking about the Argentine cruiser that was torpedoed and sunk by the British outside the agreed exclusion zone. The attack resulted in the deaths of 323 crew members.Víctor Hugo Morales, a Uruguayan journalist whose live commentary of the 1986 match became part of Argentine folklore, said memories of that match were “reverberating” once again.He said that, like the Argentine players today, Maradona himself “insisted it was just a football match [ahead of the game]. But deep down, there was no doubt the Malvinas war was in everyone’s hearts.”“Argentina versus England has become a classic. Before 1986, it was just another match. Since then, it has carried a political and emotional weight that goes far beyond football,” said Morales, who famously described Maradona at the time as a “cosmic kite”.Argentinian media have leaned into the symbolism. Crónica, a television channel known for its sensationalist headlines, previewed the match with captions such as “Argentina vs. the English ‘pirates”, “Messi, with an M for Malvinas“ and “Diego, give us a hand”. Sports daily Olé focused on what it described as a good omen: “It’s official – Argentina will face England wearing blue, just like in ‘86.”Several Argentinian outlets also reported that, ahead of the semi-final, the football club Godoy Cruz hung banners on its stadium that supporters had taken from England fans during the 2014 World Cup, in what was widely interpreted as a provocation.The rivalry is also unfolding against the backdrop of far-right president Javier Milei’s repeated praise for Margaret Thatcher, the British prime minister who was public enemy number one in Argentina during the 1982 conflict. “For many Argentines, an England defeat would also be seen as a political rebuke to Milei,” Morales said.In Argentina, the islands remain a sore point. Even before the war, children were taught from an early age that Malvinaswere an integral part of the national territory.“The Malvinas issue is very much in Argentines’ minds,” says Morales. “The British probably didn’t give the islands a second thought until the war. For them, [confronting Argentina] has carried a lot of weight since ’86 because of what happened in that game – the handball goal and Diego’s other brilliant goal – but not in terms of the Malvinas,” he said.Daniel Filmus, a politician and Argentina’s former secretary of matters related to the Falklands, said that the claim for the islands was embedded in Argentina’s national identity.“The feelings many Argentines have about the Malvinas are expressed in football chants. Both the anthem that became popular at the last World Cup and this year’s song include references to the islands,” he said.“Argentina is one of the few countries that, nearly 200 years after losing territory, still keeps that claim alive,” he said. “Argentines carry it with them wherever they go.”While the conflict may linger less in the collective national memory in the UK, Wednesday’s match-up has already ensured that the Falklands war is again headline news in the British media too. The Daily Telegraph reported the comments of Pablo Quirno, Argentina’s foreign minister, after he called Falklands Islanders an “artificially implanted” population in an essay requesting talks over the territory.There was also a flurry over the former England footballer Gary Lineker – the top scorer in the 1986 World Cup – mentioning the islands’ Argentinian name, Malvinas, alongside their English name on his podcast, bringing scorn from Mark Dolan, a presenter on Rupert Murdoch’s digital platform Talk, who said it was “time to show this woke fool the red card”.The Sun newspaper meanwhile noted the Argentina players were trying to concentrate on the football. “We know what the game against England means for our country, but it’s a game of football and we’ll try to address it in the best way,” it quoted midfielder Leandro Paredes as saying.

Football News

Falklands conflict adds ‘emotional’ edge to semi-finalManager has ‘no problem’ with Bellingham after outburstThomas Tuchel believes England will face an Argentina team “fuelled by history” in their World Cup semi-final in Atlanta on Wednesday. It will be the sixth time that the nations have met at the tournament with the previous three coming after the Falklands war of 1982.The most controversial game was in the 1986 quarter-finals when Diego Maradona scored his “Hand of God” goal and Argentina won 2-1 en route to the title. Argentina triumphed on penalties in the last 16 in 1998 when David Beckham was sent off. Beckham gained a measure of revenge four years later when he scored from the penalty spot for a 1-0 group-stage victory. England won 3-1 at the group phase in 1962 and 1-0 in the quarter-finals in 1966, when they went on to become champions.Tuchel recognises the fierce fighting spirit in Argentina’s ranks and how they will give everything to retain the title they won in 2022. They hope to do so to provide Lionel Messi with a fitting send-off at what is expected to be his last World Cup.Some of Argentina’s players chanted a song in the dressing room after their 3-1 quarter-final win over Switzerland that references the Falklands war and pledges to win the World Cup for “Las Malvinas, por Diego and por la ultima de Leo” – “for the Falklands, for Diego and for Leo’s last”.Tuchel was asked whether he was aware of the aggressive edge to the fixture. “I know some of the players, I coached some of the players,” he said. “I can sense it. You can see it. They have this kind of edge. You can sense it when they’re going a goal down, when matches are tight.“They’re almost the same group as four years ago. You can see the cohesion, you can see the sacrifice that they put into it. They believe in their style. And their style is a very emotional style. It was in Qatar and it is now.“And, of course, history … they are also fuelled by that. They are fuelled by history, it means a lot to them. So this is what we basically expect, and what we are up against. But we are also emotional, we have the grit, we have the mentality that it takes to go up against it. And we are ready for it.”Tuchel also made it clear there was no lingering issue between him and Jude Bellingham. The manager was critical of the technical side of his team’s performance in the 2-1 extra-time win over Norway in the quarter-final. Bellingham, who scored both the goals, was unimpressed when that part of the assessment was relayed to him. The midfielder said Tuchel maybe did not know what it was like to play in such a game.“Our comments come from the same place – from being competitive and having the edge when competition is on,” said Tuchel. “He [Bellingham] was just confronted with a critique of my side. I [also] called him a world-class player. I said he had world-class actions again to decide the match. I said the mentality is outstanding of this team. All of that was not part of the question.“I would maybe also bite back when I come from 120 minutes, score two goals and give literally everything that is in my body. It’s just a very normal reaction for a player of his mindset. So no problem.“I spoke to the whole team. We debriefed [the game]. I spoke to the whole team after in the dressing room, which was basically the same message. And I explained it again on Sunday evening to just move on forward. Then, in the [same] talk, we put on a new direction, a new head, which is semi-final and Argentina.”Marc Guéhi ramped up the mind games by insisting the onus is on Argentina to defend their mantle as world champions. “There isn’t pressure on us,” the defender said. “What’s the pressure? The onus is on them. They’re the world champions. They need to come out, they need to defend their title. There’s no pressure on us at all.”Guéhi has shaken off a hamstring issue and is likely to continue his partnership with John Stones in central defence, with Ezri Konsa vying with Reece James for a spot at right-back. Konsa, who started at-full back against Norway, was unable to give much insight into Argentina’s style.“We haven’t managed to watch any of their games,” he said. “I’m sure when we have the meeting tonight or tomorrow we’ll see some clips of them and see what we can do to overcome them.”

Football News

Head coach praises his players’ ability to rise to the occasion and ‘put on a fight’ against the defending champions in the semi-final“A funny quote for you,” Thomas Tuchel says as he prepares to lead England in the World Cup semi-final against Argentina on Wednesday but peeks back at a subject that has attracted a few column inches of late. “You don’t have to be a horse to be a good jockey.”It is a line made famous by Arrigo Sacchi in 1987 when he was appointed as the manager of Milan despite being a relative unknown and having had no professional playing career. It worked out pretty well for Sacchi, just as it has done for Tuchel, who was forced to hang up his boots as a 24-year-old after a knee injury. He played no higher than the Bundesliga 2 with Stuttgart Kickers and spent time at SSV Ulm, a semi-professional club in the third tier. “I had a mediocre career at best,” Tuchel says.The context is the jibe that Jude Bellingham aimed at Tuchel after England’s 2-1 quarter-final win against Norway in Miami on Saturday. The midfielder, who scored in first-half injury time and again in extra-time amid searing heat, was unamused to hear Tuchel had criticised the technical levels of his team. “Maybe he doesn’t know what it’s like to play in those kind of conditions against Erling Haaland, [Martin] Ødegaard, [Antonio] Nusa, [Alexander] Sørloth,” Bellingham said.As an aside, Bellingham did not have to go in so strongly. When he did, it became a talking point and, by extension, a story. It has led to a bit of damage limitation work for those inside the England set-up, with Tuchel wanting to stress that he loved a lot of what his players did against Norway, but not all of it. He reserves the right to highlight the bad stuff if it keeps the squad on their toes.What Tuchel has done in the buildup to the Argentina game, which is one of the biggest in England’s history, perhaps the ultimate grudge match, is to turn the spotlight on to his players in a way that shows his admiration for them, that fills them with confidence. A playing career at this level is the dream of so many, including Tuchel. It is not for everyone. Tuchel’s squad are advised to remember this.“It just strikes me from time to time on the sideline right before the match that I couldn’t play here on this occasion,” Tuchel says. “I had an FA Cup final with Chelsea where you walk out with the players so I was actually standing there with them for the national anthem. And I just felt like: ‘Wow.’“It was a good moment for me to put into perspective what I then demand from just 10 metres on the other side of the sideline. It felt so different. I’m so close all the time but just being there, I thought: ‘Wow.’ I had the same moment in my first home Bundesliga match as the Borussia Dortmund coach. It was against Borussia Mönchengladbach and, two minutes before the whistle goes, I think: ‘Wow. I’m so glad I don’t have to play because I would not have the legs for it.’“You need to be a special breed if you want to take the last step and play in these moments. I cannot praise enough the players who perform, who put out physicality, who open their legs and feel free and put on a fight.”The stakes could scarcely be higher and not only because of the well-documented history with Argentina. England have played in just three World Cup semi-finals, winning in 1966 against Portugal en route to glory; losing to West Germany on penalties in 1990 and Croatia in 2018.These are the games that bring a nation to a standstill, when everybody remembers where they were and with whom they watched; the sheer depth of the emotion. It is when legends are created. Tuchel does not want to consider this part of the equation. “It is to focus on what the players need to do to become that, not to talk about the end product,” he says.Nor does he go over-the-top about Lionel Messi, the Argentina icon, who will face England for the first time in his 23-season career. Tuchel is asked whether Messi is the greatest. “One of them,” he replies. “There are so many different layers in football in so many different positions. He is right up there, for sure.”Tuchel goes on to mention how well his team played against Norway’s attacking talisman, Erling Haaland. “So we will find a way now [against Messi],” he says.Argentina have not controlled matches at this tournament, partly because of their structure, which essentially has Messi and Julián Alvarez as a front two. They can be over-run. Defensively, they are a little loose. They have flirted with disaster against lower-ranked opponents. They have been a team of moments. Sound familiar, England fans?The questions pound for Argentina. Where is the width? Are their players running enough? Are they able to stand up to the physical challenge? They were certainly jolted in this respect by Switzerland in the quarter-final. But if the defending champions have looked beatable, then nobody has beaten them. They fight until the last breath and find a way. Usually because of you know who.England have not hit the heights as a cohesive unit and yet they will enter the air-cooled stadium in Atlanta with optimism. Perhaps it is because of the gap between what they have shown and the level of which they are capable. More tangibly, this team creates chances. Even when they have trailed, they do not look finished, which is a major break from convention. They have a manager who is not slow to make changes, especially the bold ones.Tuchel can feel the excitement rising. “These last two minutes as a coach before matches and even more so now with the national anthem … I feel so alive,” he says. “I don’t want to be anywhere else in the world in these kind of moments. I can really take that in and I will again in the buildup to this game.”Then, it will be over to his thoroughbreds.