The Sixty Six on 2026: Our writers deliver their final World Cup verdict

There is striking agreement in places. Elsewhere, opinion is split sharply. Together, their answers paint a fascinating picture of England’s campaign, the tournament as a whole and where Thomas Tuchel’s side goes next.

Harry Kane. He not only scored decisive goals yet again, but created them too. His presence and positional sense enabled Jude Bellingham to thrive as an inside forward, while he also offered real leadership. His brilliant winner against DR Congo stands out as a World Cup legacy moment, reminiscent of one of Bobby Charlton’s screamers. There is now a strong argument that Kane has usurped Charlton as England’s greatest-ever player, with the statistics to support it.

Jude Bellingham. To score more goals than Harry Kane is incredible. He is the world’s leading No. 10. Olise? Forget it. Jude’s the man, and he gives England hope for the future.

Jude Bellingham. With the pressure on, he seemed to thrive. His often-questioned temperament was tested in difficult conditions, but he remained calm. His goal in the third-place play-off typified his tournament: drive, ability and composure. The team should be built around him for the next decade.

Jude Bellingham. It is impossible to look beyond him, not just because of his crucial contributions in major matches, but because of their timing. That final flash of brilliance in the bronze-medal match offered hope and consolation.

Jude Bellingham. The best English player I have ever seen, with my starting point being Spain ’82, and this tournament proved it. He should be made captain to ensure he is front and centre going forward.

Jude Bellingham. No question. The debate before the tournament now looks farcical. That his place was ever questioned is nothing short of ridiculous. This is where Thomas Tuchel deserves credit for getting the very best out of his star player, while the role of Jordan Henderson should not be underplayed. Bellingham’s brilliance was critical against Panama, Mexico and Norway as England advanced to the semi-final. England need to protect him at all costs and build the team around him. He has the potential to become our greatest-ever player and is undoubtedly our finest since Paul Gascoigne, if not Bobby Charlton.

Five contributors selected Bellingham, with several arguing England’s future should now be built around him. Rob Shepherd instead made the case for Kane, highlighting his decisive goals, creativity and leadership.

Jude Bellingham. He both surprised and disappointed. There were obvious moments when he rose to world-class level with his swagger and goalscoring, silencing the debate about Cole Palmer and Phil Foden being left behind. That may not have surprised everyone, but it certainly silenced the doubters. It was disappointing, however, that when push came to shove against Argentina, Bellingham melted in the presence of Messi and company. He did not rise to the biggest occasion and vindicate the hype by dominating the game. He is still young, though, and could yet truly become the jewel in England’s crown.

Djed Spence and Anthony Gordon. Neither was in my pre-tournament squad, but both did well. Spence’s tackle against Argentina was every bit as good as Bobby Moore’s against Brazil.

Djed Spence. He was a shock inclusion, but one that proved more than justified. There were some nervous moments as the back line found its way through the opening games, but he improved every time he was called upon. Some touchline coaching was needed, but by the semi-final he had become so confident that he was arguably England’s best player in that game.

Djed Spence. Unexpectedly immense.

Djed Spence. He looked a bizarre selection but excelled at various points. Had England held on to beat Argentina, his goal-saving tackle would have been regarded as the most famous in England’s history.

Djed Spence. His inclusion was derided, he was unfairly ridiculed during the opening games and wrongly blamed for the goal against DR Congo. While technically he might not be our finest player, his energy, desire and pace were crucial at times, and he has a bright future with England. Nico O’Reilly was less of a surprise but will also benefit from the experience. For me, he should have started against Argentina, with Spence at right-back, because Reece James was not fit enough and was in poor form. Tuchel’s plan, however, was to detail Spence to Messi, especially late on.

Spence was the clear choice, featuring in five answers and earning outright selections from four contributors. Robert Taylor also highlighted Gordon, while Rob Shepherd focused on the contrasting highs and lows of Bellingham’s campaign.

Lionel Messi. He not only buried the debate over Messi or Cristiano Ronaldo as the greatest of their generation, but also the argument over him or Diego Maradona. And, for that matter, Pelé. The way he led Argentina to the final makes him the greatest player of all time. His longevity enhances that claim, but the sheer genius of his tactical and technical display in the second half against England was cinematic evidence that he is indeed Don Leo. It was sad to see him end in tears, but ultimately the best team won the World Cup: Spain.

Lionel Messi. I suppose it has to be Messi. But he ruined it by unfurling an offensive, gloating political banner after the semi-final. I respect him as a footballer, but no longer as a man.

Lionel Messi. As the tournament progressed, it could be argued that he and Argentina were favoured, but you cannot deny his pure genius. The legs may have gone, but his football brain never slows. The number of goals and assists he produced demonstrated his enduring influence as he inspired his side time and again.

Lionel Messi. For me and my creaking knees, it has to be Messi. Football needs still-brilliant oldsters, offering touch and mature vision as light relief from sheer speed. This World Cup offered several, but Messi was the greatest.

Lionel Messi. Still a ridiculous talent at 39. A little bloke who cannot run much, dominating a sport full of athletes in their physical prime.

Rodri. Spain’s metronome. Had Argentina won the final, the answer would of course have been Messi, while Rodrigo De Paul also deserved enormous credit. He not only epitomised Argentina’s approach of doing everything for Messi, but his work rate was incredible and he covered much of his club and international team-mate’s running.

Messi was the overwhelming choice, selected by five of the six contributors after leading Argentina to the final at the age of 39. Phil Martin instead sided with Rodri, a judgement vindicated by FIFA's decision to name the Spaniard as the tournament's official Player of the Tournament.  

VAR. For someone who despises VAR, I cannot deny that, in the main, it was executed extremely well. In most cases the speed and accuracy of decisions, working in harmony with the referees, were spot on. It showed the technology can work without endless delays and frustration. The PGMOL should take note.

England. I cannot look beyond England. Finishing third represents our best World Cup finish in my lifetime.

The crowds. Despite early fears, near-capacity stadiums brought this World Cup to life. The sight of huge, packed arenas across the United States, helped by the support of Mexican and Canadian fans, showed just how far football has come in North America since 1994. Once the action began, the fans made the tournament.

The football itself. The number of goals, combined with the overall quality and entertainment, made this a hugely enjoyable World Cup. Every tournament has its share of forgettable matches, but the proportion felt noticeably lower this time.

Cape Verde. Every World Cup needs an underdog story, and Cape Verde provided the best one in decades. It was only a shame they could not quite complete the upset against Argentina.

The expanded tournament. More games did not dilute the World Cup; they enhanced it. The 48-team format gave more nations an opportunity to compete on the biggest stage, and countries such as Cape Verde and DR Congo showed exactly why the expansion was worthwhile.

No consensus here as each of the contributors picked something different, which perhaps underlines how much this World Cup had to offer.

Trump's interventions. Gianni Infantino's face appearing on screen with alarming regularity. Hydration breaks. The corporate showbiz surrounding the final. Oh, and Thomas Tuchel's tactics in the semi-final.

VAR inconsistency. The officiating was too inconsistent, while FIFA's decision to overturn the USA's red card was simply ridiculous.

Hydration breaks. They were controversial from the moment they were introduced and soon looked like little more than another advertising opportunity. They repeatedly interrupted the natural flow of games and often changed momentum at crucial moments.

Hydration breaks and the final halftime show. The breaks were largely unnecessary, while the halftime entertainment was all schmaltz on the surface, driven by commercial interests underneath.

Politics and commercialisation. The Florian Balogun affair. Donald Trump's involvement. Gianni Infantino, football's simpering goblin overlord. The distorted nature of a 48-team tournament with third-placed sides progressing. Hydration breaks. Halftime shows. And staging football's biggest tournament in a country that still does not truly understand or value the sport.

Trump and Infantino's meddling. The decision to overturn Florian Balogun's red card amounted to cheating in plain sight. Fortunately it did not affect the outcome, but little thought seemed to be given to the player himself. Seeing Balogun sat on the bench with his shirt pulled over his head was one of the tournament's lasting images.

Politics and commercialisation dominated the criticism. Hydration breaks were mentioned by four contributors, while Trump, Infantino and FIFA's interventions featured heavily throughout the panel's answers.

No. Tuchel should be sacked for failing to deliver the difference he was appointed to make. The decision to extend his contract beyond this World Cup now looks negligent.

Yes. We are all crushed by those final 30 minutes against Argentina, but England still achieved their best World Cup finish outside home soil. That cannot simply be ignored.

Yes. The FA made life difficult for themselves by extending his contract before the tournament, while Tuchel's post-match comments after Argentina cost him support. Even so, he will learn from this experience and England can enjoy another deep run at Euro 2028.

Yes. He has earned the opportunity to continue, but he also has something to prove. Besides, there is the small matter of a contract.

No. England's manager should be English. More importantly, Tuchel had not improved the team enough to justify staying. Offering him a new contract before the tournament was another example of the FA's amateurism.

Yes. He deserves criticism for the semi-final and must accept responsibility for getting the game plan wrong against Argentina. But England's players also fell short when they needed leadership most. Overall, he has improved England, built on Gareth Southgate's work and deserves the chance to continue. Ideally, he should now be given the full four-year cycle to prepare England for the 2030 World Cup.

Opinion was divided, but the majority backed Tuchel to continue. Four contributors believe he has earned the chance to lead England into Euro 2028, while Rob Shepherd and Dave Kidd argue the semi-final defeat exposed enough shortcomings to justify a change of direction.