Late goals, comebacks and upsets: is this record-breaking World Cup the best ever — and can England win it?

The 2026 World Cup is already the biggest in history: 48 nations, three host countries in Canada, Mexico and the United States, and the 23rd edition of the tournament. But is it the best? The quarter-finals begin on Thursday with just eight games left. Last-second winners, improbable comebacks, favourites dumped out — no World Cup has packed this much drama into this little time. And England are still walking through the middle of the chaos.

Why this World Cup is already record-breaking

The 2026 World Cup is the first with 48 teams and the first shared across three host nations. In pure arithmetic that means more matches, more countries and more time zones than any edition before it. The result is a volume of dramatic situations a 32-team tournament simply could not generate.

The expanded format has pulled sides like Cape Verde into the heart of the story. Goalkeeper Vozinha has become as familiar a face in the highlights packages as Lionel Messi or Belgium’s Youri Tielemans. That was precisely FIFA’s argument for expansion: more ways in, more stories to tell.

But biggest is not the same as best. The debate is subjective, and every generation keeps its own reference World Cup — 1966 and 1990 for England, 1986 for Argentina. What 2026 can genuinely claim is dramatic density. Very few tournaments have had this many matches settled in the final ten minutes.

Late goals and comebacks: the DNA of this tournament

What will survive from 2026 are the endings. Goals after the 85th minute redrew whole group tables and flipped matches that looked finished. When a game turns in stoppage time it lodges itself in the collective memory, and that is the mechanism that builds a World Cup legend.

The comebacks have hit teams who thought they were safe. An expanded field suggests wider quality gaps on paper, but the pitch has shown the opposite: the so-called smaller nations defend better, run further and punish on the counter. In several cases the pre-match hierarchy lasted about half an hour.

For England the context cuts both ways. A side that manages the closing stages gains an enormous edge. A side that switches off for five minutes loses a World Cup. From the quarter-finals onwards, squad depth and physical freshness become the whole conversation.

England in the chaos: how the Three Lions reach the quarters

England arrive at the quarter-finals in a tournament that has spared no favourite. Historically that scenario is not unfamiliar territory: England’s deepest runs have been built on defensive structure and set-piece efficiency rather than sustained dominance.

The English asset remains squad depth. In a 48-team format with a heavier calendar and travel across three countries, rotation has stopped being a luxury and become a requirement. The nations that can change five players without dropping a level are the ones still playing in July.

The danger has a name: the upset. This World Cup has already eliminated better-ranked nations at the hands of lower-ranked ones. No quarter-final can be treated as settled, and any lapse in the last twenty minutes gets punished immediately. That is lesson number one of this tournament.

Best World Cup ever? The debate

Settling it means picking a criterion. Technical quality? 2010 and 2014 produced more polished collective sides. Suspense? 2026 wins comfortably. Cultural reach? Three hosts, a vast North American audience and a more globalised game than ever before.

This tournament probably wins on pure emotion. Records for goals, for swings in the scoreline and for unexpected qualifications create the kind of memory that outlives any tactical breakdown. Nobody remembers a well-executed press; everybody remembers a goal in the 96th minute.

Eight matches remain to write the ending. A memorable final and 2026 becomes legend. A cagey, forgettable final and it stays the biggest World Cup rather than the best. The verdict starts on Thursday.

FAQ