Graeme Souness is one of the toughest footballers of all time, a midfield titan for Liverpool and Scotland in the 1970s and 1980s. He was occasionally outwitted by subtler players such as the Brazilian genius Zico, but no opponent ever got the better of him physically.
No human opponent, anyway. During the 1986 World Cup in Mexico, Souness lost a stone in weight (6.35kg) against West Germany at Querétaro in stifling heat and at high altitude. “I can remember going down on my haunches and thinking: ‘God, do I not feel good,’” he said. “It was the worst I ever felt on a football pitch. I couldn’t breathe.”
Souness was left out of the decisive final game against Uruguay because the Scotland manager, Alex Ferguson, knew he couldn’t go the distance. To omit Souness from such a huge game was unthinkable, but extreme heat also forces change to the cultural climate. Unwelcome compromise will be an unspoken theme of next month’s men’s World Cup where temperature and humidity will determine teams’ ability to perform on the field.
It might also be the key to victory. Chelsea’s adaptability was central to their win in last year’s Club World Cup in the United States, a tournament that acted as a trailer for this summer’s main event. During the competition, heat forced some teams to stop training, Chelsea’s Enzo Fernández had a dizzy spell during the semi-final and Atlético Madrid’s Marcos Llorente complained that even his toenails hurt.
Even with five substitutes, intense pressing for 90 minutes was impossible, and some periods of play made Béla Tarr’s films look fast-moving by comparison. “If you turn the game into a basketball match in this heat, it’s not going to help anyone,” said the Chelsea defender Levi Colwill. “You have to control the ball way more, pick the right times to attack and try to score.”
Chelsea did that immaculately in their stunning 3-0 win over Paris Saint-Germain in the final. They pressed the reigning European champions aggressively in the first 10 minutes, like a boxer warning an opponent with a big right hand in the first round, before settling into a slow-slow-quick rhythm. “We tried to be very aggressive and suffocate them early on,” said their head coach, Enzo Maresca. “For me, we won the game in the first 10 minutes.” Yet they didn’t score their first goal until the 22nd.
To make such an aggressive start in extreme heat feels counterintuitive, but there is logic in harassing a defence that has yet to settle. Ultimately, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. There isn’t even a one-size-fits-one approach. Chelsea had an average possession of 61% in their first six games, then 34% when they adjusted to face a superior PSG in the final.
World Cups can be won without the ball – in 1966, only one of the 16 teams, Bulgaria, had a lower average possession than England – but there is a simple rule of thumb in football: the higher the temperature and humidity, the more desirable it is to let the ball do the work.
The past isn’t always a foreign country. “The ideal team for Mexico will play a patient, possessive game punctuated by short bursts of incisive football,” wrote David Lacey in a prescient Guardian preview of the 1986 World Cup. “They will also have attacking players capable of spotting the fraction of a chance before anyone else and turning it into a goal.”
Lacey did get one thing wrong: Diego Maradona didn’t always need a fraction of a chance. His performances in Mexico are the apex of football, but even he couldn’t have won the World Cup without the support of a canny and underrated team. Brazil had similar qualities when they won USA 94, where the unsung hero was their captain, Dunga, who was both hard man and metronome in midfield. Brazil averaged 60% possession across the tournament, the highest for a World Cup winner until Spain redefined possession football in 2010, and their ability to control games was crucial.
If the big picture remains the same, there will be some subtle differences in details and language. In 1986, the only thing a man pressed was his trousers. And in 2026, the age of the auteur coach, we are less likely to see teams finding their own tactical solutions on the field. The ability to change gear – and to judge when to do so – will decide many knockout games. But most teams will want to keep the ball as much as is realistically possible. The thought of meeting possession-perfect Spain in a repeat of the Euro 2024 final should chill the bones of every England fan.
That match was won by a substitute, Mikel Oyarzabal, and in modern football, especially at higher temperatures, they are more important than ever. Of the 20 outfield players who started the last World Cup final between Argentina and France, only seven were on the field for the penalty shootout. Being left on the bench, once an insult to any footballer, is now a chance to grab the glory and the limelight. Just ask Chloe Kelly.
Chelsea used their squad depth in a different way at the Club World Cup, rotating their players to a degree that, as Arrigo Sacchi knows all too well, would once have been anathema in a month-long competition.
The finalists at this summer’s World Cup will play eight games in five weeks and need to pace themselves accordingly. The World Cup is usually won by the best team; this year, it may be won by the best squad – and one that can stand the heat.
-
This is an extract from our newsletter, The Hotspot. To subscribe just visit this page and follow the instructions.
