‘I don’t think I really mean this, but possibly the worst thing that ever happened to the England football team was winning the World Cup,’ playwright James Graham once said.
Of course, Graham’s hit play Dear England is currently doing the rounds as a BBC mini-series, as the big bosses at the Beeb attempt to stir up some World Cup fever ahead of the curtain-raiser in a couple of weeks’ time.
The idea is that England have never been able to back up their 1966 success, and it hangs around them like a bad smell, stinking out every future attempt to replicate the feats of Bobby Moore and Co.
Unlike Arsenal prior to this season, they haven’t even been perennial bridesmaids, failing to make a single final since that glory day at Wembley 60 years ago – their best finish followed by coming fourth at Russia 2018.
With all that in mind, a former Amazon and Uber data engineer has rustled up a handy tool to gauge the difficulty of each side’s 2026 World Cup group-stage draw, and the outcome is not promising for England as they attempt to overcome their demons.
The analyst, Bob Yakubov, has based his rankings on a combination of travel distance, recovery time, climate exposure and altitude stress – and, of the 48 teams, Thomas Tuchel’s side rank second for the hardest group-stage draw.
This is determined by their load score, which blends travel (27 per cent), recovery (20 per cent), climate (18 per cent), altitude (17 per cent), sequence (12 per cent) and kick-off heat (6 per cent), minus familiarity relief (10 per cent).
The Three Lions’ load score of 74.2 is beaten only by Uzbekistan, who posted a score of 80.
A data engineer has rustled up a handy tool to gauge the difficulty of each side’s 2026 World Cup group-stage draw, and the outcome is not promising for England
It certainly is shaping up to be a battle of attrition for a team more accustomed to England’s milder climes
England’s metrics for recovery burden, sequence penalty (when a hard trip is followed by short rest and another stressful venue) and kick-off heat all rank 100 out of 100.
They also do not have the familiarity relief enjoyed by teams such as Paraguay at the opposite end of the scale, who are set to play two of their games just 15 miles from their base camp.
England’s base camp will be in Kansas City, while they will have to travel 5,559 miles to reach fixtures in Dallas, Boston and New Jersey.
Their hottest match will be in the Texan city, which is projected to have an average temperature of 29C when the game kicks off at 3pm local time. It will also be their highest-altitude venue, at 554 feet – although they avoid the extreme heights of Mexico City and Guadalajara, which are roughly triple that.
Read More
Explore all 16 World Cup stadiums across the US, Mexico and Canada
In terms of England’s opponents facing the highest ‘burden’, the closest-ranked side is Croatia, who come ninth.
Their travel distances are significantly lower at 3,350 miles, but they face the same recovery burden – with just four days between one of their fixtures – and encounter similar climate conditions.
England’s matchday-two opponents, Ghana, rank 33rd, while Panama sit close behind in 36th.
Unsurprisingly, the hosts – Canada, the USA and Mexico – all rank favourably in terms of low burden, placing 39th, 45th and 47th respectively.
Holders Argentina, meanwhile – who are also due to be based in Kansas City – place 32nd.
All told, it certainly is shaping up to be a battle of attrition for a team more accustomed to England’s milder climes.
