PHILADELPHIA — Emmet Sheehan looked as if he had salvaged another ugly night. A four-run second inning put the Los Angeles Dodgers into an early hole Monday against Cristopher Sánchez, perhaps the frontrunner for the National League Cy Young Award. But by the time Sheehan took the mound to start the sixth inning, the Dodgers had closed to within a run. Sheehan had kept his team in it.

Until his outing fell apart again.

“They came back,” Sheehan said, “then I kind of gave it back to them again after that.”

Then Sheehan fell behind in the count. The 2-0 fastball he threw to Brandon Marsh registered at 92.8 mph, which would have been his fourth-slowest pitch of 2025 but has become the norm for his disappointing 2026.

Velocity is not the only reason things have gone wrong for Sheehan this year, but it does not help. Marsh shot the pitch over the fence for a home run. The night quickly blew open from there, a 10-7 loss to the Philadelphia Phillies that was uglier than the final score and further sank Sheehan’s season.

“Kind of a step back today, which is pretty frustrating,” Sheehan said after feeling like he’d figured some things out going into the All-Star break.

Little has gone right for Sheehan, who has a 5.13 ERA after allowing six runs on Monday night. He falls behind in counts far too often, including against seven of the 11 batters he faced in the game’s first two innings as the Phillies took a 4-0 lead. His fastball velocity is down a tick from the 95.6 mph he averaged a year ago, and that pitch is getting pummeled. When he misses out over the plate, he’s getting crushed. Trea Turner jumped on a particularly appetizing slider for a two-run homer in that ugly second inning.

“That was really a backbreaker early,” manager Dave Roberts said.

Diagnosing Sheehan’s issues has been a game of Whac-A-Mole and the Dodgers haven’t ruled out anything physical as impacting his performance. Sheehan has attributed his diminished velocity and inconsistent results to his pitching mechanics. That cannot explain all of it.

He took the beating in the second inning and then worked quickly through the next three innings. When the Phillies did land a punch, Sheehan’s stuff usually ticked up. There are still flashes of the version of Sheehan the Dodgers expected.

“It’s just really trying to be convicted in his pitch making before he touches the stove,” Roberts said. “I think that when there’s damage or things have happened, then he locks in. (He) raises his level of intensity a little bit more. But it’s just got to be that before things start happening.”

Sheehan has not been good enough. His place in the rotation, however, feels safe. There is not an obvious healthy replacement for a club that already will have to fill Shohei Ohtani’s spot in the rotation for the foreseeable future while he nurses his left knee back to health.

“Certainly he’s getting a lot of opportunity,” Roberts said of Sheehan. “It’s not the consistency that any of us like or want, Emmet included. Until there’s another alternative, we’re going to keep running him out there.”

The Dodgers boast depth for October. They just don’t have access to much in the short term.

Blake Snell has just started a rehab assignment and is multiple starts away from returning to the rotation after surgery to remove bone chips from his left elbow. Tyler Glasnow is even further away from pitching in big-league games as his back spasms have kept him out for months. River Ryan has not pitched in the big leagues this year, partially because he’s hurt his left hamstring twice while trying to build up his workload in the minor leagues.

Landon Knack, once seen as a part of the organization’s starting pitching depth, entered when Monday’s game was already out of reach. He promptly surrendered a pair of home runs in his two innings of work.

The Dodgers’ best option might be to keep waiting to see if they can get more out of Sheehan, who had a 2.82 ERA in 73 1/3 innings last year, just more than a year removed from Tommy John surgery.

None of this is expected to change the Dodgers’ approach at next month’s trade deadline, as The Athletic reported. A potential pursuit of Tarik Skubal or others cannot be ruled out, but it is far from a priority. Expect more moves on the margins, such as the club’s acquisition Monday of former Colorado Rockies closer Seth Halvorsen. They hope to find magic with him in their player development system.

The Dodgers, who have a double-digit lead in the National League West, still have time for Sheehan to try to figure it out.

“It’s about performance,” Roberts said. “Emmet knows it. You just got to do it. That’s just the way it goes, you know.”

The 2026 Formula 1 head-to-heads with all of the latest Qualifying, Sprint and Grand Prix scores in each of the 11 teams.

Lando Norris vs Oscar Piastri – McLaren

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Norris 6-4 Piastri
Sprint: Norris 4-0 Piastri

RACE
Grand Prix*: Norris 4-6 Piastri
Sprint: Norris 4-0 Piastri

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Norris 103-92 Piastri
Placing: Norris 5th-6th Piastri

*No score awarded for the Chinese GP as both drivers failed to start

George Russell vs Kimi Antonelli – Mercedes

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Russell 4-6 Antonelli
Sprint: Russell 2-2 Antonelli

RACE
Grand Prix: Russell 4-6 Antonelli
Sprint: Russell 3-1 Antonelli

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Russell 154-204 Antonelli
Placing: Russell 3rd-1st Antonelli

Max Verstappen vs Isack Hadjar – Red Bull

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Verstappen 7-3 Hadjar
Sprint: Verstappen 4-0 Hadjar

RACE
Grand Prix: Verstappen 7-3 Hadjar
Sprint: Verstappen 4-0 Hadjar

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Verstappen 91-60 Hadjar
Placing: Verstappen 7th-8th Hadjar

Charles Leclerc vs Lewis Hamilton – Ferrari

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Leclerc 6-4 Hamilton
Sprint: Leclerc 1-3 Hamilton

RACE
Grand Prix: Leclerc 4-6 Hamilton
Sprint: Leclerc 2-2 Hamilton

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Leclerc 126-159 Hamilton
Placing: Leclerc 4th-2nd Hamilton

Alex Albon vs Carlos Sainz – Williams

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Albon 2-8 Sainz
Sprint: Albon 0-4 Sainz

RACE
Grand Prix: Albon 4-6 Sainz
Sprint: Albon 0-4 Sainz

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Albon 5-6 Sainz
Placing: Albon 16th-15th Sainz

Liam Lawson vs Arvid Lindblad – Racing Bulls

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Lawson 6-4 Lindblad
Sprint: Lawson 2-2 Lindblad

RACE
Grand Prix: Lawson 7-3 Lindblad
Sprint: Lawson 3-1 Lindblad

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Lawson 39-22 Lindblad
Placing: Lawson 10th-11th Lindblad

Fernando Alonso vs Lance Stroll – Aston Martin

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Alonso 8-2 Stroll
Sprint: Alonso 4-0 Stroll

RACE
Grand Prix*: Alonso 6-1 Stroll
Sprint: Alonso 3-1 Stroll

*No score awarded for the Australian GP, Chinese GP and Barcelona GP as both drivers retired

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Alonso 1-0 Stroll
Placing: Alonso 18th-22nd Stroll

Oliver Bearman vs Esteban Ocon – Haas

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Bearman 8-2 Ocon
Sprint: Bearman 3-1 Ocon

RACE
Grand Prix: Bearman 7-3 Ocon
Sprint: Bearman 2-2 Ocon

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Bearman 18-3 Ocon
Placing: Bearman 13th-17th Ocon

Nico Hulkenberg vs Gabriel Bortoleto – Audi

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Hulkenberg 5-5 Bortoleto
Sprint: Hulkenberg 2-2 Bortoleto

RACE
Grand Prix: Hulkenberg 3-7 Bortoleto
Sprint: Hulkenberg 1-2 Bortoleto*

*No score awarded for the Miami GP Sprint

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Hulkenberg 0-10 Bortoleto
Placing: Hulkenberg 19th-14th Bortoleto

Pierre Gasly vs Franco Colapinto – Alpine

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Gasly 8-2 Colapinto
Sprint: Gasly 2-2 Colapinto

RACE
Grand Prix: Gasly 5-5 Colapinto
Sprint: Gasly 3-1 Colapinto

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Gasly 42-19 Colapinto
Placing: Gasly 9th-12th Colapinto

Sergio Perez vs Valtteri Bottas – Cadillac

QUALIFYING
Grand Prix: Perez 6-4 Bottas
Sprint: Perez 3-1 Bottas

RACE
Grand Prix*: Perez 6-3 Bottas
Sprint: Perez 2-2 Bottas

CHAMPIONSHIP
Points: Perez 0-0 Bottas
Placing: Perez 21st-20th Bottas

*No score awarded for the Austrian GP as both drivers retired

Watch all 22 race weekends from the 2026 Formula 1 season live on Sky Sports F1. Stream Sky Sports with NOW – No contract, cancel anytime

The biggest World Cup in history produced numbers to match. Forty-eight teams, 104 games and three host countries delivered a record 308 goals before Spain were crowned champions.

But the expanded tournament was not just bigger. It was older, more geographically demanding and more uneven. The average gap between opponents in the FIFA rankings reached a tournament high, teams crossed mammoth distances between base camps and venues, and heat, humidity and altitude influenced how much sides could run.

From mismatches and marathon journeys to hydration breaks, penalty run-ups and substitute impact, the data reveals the trends that shaped an unprecedented World Cup.

More teams, more goals and bigger gaps?

The expanded World Cup generated a record-breaking number of goals. Even when factoring in the leap from a 64-game tournament, the goal ratio averaged at 2.96 per game – the second-highest at a World Cup since 1966, basically on par with 1970.

The disparity between teams’ quality, as measured by the FIFA World Rankings, has never been greater, with teams typically having a 27.3-rank gap – the biggest on record.

Greater disparity tends to bring bigger scorelines – and the historical data supports that. The table below shows the average goal difference rise with rank disparity.

In fact, this World Cup saw one of the highest win rates for higher-ranked sides in the tournament’s history since FIFA introduced the World Rankings in 1992. On average, higher-ranked teams registered a 66.3 per cent win rate.

Of course, there were upsets. In terms of upset wins, lower-ranked teams only won 14.4 per cent of games and there were only four upset wins from sides ranked 20 or more places below their opponent.

Including draws, Ghana’s 0-0 draw against England ranks as the biggest upset, followed by Cape Verde’s incredible goalless draw with Spain and New Zealand’s 2-2 draw with Iran.

The chart below shows the rank disparity and goal difference for the higher-ranked team for every game since World Cup 1994, underlining the correlation between rank disparity and goal difference.

Oldest World Cup yet

The expanded format did not just change the number of teams. It also changed the profile of the tournament. This was the oldest World Cup on record by average starting XI age.

In contrast to the Premier League, where teams are getting younger and faster, teams at the World Cup are getting older. Iran, Cape Verde and Colombia all had average starting XIs exceeding 30 years of age.

The average starting XI was 28 years and 132 days. That average age has been gradually creeping up since 1966.

The chart below shows every team’s average age at a World Cup since 1970 and the deepest stage reached, which reveals how eventual champions still typically average around 27. A similar pattern occurs with Premier League champions.

How teams coped with a continent-sized World Cup

Age was only one physical challenge. The geography of a three-country World Cup created another.

England travelled more than any other team at the World Cup with an estimated 25,609 kilometres covered as-the-crow-flies return journeys between base camp and stadiums, with Spain not far behind on 24,314 km.

There was a notable drop-off following those two teams, with France and Argentina covering around half as much distance.

At the other end of the scale, co-hosts Mexico clocked only 991 km – averaging at just 198 km per game.

Teams didn’t only have to contend with gruelling travel itineraries, they also faced sweltering matchday temperatures and lung-busting altitudes.

As the chart below shows, teams tended to make fewer high-speed runs as temperatures rose – with the Miami stadium registering the highest average temperatures and the fewest runs.

Even when adjusting the numbers to factor red cards, Mexico City’s Azteca stands out as an outlier, with far fewer runs than expected for its sub-20-degree average temperature – explained by its breathtaking altitude at 2,245m above sea level.

Looking at teams that endured the highest heat and altitudes, Croatia and Portugal stood out as the teams that ran furthest above their peers for both distance and high-speed runs. At the other end, Argentina, the Netherlands and Morocco registered below-average outputs in those same conditions.

The conditions also changed the rhythm of matches. Hydration breaks turned some games into four-part contests, giving coaches regular tactical reset points.

The data suggests lower-ranked teams typically benefitted more, while the higher-ranked traditional powerhouses of world football often failed to retain dominance in the 10 mins following hydration time-outs, compared with the 10 minutes before the break.

Set-pieces and substitutes changing the game

If conditions shaped the rhythm, pressure situations shaped the outcomes. Dead balls, penalty routines and bench depth all made an impact.

Overall, one in four goals scored at the World Cup came from set-pieces – with goals scored from corners accounting for half of those.

Bosnia and Herzegovina were the tournament’s most set-piece-dependent team among nations scoring at least five goals, with dead balls supplying three of their five. The USA scored almost half of their 11 goals from set-pieces, while Argentina and England led the tournament with seven set-piece goals apiece.

Champions Spain scored only three of their 14 goals from set-pieces (21.4 per cent) while just two of France’s 20 came that way. Argentina and England were considerably more dependent, scoring more than a third of their goals from dead-ball situations.

While this summer’s World Cup may have normalised hydration breaks and half-time shows, it also raised fresh questions about the stuttered penalty run-up.

Sky Sports‘ Ron Walker found only 53 per cent of penalties taken with a stuttered run-up were converted, compared with a 71 per cent conversion rate without a stutter.

Overall, that stutter trend helped drag the overall penalty conversion rate down to 66.1 per cent – the lowest of the tournaments shown.

Substitutes also played a huge role at the tournament, with one-fifth of goals scored by players coming on from the bench. In total ‘finishers’ scored in 44 of the 104 games.

South Korea top the percentage ranking, but Belgium were the clearest knockout-stage example of bench impact: five of their 14 goals came from substitutes, including three from Romelu Lukaku.

Spain’s depth mattered at the decisive moment too, with Ferran Torres coming off the bench to score the final’s match-winning goal.

What the champions told us

Spain were not the tournament’s most extreme team in any one category, and that may be the point. In a World Cup defined by longer journeys, wider mismatches, older squads, heat, altitude and tactical interruptions, the champions found balance.

They were not heavily reliant on set-pieces, avoided the penalty drama that shaped other contenders, and still had enough depth for a substitute to decide the final.

The expanded format created bigger numbers everywhere, but Spain’s title was built on control rather than chaos – epitomised by conceding a record-low one goal throughout the tournament.

The expanded World Cup delivered more goals and bigger mismatches, featured the oldest starting XIs on record, tested teams through unprecedented travel and difficult conditions, and was ultimately decided by how sides handled pressure – before Spain emerged as champions with a profile that challenged those wider trends.