Was this year’s World Cup the greatest of all time? It’s impossible to consider that question without working out roughly how the previous 22 editions rank.

So, with apologies in advance for placing the first World Cup finals you remember lower than you think they should be, here’s an attempt to rate all 23 played over the past 96 years.

23: 1938. Hosts: France. Final: Italy 4-2 Hungary

Italy retained their crown, and were a much better side than they’d been four years beforehand. Brazil also appeared a serious force for the first time at the competition. But this is surely the least fabled World Cup in history, and remembered chiefly for the political tensions shortly before the following year’s outbreak of the Second World War.

In truth, the first three editions were not particularly well-organised or serious competitions, with many of the world’s best sides not bothering to enter. As such, they are the bottom three in our list.

22: 1934. Hosts: Italy. Final: Italy 2-1 Czechoslovakia (after extra time)

Similarly, Italy’s victory at this World Cup is remembered chiefly in relation to the influence of Benito Mussolini, and some rather charitable refereeing decisions they benefited from en route to glory.

This is also the only tournament where the holders, Uruguay, didn’t enter — they were still annoyed that few European teams bothered participating when they’d hosted the first World Cup four years beforehand.

21: 1930 Hosts: Uruguay. Final: Uruguay 4-2 Argentina

The most famous of the three pre-Second World War tournaments, if only because it was the inaugural one. The stories related to the staging of this first edition have become somewhat legendary, particularly the European entrants travelling together by ship across the Atlantic Ocean, then stopping off to collect the Brazil squad en route. But the football was largely primitive and uncompetitive, as only 13 countries competed.

At least the final, a genuinely fierce local derby, produced an exciting game with six goals, and the nature of the host nation triumphing helped to popularise the basic concept of spending huge sums of money to stage FIFA’s tournament.

20: 1962. Hosts: Chile. Final: Brazil 3-1 Czechoslovakia

An edition without any genuinely legendary matches, and with only one true standout performer: Brazil’s outside-right Garrincha was sensational. But Pele pulled up injured in their second game, and that was his World Cup over. In general, attacking players struggled to make their mark in an aggressive tournament, and the Brazilian winners were considered less complete and less exciting than four years beforehand.

In truth, you never really hear the 1962 World Cup spoken about for almost any reason aside from Garrincha.

19: 1954. Hosts: Switzerland. Final: West Germany 3-2 Hungary

A famous finale, with West Germany prevailing over a side who had defeated them 8-3 in the group stage. But the manner in which they triumphed was hardly glorious: a physical approach that focused on injuring Hungary’s best players.

This tournament was hugely compromised by a bizarre structure. Not only did the groups consist of only two matches for each side — the two strongest teams didn’t play each other — the four group winners were then all placed on the same side of the knockout draw, with all the runners-up on the other.

The strange thing, of course, is that the side to emerge from the latter half of the bracket ended up winning the final, to nobody’s great delight.

18: 1990. Hosts: Italy. Final: West Germany 1-0 Argentina

There was a sense of romance about Italy’s hosting of this competition, but the low goals-per-game rate spoke volumes — to the extent football felt compelled to introduce the backpass law, and clamp down on dangerous tackles, to bring some excitement back to the sport.

Only one of the quarter-finals produced more than one goal: England’s 3-2 comeback victory against Cameroon. The semi-finals, Argentina vs Italy and West Germany vs England, were both hugely tense but lacked genuine quality, and both went to penalties after 1-1 draws.

These produced a final that was a repeat of the one four years earlier in Mexico, and was a fittingly terrible contest. Argentina, weakened by injury and suspension, became the first World Cup finalist not to score. The game was only notable for their two red cards, and the Germans winning it late on through an Andi Brehme penalty.

17: 1966. Hosts: England. Final: England 4-2 West Germany (after extra time)

This World Cup tends to be placed unreasonably high in similar lists compiled by English publications, for obvious reasons. But to everybody else, 1966 was a dull tournament, characterised by lenient refereeing that meant the star players — particularly Pele — struggled to have an impact. The efficiency of European teams got the better of the flair from the South American contenders.

But there were some good stories: the complete unknowns from North Korea defeated Italy, debutants Portugal reached the semi-final, and the final was a six-goal thriller featuring a controversial goal and only decided in the last minute of extra time.

North Korea players celebrate after their 1-0 win over Italy in 1966 (Central Press/Hulton Archive/Getty Images)

16: 1950. Hosts: Brazil. ‘Final’: Uruguay 2-1 Brazil

World Cups during this period were regularly hampered by strange formats. In a cynical bid to ensure the host nation remained in the competition for as many matches as possible, the first post-Second World War edition was decided not by a knockout phase, but instead by a four-team second round of group play, which produced little drama.

Until, of course, the final game (which was not technically the final)… when Brazil contrived to lose a 1-0 lead, and Uruguay triumphed against all odds. That match has gone down in history. The United States’ 1-0 defeat of England in the first group stage is also among football’s greatest shocks. But in a period before the World Cup was broadcast fully on television, the 1950 tournament overall still went slightly under the radar.

15: 2002. Hosts: Japan and South Korea. Final: Brazil 2-0 Germany

There were unquestionably some memorable elements to the first World Cup played in Asia: South Korea’s somewhat fortunate run to the semi-finals, Senegal’s storming performance in reaching the quarter-finals, and above all else, Ronaldo firing Brazil to glory after his nightmare in the 1998 final and then four years of injury problems.

The issue with this World Cup was that most of the star players were exhausted for a tournament which started unusually early, in May, to try to avoid the worst of monsoon season. The two pre-tournament favourites, Argentina and France, then both exited at the group stage. That brought short-term drama, but ultimately there wasn’t a single truly memorable game from the quarter-finals onwards, the closest thing being Brazil’s 2-1 last-eight victory over England, courtesy of a Ronaldinho free-kick goal from miles out that nobody was sure was intentional.

14: 1978. Hosts: Argentina. Final: Argentina 3-1 Netherlands (after extra time)

A tournament controversially held during a period when a military dictatorship was in control of Argentina, this World Cup can basically be boiled down into two core memories involving the host nation. The ticker-tape welcome in the stadium at the start of the final, and the genius of Mario Kempes, an onrushing midfielder who provided the contributions of a centre-forward.

But there weren’t a huge number of outstanding matches, in part because of it having a second group stage, which meant there was essentially only one true knockout match, the final itself. That was, at least, among the better ones in World Cup history, and a rare example of the best individual at the tournament, Kempes, being the match-winner in the final.

13: 1994. Hosts: United States. Final: Brazil 0-0 Italy (3-2 on penalties)

The United States’ long-awaited first hosting of the World Cup was an overall success, particularly in terms of attendances. The football was largely good, and there were some excellent matches: Brazil 3-2 Netherlands in the quarter-finals the pick of the bunch — and some heartwarming underdog stories, with Sweden and Bulgaria making the semi-finals. In fact, there wasn’t a single goalless draw in the knockout stage until the final.

Of course, that turned out to be one of the flattest, most underwhelming World Cup finals on record. With Roberto Baggio and Romario, the two star men, both struggling through injury, neither Brazil nor Italy produced many chances at all.

The fact that the final was settled with Baggio missing a shootout penalty, a la Diana Ross during the opening ceremony weeks earlier, was a sad way for the tournament to end.

Roberto Baggio following his penalty miss in the 1994 final (Omar Torres/AFP via Getty Images)

12. 2010. Hosts: South Africa. Final: Spain 1-0 Netherlands (after extra time)

The knockout phase in this edition was actually pretty good: six of the seven matches from the quarter-finals onwards feel memorable in one way or another, featuring Luis Suarez’s handball, a Brazil collapse in the second half against the Netherlands, Germany’s 4-0 thrashing of Argentina, Giovanni van Bronckhorst’s long-range belter against Uruguay, Carles Puyol’s headed winner against Germany and lastly Andres Iniesta’s memorable extra-time goal in the final against an overly physical Dutch side — who could actually have easily won the game.

But it took a very long time to reach that point, and play was compromised by a ball the players couldn’t control and a wintry southern hemisphere climate that led to serious criticism of the competition’s overall quality.

11: 2022. Hosts: Qatar. Winners: Argentina 3-3 France (4-2 on penalties)

In the aftermath of a thrilling end to the final — Argentina’s win over France on penalties after a six-goal draw (which was 2-0 to the South Americans after 80 minutes) with Lionel Messi and Kylian Mbappe starring — there was a rush to consider Qatar 2022 the best World Cup yet. That now seems a little misguided.

There were some other good knockout-stage matches — Argentina progressing on penalties after drawing 2-2 with the Netherlands, France overcoming England 2-1 in an end-to-end quarter-final — and Morocco becoming the first African nation to reach the semis of a World Cup was also a significant achievement.

But this tournament was a bit too condensed, a little sluggish in the early knockout rounds, lost some of its glamour with a mid-November start to dodge the summer heat of the Gulf region and was overshadowed by the nature of the host country, who offered nothing on the pitch, losing all three games and only scoring one goal.

A good World Cup, but not a truly great one.

10: 2026. Hosts: United States, Mexico and Canada. Final: Spain 1-0 Argentina (after extra time)

Judging a tournament in the moment is difficult. It’s also tricky to compare World Cup 2026 to any previous edition because of the expansion from 32 teams to 48; there were more group matches here than there were total matches at any previous edition. In basic terms, that means more opportunity for a great story, a great shock, a great goal, a great controversy. In an era where sport is increasingly consumed in short-form content, there was more scope for viral moments.

Adding 16 extra teams went better than anyone could reasonably expect. Even if the minnows didn’t progress far in the competition, in general they held their own and provided some fun. The group stage, while arduous and compromised by eight of the 12 third-placed sides going through, was enjoyable. The style of football was open and favoured attacking players. The three co-hosts all picked up early momentum. The round of 32 and last 16 stages both produced some very entertaining matches.

From the quarter-finals, though, things slightly tailed off. There weren’t any genuine epics. Even Argentina’s 2-1 semi-final win over England, which featured a dramatic late turnaround, took 50 minutes to really get going.

And then there’s the unavoidable reality that — just as at World Cup 1994 — the final was the worst match of the knockout phase. In his ranking of all 104 matches at the tournament, Anantaajith Raghuraman placed it 101st. It’s probably not the worst final in the tournament’s 96-year history, but it was surely the most underwhelming, given how exciting it seemed on paper.

On the whole, this was a good World Cup. During the tournament, particularly with so much football every day, the crucial factor is not that there are great games; it’s more that there aren’t many terrible ones. The difference between staying up late (for fans in Europe) to watch a two-out-of-10 match and one that’s a 6/10 is enormous. In that respect, this World Cup delivered.

But in hindsight, you boil things down to the basics: great players (tick), a good winning side (tick), the number of great moments at key points (no more than OK), and the quality of the final (big miss).

Some are hailing this as the greatest World Cup ever. Others will say it was nothing compared to the editions from their childhood. A reasonable summary is that it was probably as good as could reasonably be expected for a 48-team tournament, but was hugely compromised by a terrible final.

9: 2018. Hosts: Russia. Final: France 4-2 Croatia

This tournament seems entirely unheralded in retrospect, possibly because the host nation is currently banned from playing in FIFA competitions following the 2022 invasion of Ukraine. But at the time, this World Cup was, midway through, spoken about as one of the best the game had seen. There were a huge number of late goals and a decent number of shocks.

Its latter stages, though, were comprised of a lopsided draw. The top half (France, Uruguay, Brazil, Belgium) were probably all better than the bottom half (England, Sweden, Croatia, Russia). Even the final, despite featuring six goals, felt a bit loose, a bit unserious, almost like a pre-season friendly. Winners France were exciting because of Mbappe’s speed and Antoine Griezmann’s invention, but they never played wonderful football and weren’t hugely tested.

Basically, this edition hasn’t aged particularly well, but those who watched, say, France’s 4-3 round of 16 win over Argentina, or Belgium’s 3-2 comeback victory against Japan at that same stage and then their 2-1 defeat of Brazil in the quarter-finals, will have very fond memories of 2018.

Kylian Mbappe celebrates scoring his team’s fourth goal against Argentina (Catherine Ivill/Getty Images)

8: 1974. Hosts: West Germany. Final: West Germany 2-1 Netherlands

A tournament that was dominated by security concerns in the early stages, and then slightly ruined later on by a sustained period of rainy weather which left the pitches unfit for quality football. Zaire’s apparent inability to understand how to defend free kicks was one of the main talking points.

Apart, of course, from Johan Cruyff’s famous turn against Sweden. He and his Dutch team-mates would dominate this tournament and become the neutrals’ favourites. While it’s sometimes depicted as West Germany spoiling the party, a la 1954, by beating the best footballing side in the final, they too were an excellent side, and the two were considered to jointly represent the new-found concept of Total Football.

The final, which featured the Dutch going ahead without the Germans touching the ball and was a showdown between Cruyff and Franz Beckenbauer, slightly rescued the competition — even if most would have preferred a Netherlands victory.

7: 2014. Hosts: Brazil. Final: Germany 1-0 Argentina (after extra time)

Brazil is unarguably a fantastic host country for a World Cup, and while their 2014 team was one of the least impressive iterations of the most successful nation in the tournament’s history, they played a part in its two most memorable matches, albeit not necessarily for the right reasons. They practically kicked a hugely likeable Colombia team off the park in the quarter-finals, then endured a shocking collapse against Germany in the next round, losing 7-1.

But the other five matches from the quarter-finals onwards — which included three extra-time periods — featured only three goals between them, which rather overshadowed an enjoyable, open and attack-minded group stage, where the likes of Costa Rica and Algeria punched above their weight.

Still, there were enough moments — great goals from Robin van Persie, James Rodriguez and, in the final, Mario Gotze — for 2014 to rank highly. And the 7-1 remains the most remarkable result in World Cup history.

6: 1958. Hosts: Sweden. Final: Brazil 5-2 Sweden

A tournament that feels almost magical to read about today. The 16 participating countries loved the experience of being based in Sweden for a month. Brazil finally won a first World Cup, inspired by 17-year-old Pele, a player who would do more than anyone else to promote the competition by his final, again victorious, bash at it 12 years later. Just Fontaine’s 13 goals in a single World Cup is a record that may never be beaten — even in the era of 48-team fields — while his team-mate Raymond Kopa also established himself as one of the true greats.

The hosts’ fairytale run through to the final was also of note, and the triumphant Brazil side honoured them by parading the Swedish flag, rather than their own, at full time of their victory. But above all else, as Rob Fielder points out in his history of the tournament, this was “the birth of the modern World Cup”, in that it was the first edition where every serious footballing nation entered.

The only thing that prevents 1958 from being placed higher on this list is that the World Cup was not yet formatted to be a televised spectacle. All four quarter-finals, and then both semi-finals, kicked off at the same time.

The football was, by all accounts, very good. But people around the world didn’t experience it like they would future editions.

5: 2006. Hosts: Germany. Final: Italy 1-1 France (5-3 on penalties)

Germany proved a fantastic host country and their team’s run to the semi-finals was better than most locals expected.

This was a very backloaded tournament: almost nothing of any serious consequence happened in the group stage, although that set up a brilliant knockout phase that featured Argentina’s 2-1 extra-time win over Mexico in a truly superb encounter, Zidane turning on the magic against both Spain and Brazil, the infamous Battle of Nuremberg as Portugal overcame the Netherlands and Italy’s last-gasp semi-final triumph, thanks to Fabio Grosso’s curler to eliminate the hosts.

Then came an incredibly intense final, dominated by Zidane and Marco Materazzi, with the game’s two goalscorers also involved in the third major incident of the night.

It took a while to get going, but this World Cup eventually provided as many great moments as any.

Zinedine Zidane walks past the World Cup trophy after his red card (Roberto Schmidt/AFP via Getty Images)

4: 1998. Hosts: France. Final: France 3-0 Brazil

It was once relatively routine for the host country to win that World Cup — Uruguay, Italy, England, West Germany — but France in 1998 are still the most recent example of it occurring, and this edition is remembered as much for the subsequent celebrations around Paris as for the overall event itself, inevitably painting the tournament as a jubilant, happy celebration of football.

That’s not entirely inaccurate. The level of attacking in 1998 was superior to the prior few World Cups, and the knockout stage provided some of the great goals in World Cup history — Michael Owen and Dennis Bergkamp for England and the Netherlands, both against Argentina — and some hugely significant matches.

Debutants Croatia memorably thrashed Germany 3-0 and then led against the hosts, before two goals from Lilian Thuram put France into a final which was dominated by fitness concerns over Ronaldo and then essentially won with two headers from Zidane.

It’s difficult to have any major reservations about this tournament.

3: 1986. Hosts: Mexico. Final: Argentina 3-2 West Germany

No World Cup before or since has been as dominated by a single player.

Diego Maradona’s 1986 campaign remains the greatest in the tournament’s history. In Argentina’s four knockout games, his performance in a 1-0 win over neighbours Uruguay was his personal favourite and his two goals against England in a legendary quarter-final remain the most (in)famous, but his best probably came in the 2-0 semi-final defeat of Belgium. In the final he was quieter, but Argentina still prevailed.

There were several good sides at this tournament, with relative outsiders such as Denmark and the USSR becoming hugely popular for their positive football. The likes of Preben Elkjaer, Gary Lineker and Michel Platini all had excellent individual tournaments.

And, much as it might seem strange today, people around the world were very taken with the ‘Mexican wave’, which seemed to encapsulate a joyful tournament.

2: 1982. Hosts: Spain. Final: Italy 3-1 West Germany

It might seem a strange thing to say about one of the World Cup’s most successful nations, but this Italy side are probably the biggest outsiders to have ended up winning the tournament. They were 18/1 seventh-favourites beforehand, started the competition slowly, and their sudden evolution into champions was completely unexpected.

The first 24-team World Cup (up from 16) was structured strangely: a second group stage featuring four pools of three, with only those finishing top progressing to the semi-finals. But this produced some of the most thrilling football in the history of the World Cup, with the group consisting of Argentina, Italy and Brazil particularly memorable.

Paolo Rossi’s hat-trick against Brazil, who played wonderful football but were hamstrung by the erratic finishing of striker Serginho, would become particularly famous. Marco Tardelli’s celebration after scoring in the final provided raw emotion at the end of a tournament which also featured the Disgrace of Gijon, Harald Schumacher’s grisly foul on Patrick Battiston, and the hosts getting beaten 1-0 by Northern Ireland.

1: 1970. Hosts: Mexico. Final: Brazil 4-1 Italy

The first edition to be broadcast in colour, the most celebrated World Cup winners and some truly thrilling knockout matches. West Germany’s 3-2 victory over defending champions England in the quarter-finals, and then their subsequent 4-3 loss to Italy — both matches going to extra time — stand out as particularly famous matches in tournament history.

Even small innovations helped. This was the first World Cup to feature substitutions — to guard against the energy-sapping weather conditions and altitude in Mexico — and the first where referees showed yellow and red cards to communicate their decisions to viewers, as much as the players themselves.

Ultimately, this tournament is remembered for Brazil, who used five superstar No 10s — Gerson, Jairzinho, Tostao, Pele and Rivelino — squeezed into their legendary 4-2-4 system.

No one has become world champions with that level of style; Brazil 1970 remain the most fabled side in all of football.

For a talent of his stature, football fans do not get to see enough of Bradley Barcola.

The 23-year-old forward would walk into most starting line-ups, but faces fierce competition for minutes at Paris Saint-Germain and with the French national team, possibly the most talented club and country pairing in world football.

Those fights for selection have reduced him to something of a squad player: he started only half of France’s eight World Cup games, and just four of PSG’s nine knockout matches en route to retaining the UEFA Champions League last season.

The Athletic’s David Ornstein reported in late June that Barcola appeared reluctant to sign a new contract while getting less game time than he would like. And, as also reported by The Athletic, Liverpool and Arsenal are among the clubs with Barcola on their radars. PSG are under no pressure to sell, though, and value him at more than £100million ($134m).

That is a huge figure, but in a transfer market undergoing rapid inflation, it could actually be a coup if it means landing one of the most exciting young talents around.

Here, The Athletic looks at why he is so in demand.

Barcola is blessed with a broad range of attacking qualities, but it is his blistering pace that is most striking.

According to tracking data provider SkillCorner, Barcola ranked fourth across Europe’s top five leagues for ‘Peak Sprint Velocity’ last season, which measures the 99th percentile of his physical activities above 15km/h, clocking 32.7km/h.

When Barcola turns on the burners, there is little stopping him — as Arsenal found out in the 96th minute of the Champions League final in May, when he burst through to create a huge chance to win the game, only to skew his shot wide.

This is how Barcola typically channels his explosive speed. His SkillCorner run profile shows that the majority of his off-ball movement comes in the form of direct runs in behind.

Get the pass to him right, and he is virtually guaranteed a one-v-one opportunity.

As a right-footed left-winger, Barcola likes to bend these runs from outside to in, so carrying him both towards goal and onto his stronger foot. He particularly likes to attack through balls slipped between centre-back and full-back, darting in from the latter’s blindside.

By the time the opposition’s right-back has spotted the danger and orientated himself, Barcola is already disappearing into the distance.

It was this exact movement that led to his goal in Saturday’s World Cup third-place play-off against England, while the other example below comes from his strike in PSG’s 3-0 Ligue 1 defeat of Le Havre last November.

On the ball, Barcola’s speed makes him a natural dribbler, completing 1.85 take-ons per game, the 12th-highest figure in France’s top flight last season. But with a dribble success rate of just 36.7 per cent, the third-lowest among the division’s top 20, there is plenty of room for refinement.

Barcola’s dribbling leans heavily on his explosive acceleration, unbalancing defenders with abrupt changes of pace, while weaving in sudden chops and dragbacks. But that style of direct dribbling requires space for you to attack, which becomes harder up against deep-lying defences, where tighter touches and more subtle footwork are required.

Below is an example from France’s 3-0 World Cup group-stage win against Iraq, where, after initially darting past the full-back, Barcola takes a heavy second touch and runs out of room, unable to prevent the ball from crossing the byline.

With his preference for wide, open spaces, Barcola would probably be a better fit at Liverpool than with Arsenal.

Liverpool were the Premier League’s most counter-attacking side last season, launching 128 direct attacks, more than any other team. That transitional style is set to only intensify under their new head coach Andoni Iraola, who became known for the relentless, hard-running, end-to-end football he implemented over the prior three years as Bournemouth boss.

The position is a clear priority for Iraola, too. “We definitely need to sign a winger,” he said at a press conference in Chicago on Tuesday at the start of Liverpool’s pre-season tour of the United States.

Last season under Arne Slot, it was Cody Gakpo who operated from the left for Liverpool. Gakpo’s tendency to cut inside and curl shots towards the far corner is well established, a trait mirrored by Barcola, whose shot map is clustered in similar areas. Barcola scored 0.57 goals per 90 minutes in Ligue 1 last season, roughly double Gakpo’s Premier League rate, albeit he was facing a much more forgiving level of competition.

Barcola takes 4.5 shots for every 100 touches, which made him the most proactive shooter in PSG’s squad last season. This willingness to make things happen is why, despite his more natural fit at Liverpool, he would be a very welcome addition at Arsenal too.

Mikel Arteta’s side were the dominant force in the 2025-26 Premier League, securing a well-earned title. But they could sometimes struggle for inspiration in open play, something they compensated for with their set-piece prowess.

As well as being quick to pull the trigger himself, Barcola is a creator for others, with no player attempting line-breaking passes more frequently than him during the World Cup.

Arsenal have already moved to replace the departed Leandro Trossard on the left of attack, reaching a €40million (£34m) agreement with Club Brugge for talented Greek winger Christos Tzolis. Having played the past two seasons in the Belgian league, the 24-year-old remains more of an unknown quantity as he returns to the English game after a previous spell with Norwich City five years ago and has yet to perform at the same level as back-to-back Champions League winner and three-in-a-row Ligue 1 champion Barcola.

Barcola remains close to becoming a regular feature in PSG’s frightening attack. But the career of a footballer is short and unforgiving, and plenty have seen precious years slip away while waiting in the wings.

Arsenal and Liverpool would jump at the chance to give this star an immediate chance to take centre stage.

Anthony Joshua will make his return to the ring on Saturday for the first time since being in a tragic car crash which killed two of his closest friends and team members, Sina Ghami and Latif Ayodele, in Nigeria on December 29.

The former two-time unified world heavyweight boxing champion (29-4-0, 26 KOs) faces Albanian heavyweight Kristian Prenga (20-1-0, 20 KOs) in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia in an event titled ‘The Comeback’.

It comes almost seven months after the 36-year-old was in a Lexus SUV when it collided with a stationary vehicle on the Lagos-Ibadan expressway, south-west Nigeria. His personal trainer, Ayodele, and strength coach, Ghami — who had both known Joshua since they met in north London 20 years ago and been constants by his side throughout his career — died. Joshua was discharged from hospital after two days.

Before a press conference last month to announce the Prenga fight, Joshua spoke about the loss of his two friends on the 5 Live Boxing podcast, saying: “You never overcome it, but you gain perspective in life… As a soldier, I stand strong for their parents first and foremost. This isn’t about me. I feel it’s important to put their parents first at the minute. I’ll have my time to grieve. But right now, my heart and mind tell me their parents are my main priority.”

At the same event, Joshua’s long-time promoter Eddie Hearn told The Athletic it was hard to really know how the fighter was processing the events of last December: “He’s a very proud man,” Hearn said. “He’s not the kind of person that’s going to let you really know how he’s thinking. He’s just going to say, ‘I’m strong’.

“The reality is, how do you deal with it? But I know when he’s training, he’s in the best place he can be. Maybe he’s papering over cracks, but it’s better than the cracks opening up wide.”

Clinical and counselling psychologist Dr Sorcha Mathews tells The Athletic it is important to understand that “experiencing a traumatic event does not necessarily lead to trauma. Everyone will face difficult experiences throughout life, but whether an event becomes traumatic depends on its longer-term impact on the individual.”

Mathews, whose main area of work in the National Health Service (NHS) is within a specialist complex trauma and dissociation service, explains that people can experience the same event very differently, depending on a combination of biological factors and their life experiences, particularly what they learned and experienced while growing up.

While we might describe certain events as potentially traumatic, context is crucial. “It’s an individual’s interpretation, history and the lasting impact of that experience that determine whether it becomes trauma,” says Mathews.

While people respond in different ways to traumatic experiences, there are some common reactions in the early days and weeks. These include feeling overwhelmed, frightened, anxious, disoriented and confused, says Dr Georgina Clifford, a specialist clinical and research psychologist and director of London Trauma Specialists.

There is no “right” way to respond to a traumatic event.

Anthony Joshua at the Tyson Fury-Arslanbek Makhmudov fight in April (Richard Pelham/Getty Images for Netflix)

Some people find their experiences so difficult to deal with that they blank them out entirely, says psychotherapist Gary Bloom: “It’s a way of protecting the individual because whatever they were going through was so traumatic that they can’t actually deal with it.

“The brain has a way of blanking that out to protect itself because the actual trauma was so destructive.”

Others might develop a greater appreciation of life, stronger relationships, a renewed sense of purpose, or increased confidence in their ability to cope with future challenges.

This is known as post-traumatic growth. “It doesn’t mean the traumatic event was beneficial or imply that the person is unaffected by what happened,” explains Mathews. “It describes the positive psychological changes that can sometimes emerge through the process of adapting to significant adversity.”

Others might not experience this, which should never be seen as a sign of weakness or lack of resilience.

“Recovery is highly individual and influenced by many factors, including previous life experiences, biological vulnerability, social support, the nature of the trauma, and access to appropriate care,” says Mathews.

“The aim is not to judge how someone responds to trauma, but to understand their unique experience and support them in moving forward in the way that is right for them.”

The route to recovery looks different for everyone, but in the immediate aftermath of a traumatic event, it’s generally not recommended that everyone automatically receives formal psychological intervention.

Instead, says Mathews, the most helpful approach for many people is to “ensure they are physically and emotionally safe, have access to practical and social support, and are given space to experience and express their natural reactions, whether that is grief, fear, anger, sadness or anxiety. These responses are often part of the mind and body’s normal process of adapting to an abnormal experience.”

Over the following weeks, many people start to recover naturally. Things that can help during that time include maintaining structure and routine in daily life, reconnecting with meaningful daily activities, looking after physical health, and leaning on trusted friends and family.

Mathews says that if someone approaches her within the first three to six months of a traumatic event, she often begins with psychoeducation: “Helping someone understand what trauma is, why they are experiencing particular symptoms, and reassuring them that many of these responses are common can, in itself, be profoundly therapeutic.”

If, as time goes on, someone feels unable to move forward, or is experiencing distressing symptoms that are interfering with daily functioning, then what she calls a “more structured psychological intervention” might be needed.

“Not everyone who experiences trauma will require therapy,” though, says Mathews, “and equally, therapy is not the only route to recovery.”

Some people recover through supportive relationships, community, cultural or spiritual practices, meaningful activity, or simply through the passing of time within a safe environment. Importantly, adds Mathews, “there is no hierarchy between these approaches”.

Anthony Joshua with promoter Eddie Hearn at the Derek Chisora-Deontay Wilder fight in April (Richard Pelham/Getty Images)

When trauma and grief occur together, the grieving process can become more complicated, because trauma can impede our ability to grieve.

Accessing and processing the sadness of loss can be difficult if the brain and body remain in survival mode. So grieving often can’t take place fully until the nervous system begins to settle. “This doesn’t mean grief and trauma occur separately or in a neat sequence,” says Mathews. “People often move back and forth between moments of fear, numbness, sadness, anger and acceptance.”

Deferring grief is a very personal process. “In some circumstances, temporarily putting grief to one side can be an adaptive response, particularly when someone needs to focus on immediate responsibilities, maintain stability, or get through a particularly demanding period,” says Mathews.

If someone remains disconnected from their grief for a prolonged period though, it can be helpful to explore ways of gradually reconnecting with those emotions. “This is not about forcing someone to grieve before they are ready,” says Mathews, “but gently increasing their capacity to tolerate and process what they have experienced.”

Ultimately, there is no ‘correct’ timeline for grief. So, the goal is not to judge whether someone is grieving ‘correctly’, explains Mathews, but to understand “whether their way of coping is supporting their long-term wellbeing and allowing space for healing when they are ready.”

Experiencing a traumatic event and grief while in the public eye adds another element to the process of recovery, which is underpinned by the need for a sense of psychological safety.

“When someone is in the public eye, the experience of being observed, discussed or judged by others can influence their ability to feel safe enough to process what has happened,” says Mathews.

This depends, though, on how the individual perceives and experiences public awareness and attention, she adds. Some might feel it provides a sense of collective support, connection and shared understanding, which can become a source of strength and help them feel less alone in their experience.

“For others, public attention may create an additional layer of difficulty. They may feel pressure to present themselves in a certain way, worry about being judged for their emotional responses, or feel unable to express vulnerability because they fear criticism or misunderstanding. For people in professional or competitive environments, there may also be concerns that personal information about their trauma or grief could be used against them, creating an additional sense of threat or lack of safety.”

Mathews has a keen interest in the intersection between trauma, the body, and high performance and sees sport as something that can be both a stabilising resource and, at times, a way of postponing emotional processing.

“For some people, sport provides structure, connection, meaning and a pathway forward. For others, it may become a way of staying constantly occupied and avoiding contact with painful emotions. Often, it can be both at the same time.”

Ultimately, the key factors that will determine how someone processes trauma and grief remain the same, whoever they are, says Mathews. And those are: “Whether someone feels safe, supported, understood and able to process their experience in a way that fits their own needs.”