Messi's multi-goal streak ends in Inter Miami's 3-0 loss to FC Cincinnati
Cincinnati got a first-half goal from Gerardo Valenzuela and two second-half strikes from Evander to remain one point behind the Philadelphia Union in the Eastern Conference standings. Philadelphia beat CF Montreal 2-1 on Wednesday night.
The loss ended a five-match winning streak for Inter Miami (11-4-5) which is fifth in the Eastern Conference standings.
Messi is the first player in MLS history to have a multi-goal streak of more than four matches. He was tied for the league lead with 16 goals in 17 MLS matches.
Messi has only played in three matches against Cincinnati since coming to MLS, but the team has made things difficult for the eight-time Ballon d'Or winner.
Cincinnati had four shots on target in the first 16 minutes to none for Inter Miami, and took a 1-0 lead when Valenzuela angled a shot from the left side of the box for his fifth goal of the season.
Messi's first shot came in the final minute of first-half stoppage time and landed comfortably in the arms of keeper Roman Celentano.
Evander's 14th goal of the season, and 50th in MLS, put Cincinnati ahead 2-0 less than five minutes into the second half.
Cincinnati (14-3-6) also had a two-goal lead on Saturday against Columbus but lost 4-2 to the Crew.
Cincinnati held on this time by neutralizing Inter Miami's attack, led by Messi.
Evander sealed the victory when he made it 3-0 with a goal off a rebound when Luca Orellano's shot caromed off the keeper.
Messi had a chance in the 78th minute, but his close-range shot was saved by a diving Celentano.
The 38-year-old Messi has played 90-plus minutes in eight straight games, including four Club World Cup matches. At one point in the second half, he had covered the least amount of distance of any player.
___
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Sparks' Kelsey Plum sets WNBA record vs. Fever
The post Sparks' Kelsey Plum sets WNBA record vs. Fever appeared first on ClutchPoints. Kelsey Plum made impressive WNBA history during Saturday's encounter between the Los Angeles Sparks and Indiana Fever. In 37 minutes of action, Plum finished with a stat line of 20 points, three rebounds and three assists. She shot 6-of-13 from the field, including 4-of-8 from beyond the arc, and 4-of-4 from the free-throw line. Her performance proved to be crucial in the Sparks taking down the Fever 89-87. This also had her make history due to her dominance against Indiana. She now holds a 21-1 all-time record against the Fever, the highest win percentage of any player in WNBA history against a single opponent (min. 20 games). What's next for Kelsey Plum, Sparks Kelsey Plum performed at a solid level to help lead the Sparks to victory over the Fever. One advantage they had was not having to deal with Caitlin Clark, who was out due to injury. Despite that, the game still went down to the wire as Indiana's other stars stepped up to cause trouble for Los Angeles. The Fever even had an 87-83 lead in the last two minutes, but the Sparks scored the last six points to secure the win. Four players scored in double-digits on Los Angeles' behalf, including Plum. Azura Stevens led the team in scoring with 21 points to go with 12 rebounds and two assists. She shot 7-of-14 overall, including 3-of-7 from downtown, and 4-of-6 from the charity stripe. Dearica Hamby came next with 18 points and four assists, while Rickea Jackson had 15 points and five assists. Los Angeles improved to a 6-13 record on the season, holding the sixth spot of the Western Conference standings. They are three games behind the Las Vegas Aces and four games behind the Golden State Valkyries. The Sparks will prepare for their next matchup, being at home. They host the Minnesota Lynx on July 10 at 3 p.m. ET. Related: How Kelsey Plum can join rare company in first Sparks season Related: Sparks player gets 100% real on Candace Parker's crucial impact
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
The problem with Chelsea's transfer masterplan
It could be deemed the most successful transfer policy in the global game. Cole Palmer, the flagship coup of Chelsea's recruitment in the new era, scored twice in the Club World Cup final and was named player of the tournament. The other goal in the demolition of Paris Saint-Germain went to Joao Pedro: 11 days into his Chelsea career, the Brazilian had already scored twice in the semi-final. The Golden Glove was awarded to the much-maligned Robert Sanchez, the unlikely scourge of PSG's feared forward line. Of 15 players used in the final, three were academy graduates and the other 12 all bought under the new regime. Now Chelsea have a rare lull in the football, they can get back to their actual business: transfer business. After proof of the mastery of Todd Boehly and Clearlake Capital, they have another chance to demonstrate it. Or, putting sarcasm aside, after the evidence that Chelsea's outlay on players – now around £1.4bn under their current owners – has brought some quality and some return on the pitch, the Club World Cup winners have more trading to do. This time, the revolving door needs more departures than arrivals. Part of it is a rather basic but still accurate element: Chelsea have far too many players. Another ought to be obvious: the savings Chelsea claim they make with lower basic wages is offset by the size of the squad and it is a waste of money to pay players not to play. Yet there is now another imperative. Chelsea were fined €20m by Uefa for breaching squad cost control, which could rise by up to another €60m. Unless they demonstrate they have generated a cost-saving through sales, they could be unable to register new signings for the Champions League. Some of those new faces debuted for Chelsea in the United States, in Joao Pedro, Liam Delap and Dario Essugo. Others played for other clubs there but are now Blues, in Jamie Gittens and Estevao Willian. Then there is Mamadou Sarr and Kendry Paez, while Geovany Quenda is due to arrive next year. The good news, from a Chelsea perspective, is that they have so many players that there are a host of possible ways to generate money. Indeed, they have already started. They have reduced their stockpile of goalkeepers by selling Djordje Petrovic to Bournemouth, Kepa Arrizabalaga to Arsenal and Marcus Bettinelli to Manchester City. Bashir Humphreys' loan to Burnley became permanent and, in the accounts, counts as pure profit. Mathis Amougou has gone to sister club Strasbourg; there are suggestions Ishe Samuels-Smith will follow suit. Mike Penders, Filip Joergensen, Robert Sanchez, and Gaga Slonina of Chelsea (Chelsea FC via Getty Images) The bad news, from a Chelsea perspective, is that it would still seem to leave a significant shortfall. Even Noni Madueke's move to Arsenal, while for a far bigger fee, would leave them with a substantial net spend this window. Another problem is the probability that the players they most want to sell are among the hardest to offload, particularly for sizeable sums. The Stamford Bridge version of the bomb squad would seem to include Raheem Sterling, Ben Chilwell, Joao Felix and Axel Disasi, none of whom went to the Club World Cup and thus, presumably, have fewer medals from it than Donald Trump. Perhaps Christopher Nkunku, though he did come on in the final, and Armando Broja may be honorary members of it. There is the further complication that they include several of the bigger earners. The great unsellable could be Sterling, whose loan to Arsenal last season was both subsidised and unsuccessful, thus rendering it less likely anyone will buy him now. Chilwell went to Crystal Palace, but they have just bought a left-back, Borna Sosa, on presumably smaller wages. Disasi could now be approximately an eighth-choice centre-back. Joao Felix was an oddity, bought a year after an underwhelming loan but only to pocket the pure profit from Conor Gallagher's departure. Perhaps Benfica will prove an escape route, but probably at a loss for Chelsea. Nkunku could be moved on to thin out Chelsea's squad (Getty Images) Then there is Nkunku; available for a while, offered to various other clubs, a player of pedigree, but whose route into Enzo Maresca's strongest side is blocked. Chelsea have tried to sell Broja before but have overpriced an injury-prone attacker. There is a further category: the young players bought by the new regime, but without a clear plan or path to the team. Chelsea could do with cashing in on some. Carney Chukwuemeka could be among the most sellable and Chelsea's battalion of new midfielders might render him surplus to requirements. So, too, Lesley Ugochukwu. Maybe even Kiernan Dewsbury-Hall, too. The new influx of strikers makes it still harder to see David Datro Fofana or Deivid Washington, currently on loan at Santos, in the team; indeed, Nicolas Jackson's descent from first-choice centre-forward means he offers the possibility of proving a money-making sale. Noni Madueke is set to join Arsenal to balance the books for Chelsea (PA Wire) Others can testify to Chelsea's ruthlessness. Trevoh Chalobah has long looked at risk, as an academy graduate, but ought to have proved his (footballing) value enough to be safe; younger homegrown players such as Tyrique George or Josh Acheampong should nevertheless consider themselves warned. The sheer volume of footballers means Chelsea have multiple options. Perhaps few would notice if, say, Omari Kellyman or Caleb Wiley or Marc Guiu or Gabriel Slonina went. Renato Veiga at least made more of an impact. Perhaps the size of the squad explains why Chelsea need so many sporting directors. They could all be busy looking to offload players. Indeed, they have shown creativity in finding homes for the unwanted. But temporary deals could be less suitable if they need to make a profit. And, in any case, they can only loan out six players abroad, apart from club-trained and Under-21 players. Which, as some of their youthful recruits are 21 or 22, becomes more of an issue, especially if some of those loan spots have to be saved for a couple of the senior players who have no buyers. Kendry Paez could head out on loan with no clear path to first team football at Chelsea (Chelsea FC via Getty Images) If part of the rationale behind Chelsea's remarkable recruitment was that they were creating value, now they need to extract some of it, to turn the hypothetical prices of players on the balance sheet into funds. Call it an exodus or a clearout but there has long been a case that Chelsea had to shed players. Now, in the glow of success, after being anointed by Fifa and punished by Uefa, is the time to do it.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
What comes next? Inside Fifa's grand plan after Club World Cup
At MetLife Stadium on Wednesday, Gianni Infantino was walking around with a grin fixed to his face, looking to shake everyone's hand. The Fifa president was essentially basking in how the Club World Cup had gone, and he was in a similar mood at the opening of the Fifa Office in New York's Trump Tower the day before. If most of the focus there has been on the deepening of the relationship between Infantino and Donald Trump, senior football figures are shocked by another element. The Fifa president has chosen the very building where US authorities approached Chuck Blazer and started the process of 'flipping him'. The disgraced football official notoriously had two apartments in Trump Tower, including one for his cats, where he embezzled all of his money. Blazer's evidence would ultimately bring down 'the old Fifa' in 2015. That was how Infantino rose to president the next year, making the symbolism remarkable. Fifa, of course, maintains this shift shows how far it's come. Other figures feel it shows how the football world is being turned upside down. Another description of Infantino this week is that he has been behaving like 'a founder' – a Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos. In that light, it's hard not to think he sees himself as the founder of the new Club World Cup. Whether the tournament has actually been worth such celebration depends on your perspective, not least what continent you're from. South Americans have loved it, some big games have sold out, and there have been decent viewing figures on free-to-air channels. The response has still been lukewarm in Europe, with empty seats visible, while there haven't exactly been many memorable moments. Since the tournament is new, it lacks mythology and true stakes. It says much that most of the discussion still keeps coming back to prize money. The injury to Jamal Musiala also showed another cost. None of that really matters with regards to Fifa's aims, though. It sees most criticism as being driven by a jealous Uefa. Above all, Infantino has proven to clubs that Fifa can deliver the tournament. That might primarily be down to Saudi money, but this was a resource the clubs had been trying to unlock for years. Many have been trying to sell shares to the Public Investment Fund. If that shows the tournament still can't stand on its own, it's also why Al-Hilal's shock last-16 victory over Manchester City might genuinely end up as one of those unduly influential results. Even if it was partly a fluke, the 4-3 win immediately makes the Saudi Pro League that bit more serious. You only have to contrast that to the struggles of the much older MLS. Some have even talked about a potential 'big bang' comparable to India's victory in the inaugural 2007 T20 World Cup, and the IPL's eventual dominance of cricket. Such progress will mean PIF keeps investing in its teams, while further committing to Saudi Arabia's own ambitions, which go beyond the 2034 World Cup. This is where Fifa is as intertwined with the kingdom as it is with the Trump administration. The governing body would, of course, repeat that all of this is simply about spreading the wealth of the game beyond the European superclubs, which is noble and overdue. The truth will only be revealed when we see where the money goes. Some club owners have already questioned why we're no longer hearing as much about the competition's 'solidarity target' – the money spread to non-qualifiers – especially since they believe that was supposed to be elevated through ticket money for knockout games. Dynamic pricing has brought a lot of that down. Scepticism persists. Aside from a mechanism to increase Fifa revenue and keep voters happy, more critical voices have long seen this project as a trojan horse for Saudi clubs to have their own Champions League and the big clubs to finally have their super league. Figures from A22 were even at MetLife on Wednesday, alongside Real Madrid president Florentino Perez. Whatever the truth, this summer's progress has only propelled existing discussions. It's an 'open secret' that big clubs are talking about the tournament taking place every two years, even though Uefa president Aleksander Ceferin thinks he has an agreement that it will only be every four. Those who didn't qualify are envious of the prize money. Some insiders consequently expect qualification to be changed so it's more based on coefficient – club performance – and an eventual expansion to 48 teams. It is sub-optimal for Fifa, after all, that hundreds of millions of Liverpool, Manchester United, Arsenal and Barcelona fans don't care. In that scenario, big European clubs could have leverage and demand Fifa introduce PSR-style regulation to constrain the Saudi clubs. Infantino's response would be a wonder. Some sources even talk of more outlandish plans. There are claims that the Fifa competition department has started to brainstorm ideas for the future, and one of them is a radical new calendar. The plan would see the year broken into three similar-length blocks, one for the domestic game, one for the international club game, and one for internationals. It should be stressed that these are mere ideas so far. More cynical voices believe it would mean a plan that is ready to go for the game's next Super League moment, in what is already a fraught period in football politics. There is obviously constant discussion about the international match calendar, with Arsene Wenger currently leading a Fifa taskforce. That's in a context where the bread and butter of the sport – the domestic leagues – aren't presided over by Fifa and don't produce money for them. A belief already exists within the governing body that 20-team leagues are too big. Even more powerful actors are now trying to reshape the game. It is just as symbolic that the Club World Cup's first final ends up featuring a state-owned club, in Paris Saint-Germain, and a private equity-owned club, in Chelsea. The competition duly ends as it began. You can sign up to DAZN to watch every Club World Cup game for free
