Australia qualifies for 2026 World Cup with 2-1 win over Saudi Arabia
Associated Press
JEDDAH, Saudi Arabia (AP) — Australia qualified for its sixth straight World Cup on Tuesday with a 2-1 win over Saudi Arabia.
The Socceroos, needing just to avoid defeat by five goals to advance to the 2026 tournament, came from behind with goals from Connor Metcalfe and Mitchell Duke to win after Abdulrahman Al Oboud had put the hosts ahead after 19 minutes.
Earlier, Japan and South Korea ended successful campaigns on a high with emphatic home victories over Indonesia and Kuwait, respectively.
In Osaka, Daichi Kamada scored after 15 minutes to set Japan, preparing for an eighth consecutive World Cup, on its way to a 6-0 victory.
Takefusa Kubo added a second five minutes later and Kamada extended the lead just before the break. Soon after the restart, Ryoya Morishita and Shuto Machino piled on and Mao Hosoya made it six.
In Asia's third round of qualification, the top two from each of the three groups of six progress automatically to next summer's World Cup. Jordan, Uzbekistan, Iran, Japan and South Korea have also qualified for the expanded 48-team tournament in the United States, Canada and Mexico.
South Korea, which has qualified for an 11th straight World Cup, sealed the top spot in Group B after beating Kuwait 4-0.
Jeon Jin-woo scored after 33 minutes at Seoul World Cup Stadium and Lee Kang-in added a second soon after the restart. Oh Hyeon-gyu and Lee Jae-sung also got on the scoresheet.
The six teams that finish third and fourth advance to another stage to play for Asia's two remaining automatic places.
Oman took the last remaining place with a 1-1 draw against the Palestinian team and join Qatar, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Indonesia in the fourth round, which will take place in October.
___
AP soccer: https://apnews.com/hub/soccer
recommended
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
30 minutes ago
- USA Today
USMNT vs. Trinidad and Tobago: Where to watch, TV channel, live stream
USMNT vs. Trinidad and Tobago: Where to watch, TV channel, live stream Show Caption Hide Caption Weston McKennie discusses the state of the USMNT ahead of World Cup Soccer standout Weston McKennie discusses the state of the USMNT and how Mauricio Pochettino is getting the squad ready ahead of the 2026 World Cup. Sports Seriously The U.S. men's national team is in rough shape as it kicks off the Gold Cup on Sunday against Trinidad and Tobago. Mauricio Pochettino's side lost both of its pre-tournament friendlies, falling 2-1 to Turkey before an embarrassing 4-0 loss to Switzerland. The results mean the USMNT is on a four-game losing streak for the first time since 2007. Off the field, the team has been embroiled in an ongoing controversy over Christian Pulisic's decision to skip the Gold Cup to rest after a long club season. Watch USMNT vs. Trinidad and Tobago on Prime Video Pulisic is one of several USMNT regulars who will miss the tournament, and the roster could be weakened even further as Tyler Adams deals with a foot injury that saw him miss the Switzerland game. Despite all of the turmoil, the USMNT will be expected to defeat T&T. The two teams met at the 2023 Gold Cup, with a second-choice U.S. squad cruising to a 6-0 win. The USMNT then split a two-leg Concacaf Nations League quarterfinal in November 2023, winning the home leg 3-0 before losing 2-1 in the away match. The U.S. and Trinidad and Tobago will also face Haiti and Saudi Arabia in Group D. Here is everything you need to know ahead of the game. USMNT vs. Trinidad and Tobago (Gold Cup) When: Sunday, June 15 Sunday, June 15 Where: PayPal Park (San Jose, CA) PayPal Park (San Jose, CA) Time: 6 p.m. ET 6 p.m. ET Channel/streaming: FOX, Univision, TUDN, ViX (Watch on Prime Video) We recommend interesting sports viewing/streaming and betting opportunities. If you sign up for a service by clicking one of the links, we may earn a referral fee. Newsrooms are independent of this relationship and there is no influence on news coverage
San Francisco Chronicle
an hour ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Nicklaus and Miller reminisce about their US Open victories at Oakmont
OAKMONT, Pa. (AP) — Jack Nicklaus and Johnny Miller can look across the vast landscape of Oakmont where each won momentous U.S. Open titles and see in some respects how little has changed. The course is longer than when Nicklaus defeated Arnold Palmer in a playoff in 1962, than when Miller set a U.S. Open record that still stands 52 years later as the only man with a 63 in the final round to win. But it's still about putting. It's still those greens that feel like putting on a basketball court. 'I was talking to some of the guys in the locker room a few minutes ago,' Nicklaus said Saturday. 'And they're saying, 'What do you think?' I said, 'Well, obviously putting is the key out here.' I three-putted the 55th green. I had one three-putt that week, and I'm still ticked off I three-putted that one. That was sort of my mindset.' 'Basically you had to figure these greens out and not let them get to you,' he said. 'And be patient. One-under par won the tournament, and 1-under par doesn't win a lot of tournaments today. But it did then.' And it might now. Only three players were under par at the halfway point for the 125th edition of the U.S. Open, and the record 10th one at Oakmont. Only 27 players have finished a major championship at Oakmont under par, and the next 36 holes determine how much — or if — that list will grow. Miller's win was epic, mainly because he thought he was out of it with a 76 in the third round of the 1973 U.S. Open, leaving him six shots behind. On a soft course, Miller delivered what he considers 'literally a perfect round of golf.' Almost. His only bogey in that round was a three-putt on the long par-3 eighth hole. Miller was a premier striker of the ball whose putting was streaky, and what he marvels about even today was missing only one fairway and hitting every green, every shot except one left below the cup on the lightning-fast greens. 'That's hard to do at Oakmont, to hit 18 greens and have no downhill putts," Miller said. Both also had to deal with Arnold Palmer, the King, particularly in his home country of western Pennsylvania. Palmer had won the Masters for the third time in 1962. Nicklaus was a powerful 22-year-old with a crew cut — 'Fat Jack,' he was called — who didn't care about anything but winning and didn't realize the crowd was against him. 'He was the guy you had to beat if you wanted to win, and particularly here,' Nicklaus said. 'It was really kind of funny because I never really heard the gallery. I was a 22-year-old kid with blinders on and not smart enough to figure out that people rooted for people. I just went out and played golf. That's what I did.' If he could have donated one club to the USGA from his Open title — as players are asked to do now — Nicklaus didn't hesitate on the key to winning. 'I three-putted one time in 90 holes,' he said. Miller never got around to answering what club he would have donated — driving was key to miss only one fairway, his iron play was sublime in hitting every green. He did what few others even consider at a U.S. Open. He attacked, because he had to. 'I was more of a guy that didn't like it to be close,' he said. "If that ball is going in the hole, I'm going to fill it up until the round is over if I can. None of this fancy stuff about hitting away from the target. I wanted to have the thrill of going for knocking down pins out of the green. That was my fun. I liked to drive fast and hit hard with the driver and that kind of stuff. 'I don't know, everybody does it differently,' he said. 'But that's just the way I thought.' Miller spoke how he thought, endearing him to U.S. viewers with his 29 years in the booth at NBC covering the U.S. Open, never afraid to use 'choke' when talking about pressure. Among the many changes that have occurred since their glory days at Oakmont: money. The prize fund is $21.5 million this week, with $4.3 million going to winner. Nicklaus won $17,500 for his 1962 U.S. Open title. Eleven years later, Miller won $30,000. That's true in all sports and particularly now in golf as the PGA Tour is in a money race with the Saudi backing of LIV Golf. 'Would I have loved to have had what's going on here when we played? Yeah. Obviously all of us would,' Nicklaus said. "But I also was really pleased that ... Johnny and myself both trail blazed the way for what's happening today. I think if you look back at (Ben) Hogan and (Sam) Snead and those guys, they trail blazed it for us. 'I don't think that would have made any difference, whether we were playing for what we played for or what they're playing here today,' he said. 'If we would have had the ability to do this, I think we would have tried to do the same thing.' ___
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Australia get too clever and pay the price for batting order jumble
At a little before 1pm on a Saturday afternoon in London, a group of Australian cricketers stood around blinking in the sunlight, looking confused, like they had just popped up from a green tube in an unexpectedly bright part of the Koopa Kingdom. Less than a day earlier they had been right on top, happily on their way to a second consecutive World Test Championship title. In less than three sessions of stubbornness and brilliance, South Africa had taken that away. Sport is about creating an arena for the unexpected and some participants get hung up on the idea that acknowledging differences between participants is a form of disrespect. But the resource disparity should have made this contest one-sided. It was a triumph over politics and economics as much as over a rival group of players. Advertisement Related: Markram steers South Africa to historic World Test Championship final triumph In Australia, Test cricket's popularity brings about broadcast deals and ticket sales worth dozens of times the revenue their opponent brings in and underpins regular five-match outings against heavy hitters India and England. In South Africa, administrators have spent the past few years consciously shoving Tests to the margins, abandoning genuine series in favour of two-match coincidences, scheduling those as rarely as possible, and to all appearances quietly hoping for the format's early death so that they can stop bothering with it. An equation of small crowds at long matches versus lucrative ones for three hours means the problem is self-evident, but there is no appetite to influence that rather than it accept it as immutable. So for Australia, this was almost a formality in a long few years of achievement. From late 2021, there was a home Ashes win, the first trip to Pakistan in decades for a series win, a creditable comeback in India after being belted in two matches, their first World Test Championship just before their one-day World Cup, bringing the Ashes home from England, then a hefty home win to end India's recent Australian success. Soon comes the next home Ashes, then taking stock of which players might try to push on to another England trip and World Cup in 2027 and which might call it a day. This WTC was another box to tick on the way through. Advertisement That they have bungled it will make this game more desirable in retrospect, for the public and the players. People who would have greeted a win with a shrug will be incensed by the loss. But when you do not achieve what you comfortably should, examination follows. Australia went in with a discombobulated top order, picking players out of position, after a couple of years of shifting and shuffling more than Shivnarine Chanderpaul. It s important to acknowledge that picking a team for a one-off match is a lottery. All batters fail several times for each success, so with two innings available, you could select the most in-form player in the world and be rewarded with a pair. Success needs someone to buck the statistical likelihood, like Aiden Markram did with the innings of his life. Nor is it an acid-soaked delusion to ask the player batting three to open or the player at four to move to three. But equally, it is not perverse to question whether a cascade of unconventional choices might have influenced underperformance. Related: 'Chokers? This win squashes that': Bavuma hopes WTC victory can unite South Africa For Australia, that started with picking Sam Konstas in Australia but not being willing to pick him afterwards. Thinking that it was too outlandish here meant Marnus Labuschagne was moved up and Cameron Green went into that vacated spot. Green had only recently gone from six to four and batting three against a moving ball was evidently too much. Advertisement Only 22 teams have won a Test in which their first drop batted twice and made as few as four runs. Labuschagne was not the worst, batting an hour and a half in each innings, but his two dismissals chasing width opened up paths for South Africa. Usman Khawaja made his career-best score recently in Sri Lanka against spin, but has noticeably struggled against pace for the past year or more. With those three scoring 49 between them, and a double failure from Travis Head, Australia did not have enough runs by the time the pitch flattened out on day three, needing another hundred to defend. South Africa played the chase to perfection, dynamic early and calm late. The bowling quartet of Pat Cummins, Josh Hazlewood, Mitchell Starc and Nathan Lyon is prolific, with Hazlewood soon to join the others in excess of 300 wickets, but they are not invincible in batting conditions. This is their 33rd Test together, miles more than any other quartet, but nine of those Tests have been lost. The setup's willingness to back its core players can be a strength, but when it fails like this, it can suggest cockiness. The batting order jumble may only be solved short term against West Indies by Steve Smith's finger injury, allowing Green to resume at four and Labuschagne at three, freeing Konstas to open. By the time Smith returns, Labuschagne should either have found runs or found the bench and Green should either be an all-rounder again or making way for someone who is. It will not solve the week just gone, though, when Australia got a little too clever and South Africa outdid them by simply playing smart.
