‘Epic squared’: Scaloni lauds Argentina’s back-to-back World Cup comebacks ⁠67%

By AFP⁠51%

7/15/2026, 5:15:34 PM

Topics: Sport, Football
Keywords: Football, World Cup

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Optimism Bias, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 35.9% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 1,222 faulty-reasoning hits from 348 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,237 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.90% of the article peer group.

Argentina coach Lionel Scaloni saluted his team’s never-say-die mentality after another come-behind victory powered them past England and into the FIFA World Cup final. 
Scaloni said on Wednesday that his team had scented victory, as England sat back after taking a 1-0 lead in their semifinal in Atlanta, and went for broke to secure a deserved 2-1 win. 
“I think that this team plays the best when we are facing adversity,” Scaloni said. 
“We had a challenging game, a challenging situation. 
“There was blood in the water, and we went for it. 
That’s the feeling that I was getting. 
“You just have to keep going. 
We hit the crossbar. 
We hit the post, and it just couldn’t go in. 
There’s six or seven chances, but I’m very pleased about that, because the team fought to the very end, and I think this is critical.” 
It was the second time in the knockout rounds that Argentina have won after trailing late in the game following their remarkable last-16 escape act against Egypt – a win Scaloni described at the time as “epic”. 
Asked how he would describe Wednesday’s victory, Scaloni offered: “Epic squared?” 
Scaloni said the win, which sends Argentina into a final showdown against European champions Spain in New Jersey on Sunday, was a team effort. 
“This group is difficult to explain. 
It is a show of the collectiveness, the brotherhood that we are in, the fight to the very end that we have,” Scaloni said. 
The Argentina coach, who now has the chance to lead the South Americans to four straight major titles after Copa America victories either side of the 2022 World Cup win, said his team had been unfazed as they sought to drag themselves back into the game. 
“I know the guys. 
They fear nothing,” he said. 
“They don’t feel the weight on their shoulders. 
“They’re playing like they’re seven or eight years old. 
They’re not thinking about ‘oh, what’s going to happen if we miss’, or they’re not thinking about the semifinal or final.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.0%AFP: 2.3%Al Jazeera: 2.7%Confirmation Bias17.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 1.1%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%AFP: 3.2%Al Jazeera: 2.8%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.6%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 23.0%AFP: 0.5%Al Jazeera: 0.4%Hindsight Bias23.0%This article: 1.1%AFP: 1.4%Al Jazeera: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias1.1%This article: 8.9%AFP: 10.4%Al Jazeera: 8.5%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.4%Al Jazeera: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.9%AFP: 0.4%Al Jazeera: 0.6%Status Quo Bias6.9%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 29.0%AFP: 4.0%Al Jazeera: 2.5%Optimism Bias29.0%This article: 5.2%AFP: 2.0%Al Jazeera: 2.7%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%AFP: 9.9%Al Jazeera: 10.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 27.0%AFP: 2.5%Al Jazeera: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias27.0%This article: 6.0%AFP: 0.7%Al Jazeera: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error6.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%AFP: 1.9%Al Jazeera: 1.5%In-Group Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.7%Al Jazeera: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 34.8%AFP: 2.3%Al Jazeera: 1.0%Halo Effect34.8%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.6%AFP: 2.5%Al Jazeera: 1.8%Recency Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.4%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%AFP: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%AFP: 1.0%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.1%AFP: 4.2%Al Jazeera: 4.0%Appeal to Authority1.1%This article: 6.0%AFP: 1.4%Al Jazeera: 1.9%False Dilemma6.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.6%Al Jazeera: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.5%AFP: 3.3%Al Jazeera: 3.6%Hasty Generalization11.5%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.3%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.6%AFP: 7.2%Al Jazeera: 5.1%Appeal to Emotion12.6%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.6%Al Jazeera: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 33.6%AFP: 4.3%Al Jazeera: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)33.6%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.4%Al Jazeera: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 19.5%AFP: 1.5%Al Jazeera: 1.2%Anecdotal19.5%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 35.9%AFP: 3.4%Al Jazeera: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)35.9%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.7%AFP: 0.0%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Middle Ground1.7%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.2%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.1%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.5%AFP: 1.8%Al Jazeera: 2.8%Unattributed Quote7.5%This article: 2.6%AFP: 1.8%Al Jazeera: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 12.6%AFP: 4.3%Al Jazeera: 4.2%Biased Writer Voice12.6%This article: 6.0%AFP: 0.5%Al Jazeera: 0.8%Indoctrination6.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.8%Al Jazeera: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.3%Al Jazeera: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%AFP: 0.5%Al Jazeera: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

348 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker80%attributed speech70writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 34 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 15 words • 100.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 11 words • 100.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 7 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 4 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 10 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 11 words • 100.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 24 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 46 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 4 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 5 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLionel Scaloni • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Lionel Scaloni

99%flagged-word coverage
278 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-43.2 ptsWriter: 47.1%Lionel Scaloni: 4.0%4.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.9 ptsWriter: 12.9%Lionel Scaloni: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+9.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lionel Scaloni: 9.4%9.4%Indoctrination+7.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Lionel Scaloni: 7.6%7.6%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.