The men's national team proves there are still fools in football.

== sync, corrected by elderman == @elder_man

Context: the friendly as a running game

There was a time when certain friendlies were guaranteed to be overtaken. Not because there was no football, but because they lacked balance: teams in different stages of preparation, squads under construction, technicians testing parts and a schedule without the weight of a title. For the fans, the match could have been pleasant, but the result seemed already written: whoever had more quality, more structure and more training pace often turned the game into a goal.

In this scenario, the friendly fulfilled two functions. For the larger team it served to keep pace, adjust movement and give minutes to those who were out. For a smaller team, it became a tough test, often without the chance of competing on equal footing. The run-in was therefore not an isolated accident; it was the most visible effect of a difference in conditions.

Development: why we are talking about the end of fools

The idea that 'no more fools in football' accompanies the professionalization of the sport. Football has come to require more preparation, more game reading and less improvisation.

This does not eliminate the difference between teams, but reduces the margin for the obvious result. A friendly between teams with unequal realities can still end in a goalless draw. The difference is that the game has ceased to be an automatic confirmation of superiority. Fans now expect reaction, scoring, attempted touchdowns and at least some throws showing organization.

Today's scenario: hit-and-run is still possible, but it is no longer the destination

The current stage is one of uncertainty. The source text opens up an important question: Whether or not. It helps to separate two things. One thing is that football has become more professional. Another is to claim that all distance has disappeared. That would be naive. There are still differences in budget, base, training pace, timing and depth of cast.

What has changed is the reading of friendly. It should not be seen as a definitive test of strength. It can be system testing, youth opportunity, positioning adjustment or simple calendar obligation. Therefore, a small team that loses tightly may have made a more valuable game than a big team that wins without creating much. And a large team that won with relief may have used the result to gain confidence, but this does not mean that the opponent was bobo.

What's left for the reader

For those who follow football, the message is less certain and more contextual. If a friendly ends in an overthrow, it's worth asking: what was each team's goal, who were on the field, how much preparation time there was and whether the result came from organization or natural imbalance. Football isn't just scoring. It's also the process.

And that's where the original phrase still comes in handy. There was a time when certain friendlies were guaranteed to be run over. Then people started saying there are no more fools in football. The reality is simpler: soccer has become more prepared, more contested and harder to predict. But the imbalance hasn't gone away. It just stopped being the only script.

== sync, corrected by elderman == @elder_man