TRL Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 I would do it something like this. You get 100 points for wining a friendly, 200 for winning a qualifier and 300 for winning at a major tournament and you get a 1000 for winning a major competition. In which case the rankings would still be about the same. as it is based on winning losing and drawing, and the fact of the matter is, we won 2 and drew 2 at the Euros, won alot in qualifying and also drew. No defeats. penalties are not counted in the scoring. Your system would work out pretty much as it has here, apart from Uruguay would probably be 2nd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 In which case the rankings would still be about the same. as it is based on winning losing and drawing, and the fact of the matter is, we won 2 and drew 2 at the Euros, won alot in qualifying and also drew. No defeats. penalties are not counted in the scoring. Your system would work out pretty much as it has here, apart from Uruguay would probably be 2nd Sort of but I would change that so if you lost on pens that would count as a loss also at the minute goals scored gives you points so even if you loose you can earn points I would scrap that aswell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Considering they have a population of just 3m, they are imo the best footballing nation per person on the planet. And they don't have the best facilities either as they arn't that rich You can get 7/1 on them to win the Olympic gold as well, which seems quite a decent bet! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 I would do it something like this. You get 100 points for wining a friendly, 200 for winning a qualifier and 300 for winning at a major tournament and you get a 1000 for winning a major competition. But this rewards teams that get favourable draws against weaker teams. For example, if the Czech Rep won all of their WC qualifying group games (v Italy, Denmark, Bulgaria, Armenia and Malta) that would be worth the same numbers of points as England winning all theirs against (weaker opposition, IMO; Ukraine, Montenegro, Poland, Moldova and San Marino) It doesn't work. There has to be some sort of system to take into account the strength of the opponent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Sort of but I would change that so if you lost on pens that would count as a loss also at the minute goals scored gives you points so even if you loose you can earn points I would scrap that aswell. It certainly seems a bit of an anomaly that the fact that England are about as good at penalty shoot-outs as Barclays are at acting in public interest, yet this isn't reflected. Also, it's one thing to say, points for games are weighted dependent on what sort of competition they are in (fewest for friendlies most for WC games) but there ought to be some sort of bonus point system for the winners and runners-up in these major tournaments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 But this rewards teams that get favourable draws against weaker teams. For example, if the Czech Rep won all of their WC qualifying group games (v Italy, Denmark, Bulgaria, Armenia and Malta) that would be worth the same numbers of points as England winning all theirs against (weaker opposition, IMO; Ukraine, Montenegro, Poland, Moldova and San Marino) It doesn't work. There has to be some sort of system to take into account the strength of the opponent. There is'nt that much of a differnce apart from Italy they are roughly the same. it is'nt going to be fool proof but it will be alot fairer than it is now no way should we be any where near where we are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Sort of but I would change that so if you lost on pens that would count as a loss also at the minute goals scored gives you points so even if you loose you can earn points I would scrap that aswell. Why on earth would you want to change those two things..?! Losing on penalties after 120 of play that ended all square is hardly the same as losing a match (although the ultimate result of being out of the competition is the same!) Also, why would you want to take away the the emphasis on teams scoring goals..??! I know the FIFA World Rankings are probably bottom of a list of priorities when it comes to deciding on tactics & formations, but of course a team that lose 3-2 for example, should get more credit than a team that turn up and lose 3-0. Do you really not think so??! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
havanatopia Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 I blame it on Bob Diamond. He seems to make a good argument about relative ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 It certainly seems a bit of an anomaly that the fact that England are about as good at penalty shoot-outs as Barclays are at acting in public interest, yet this isn't reflected. Also, it's one thing to say, points for games are weighted dependent on what sort of competition they are in (fewest for friendlies most for WC games) but there ought to be some sort of bonus point system for the winners and runners-up in these major tournaments. Good point I already said you could give the winners 1000 points so runners up could get 500 points but the winners still get the 300 points for wining the game so over all they would get 1300 the runners up 500. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bcfcbs20 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Why on earth would you want to change those two things..?! Losing on penalties after 120 of play that ended all square is hardly the same as losing a match (although the ultimate result of being out of the competition is the same!) Also, why would you want to take away the the emphasis on teams scoring goals..??! I know the FIFA World Rankings are probably bottom of a list of priorities when it comes to deciding on tactics & formations, but of course a team that lose 3-2 for example, should get more credit than a team that turn up and lose 3-0. Do you really not think so??! Because it clearly is'nt working they way they are now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Why on earth would you want to change those two things..?! Losing on penalties after 120 of play that ended all square is hardly the same as losing a match (although the ultimate result of being out of the competition is the same!) But it IS losing a match, BS. It's no different or more unfair than losing 1-0 to a penalty over 90 minutes when you've had 90% of the possession. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Because it clearly is'nt working they way they are now. It doesn't really matter though, does it?! I suppose for some reason or other all sports (that dont have a constant running league table format) need to have a ranking system (I can't actually think of a valid reason why, but im sure there must be a reason!) They are though, in reality, a fairly futile excercise that have no real importance or bearing on anything and it would never be possible to get a fool proof system because of the different standards and quantity of opposition all over the world. That said -it doesnt need to be a fool proof system beacuse very little, if anything actually rides on the FIFA Rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzle Jordan Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Uruguay 3rd !?!?!?! Am i missng something here? They had a great world cup and won the Copa america. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 But it IS losing a match, BS. It's no different or more unfair than losing 1-0 to a penalty over 90 minutes when you've had 90% of the possession. Not really. It is losing a penalty shootout, which itself has been neccessary because the match, plus the extra time period have been DRAWN. It is very different to losing 1-0 to a penalty that has been awarded due to foul play, during the 90 minute period of open play. No game has EVER been won or lost purely on %'age of possession, which means bugger all if you fail to score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Not really. It is losing a penalty shootout, which itself has been neccessary because the match, plus the extra time period have been DRAWN. It is very different to losing 1-0 to a penalty that has been awarded due to foul play, during the 90 minute period of open play. No game has EVER been won or lost purely on %'age of possession, which means bugger all if you fail to score. True, but as penalty shootouts are a feature of tournaments, the ability to do well in them/or otherwise really should be reflected in the rankings. At the moment, unless I'm misinterpreting it, you appear to get as many points for winning a first round match as you do for winning the final. As it's on cups and trophies that great teams are judged, Fifa should incorporate some weighting or bonus point system that reflects this. We'd then see England tumble out of the Top 10 to somewhere more reflective of their true status on the world stage at present. Hopefully though Hodgson will start to turn this around. A start has undoubtedly been made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsince1994 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 You can get 7/1 on them to win the Olympic gold as well, which seems quite a decent bet! I might put a few quid on that. I've said for ages that I think Uruguay will win gold. I think they have the best youth team in the world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Can't believe people here are shocked at us being 4th. The rankings are based on results over several years. Over those years, we have clearly had the 4th best results in the world, hence the table. Think about it, England very, very rarely lose a game. Remember, going out on penalties counts as a draw. In fact, by my counting, we have lost only 19 games (including friendlies) since 2000. That's 19 defeats in 12 years, from a possible 134 games. That is a great record for any nation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Can't believe people here are shocked at us being 4th. The rankings are based on results over several years. Over those years, we have clearly had the 4th best results in the world, hence the table. Think about it, England very, very rarely lose a game. Remember, going out on penalties counts as a draw. In fact, by my counting, we have lost only 19 games (including friendlies) since 2000. That's 19 defeats in 12 years, from a possible 134 games. That is a great record for any nation. But we don't win anything - or even look likely of doing so. Which is why those rankings are unfair on the teams that do win (or come close to winning) things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Why are they? How else do you suggest FIFA rank countries, other than by results? If other teams come close to winning things but fail to perform in the non-important games, then they aren't as consistent, and therefore their ranking will drop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Why are they? How else do you suggest FIFA rank countries, other than by results? If other teams come close to winning things but fail to perform in the non-important games, then they aren't as consistent, and therefore their ranking will drop. I think we can agree that England are likely to lose to a number of teams below us in these rankings. So, as mentioned earlier on this thread, myself and others would like to see some sort of reflection that going out on penalties is NOT a draw and some sort of reflection that those who win cups and appear in finals or semi-finals are more successful than those who simply squeak through group stages before failing. It would give the table some sort of validity as it would then reflect actual success rather than just being hard to beat in normal time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 That's the thing though, going out on penalties IS a draw. Over the 120 minutes, the teams drew the game, and were instead split by essentially, a roll of the dice, which FIFA can't rank by. I do see your point, but the rankings do take into account the importance of the match, giving a higher weight to competitive matches in comparison to friendlies. However, the teams below us aren't necessarily as good as people may think. Italy are below us due to going out of the 2010 World Cup in the group stages. Argentina won only one game in the 2011 Copa America, hence their position. Holland crashed out of the Euro's, as we all saw. Brazil have had a poor year this year, and also only one game in the Copa America. France were terrible in the 2010 World Cup. Our record, while not exciting, is not as bad as the record of these teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 That's the thing though, going out on penalties IS a draw. Over the 120 minutes, the teams drew the game, and were instead split by essentially, a roll of the dice, which FIFA can't rank by. I do see your point, but the rankings do take into account the importance of the match, giving a higher weight to competitive matches in comparison to friendlies. However, the teams below us aren't necessarily as good as people may think. Italy are below us due to going out of the 2010 World Cup in the group stages. Argentina won only one game in the 2011 Copa America, hence their position. Holland crashed out of the Euro's, as we all saw. Brazil have had a poor year this year, and also only one game in the Copa America. France were terrible in the 2010 World Cup. Our record, while not exciting, is not as bad as the record of these teams. Come on, Italy were much better than us and it would've been a travesty for them to have lost that shoot-out. TBH it would only require a minor adjustment to the ranking system. At present all games in, say, the Euros, count the same. I'd say give greater weighting the further on in the tournament you get. That way, persistent crapping out on penalties will be reflected in the standings whereas actually doing quite well will be rewarded. It's Italy and Portugal I think are particularly hard done under the present system. Both light years ahead of England in ability. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Absolutely, they were definitely better than us, I'm not disagreeing at all. The thing is, FIFA can only rank by results, and that's what they've done, and rightly, we are the 4th best team in the world, if you base it on results. I would agree with your suggestion for ranking knockout games stronger the further you progress. I'm not sure Portugal as a team are lightyears ahead, but Italy are definitely a fair distance ahead of us in ability for sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted July 4, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 We're much like Andy Murray, ranked 4th in the world & outclassed as soon as we come up against someone decent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redsince1994 Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 We're much like Andy Murray, ranked 4th in the world & outclassed as soon as we come up against someone decent. +1 I always say this. Manage to get high in the rankings by consistently beating lower opposition without winning anything important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snarf Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 It's bullshit. If we are 4th best in the world, how come we didn't make the semis? Shitty England are not 4th best and will never make the semis of anything ever again. It wasn't hard to work that out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted July 4, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 We may do if (like in tennis) FIFA et al changed the way tournaments work so that as 4th seeds we got an easy draw thru to them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 It doesn't work. There has to be some sort of system to take into account the strength of the opponent. Like, for example, this one ... ? Is the only real use the Rankings are put to when the seedings are made for Euros / WCs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fat Controller Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Like, for example, this one ... ? Is the only real use the Rankings are put to when the seedings are made for Euros / WCs? Indeed, that's exactly what i meant. I can't think of any better way of ranking teams than the current system. And yes, i think you're probably right. But i guess its important that teams are seeded for qualifiers otherwise you could end up with weaker teams qualifying for big tournaments by virtue of "stronger" teams knocking each other out in the same group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted July 4, 2012 Report Share Posted July 4, 2012 Yep, they are. However, they shouldn't be above Italy, Portugal and Brazil! We shouldn't either. With no competitive games over the next two years, Brazil could find themselves lower still, come the tournament in their own country, in 2014. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.