antlers Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 when it comes to rankings you can only go by results. fair enough, Italy played us off the park, but we still drew against them and over the last few years we have been more consistant than them. There is nothing they can change to the rankings system to make it fairer, you cant start judging on performances and give Italy more points than us for our quarter final. Thats like Chelsea and Arsenal drawing 0-0 but the FA giving Chelsea 2 points for having more shots on target. The only way to get a more accurate reflection is for a proper league table for international teams but obviously with limited international dates thats impossible, The rankings are only used for seedings anyway so whats the problem? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 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. Why exactly? The way they calculate the results is to factor in the opposition strength. Hence why, rightly, Portugal picked up more points from beating Holland in the group stages than the Czechs in the QFs (the other way round would seem ludicrous). Although the FIFA website doesn't show it, Italy picked up around double the points we did from the England-Italy game as they came out victorious, while the result went down as a draw on our points tally. Can't argue with that really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redcork Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 I think were fully justified in being ranked 4th,we didnt lose in the euros after all,potentially i think we will join the cricket team as number 1 s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 We're much like Andy Murray, ranked 4th in the world & outclassed as soon as we come up against someone decent. In the Last 10 games we have drawn against France & Italy, lost to the Dutch to a last min goal and have beaten the current double European champions and current world cup holders! Put in our victories against norway, sweeden and the Ukraine and also a victory against a very good IMO Belgium side you can understand the ranking even if we are behind other nations in terms of ability, however football is not judged on how good you are but on the results you get and we have started to grind them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheese Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 +1 I always say this. Manage to get high in the rankings by consistently beating lower opposition without winning anything important. But he has got to the semi-finals in 6 of the last 7 grand Slams - seems like he should be in the top 4 to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bar BS3 Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 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. What a ridiculous comment! We were literally a couple fo kicks away from reaching the semi finals in a competition that took place a week ago!! Of course, those are the fine lines that determin success or failure, but your quote is laughable when the margins of our "failure" were SO small, again!! Personally, I think that our new found resolve coupled with the injection of Wilshire, Walker, Sturridge, Ox-Chamberlin and possibly Caulker, for the 2014 world cup actually bodes quite well. But i have been saying that sort of thing all my life!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 How else do you suggest FIFA rank countries, other than by results? They should be based on a random bloke's vague perceptions of which team is better than another. Apparently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 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. Plymouth, we have only got to the last 4 of any competition 3 times in 80 years, that's why the FIFA rankings are a farce. You know it's a farce,I know it's a farce and everyone in World Football knows that England are not the Worlds 4th best team. And you state that you can't believe people are shocked Your on a wind up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brizzle Jordan Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 England are not the fourth best country in the world but who cares? The whole football world knows this and at the end of the day the world rankings make very little differance. Rankings aren't even based on who is the best team in the world though really, they are based on points gained and England do very well in qualifiers and friendlies. That's about it though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 What a ridiculous comment! We were literally a couple fo kicks away from reaching the semi finals in a competition that took place a week ago!! Of course, those are the fine lines that determin success or failure, but your quote is laughable when the margins of our "failure" were SO small, again!! Personally, I think that our new found resolve coupled with the injection of Wilshire, Walker, Sturridge, Ox-Chamberlin and possibly Caulker, for the 2014 world cup actually bodes quite well. But i have been saying that sort of thing all my life!! We got to the last 8 in the euro's, which means that there are 4 european teams better than us, out of the 4 other quarter final losers France are almost certainly better than us. Also there in the full fifa rankings there are at least 3 other teams far better than us, so I would say at best we may limp in at 8 but our true place is between 10 or 12 IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Plymouth, we have only got to the last 4 of any competition 3 times in 80 years, that's why the FIFA rankings are a farce. You know it's a farce,I know it's a farce and everyone in World Football knows that England are not the Worlds 4th best team. And you state that you can't believe people are shocked Your on a wind up! Ok then. How else are you supposed to rank the teams other than results? Whether or not you like to criticise England, over the past 4 years we have had the 4th best results in the world, and that is the truth. We rarely reach the last 4 of any competition, but we also very rarely fail to qualify or go out first round, which Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Argentina have all managed to do in the last 10 years, as well as us. We have lost only 19 games out of our last 134. That's an incredible record. If you can think of a better way of ranking teams other than by results, then go for it. This could be quite funny.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Ok then. How else are you supposed to rank the teams other than results? Whether or not you like to criticise England, over the past 4 years we have had the 4th best results in the world, and that is the truth. We rarely reach the last 4 of any competition, but we also very rarely fail to qualify or go out first round, which Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Argentina have all managed to do in the last 10 years, as well as us. We have lost only 19 games out of our last 134. That's an incredible record. If you can think of a better way of ranking teams other than by results, then go for it. This could be quite funny.... But we are clearly not even the 4th best team in europe, so how can the rankings be accurate?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antlers Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 If England had won half their penalty shoot outs we would have a half decent tournament record. going by results we are one of the top countries in the world. from 1990 up to now we have played 43 games in a tournament, with only 7 defeats. you will struggle to find a country with a better record than that. in the same amount of years Germany have lost 12 (although they have played 63 games). ability wise we are miles behind the likes of Germany and Spain, but based on results we are just as hard to beat. the ranking system doesn't give an exact reflection on the best team by ability, but football is a results business and the this is what the rankings is based on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 But we are clearly not even the 4th best team in europe, so how can the rankings be accurate?. Where did I say they are accurate? More importantly, if not on results, how else would you propose ranking teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Why exactly? The way they calculate the results is to factor in the opposition strength. Hence why, rightly, Portugal picked up more points from beating Holland in the group stages than the Czechs in the QFs (the other way round would seem ludicrous). Although the FIFA website doesn't show it, Italy picked up around double the points we did from the England-Italy game as they came out victorious, while the result went down as a draw on our points tally. Can't argue with that really. I think most people would agree that a game in the finals (for instance) is more important than a group stage game, yet there is no difference in this system of calculation. However you try to justify it, the current method puts England as 4th in the world, which they patently aren't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 I think most people would agree that a game in the finals (for instance) is more important than a group stage game, yet there is no difference in this system of calculation. However you try to justify it, the current method puts England as 4th in the world, which they patently aren't. Man u were nowhere near as good as Man City last season but they ended up on the same amount of points, it's a result business regardless of how well you play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Man u were nowhere near as good as Man City last season but they ended up on the same amount of points, it's a result business regardless of how well you play. And the end result was that they didn't win the title - and England got knocked out in the quarters (again). It is to reflect the 'results' in terms of trophies won, progression in tournaments etc that I'm suggesting some fine tuning to the way the table is compiled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 I think most people would agree that a game in the finals (for instance) is more important than a group stage game, yet there is no difference in this system of calculation. However you try to justify it, the current method puts England as 4th in the world, which they patently aren't. Tournament games have a higher weighting than other games. You earn more points for winning a game depending on whether it is a World Cup finals game, European Championship game, World Cup qualifier or a friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Tournament games have a higher weighting than other games. You earn more points for winning a game depending on whether it is a World Cup finals game, European Championship game, World Cup qualifier or a friendly. Indeed PC. But I'd suggest you should earn more per game depending on what round of a tournament you reach. Just a minor tweak, to a system they've tweaked a number of times already, but one that'd recognise actual achievement better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Indeed PC. But I'd suggest you should earn more per game depending on what round of a tournament you reach. Just a minor tweak, to a system they've tweaked a number of times already, but one that'd recognise actual achievement better. So what's a better achievement for England, beating Spain at wembley in a friendly, or beating the Ukraine or sweeden at the euros? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 So what's a better achievement for England, beating Spain at wembley in a friendly, or beating the Ukraine or sweeden at the euros? If they met Sweden in a final, then Sweden undoubtedly. As the system stands however, they'd get more points for beating Sweden in the group stage of the Euros, than they'd get for beating Spain in a friendly. See the weighting system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob k Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 If they met Sweden in a final, then Sweden undoubtedly. As the system stands however, they'd get more points for beating Sweden in the group stage of the Euros, than they'd get for beating Spain in a friendly. See the weighting system. Hmmmmm your beginning to persuad me!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 5, 2012 Report Share Posted July 5, 2012 Ok then. How else are you supposed to rank the teams other than results? Whether or not you like to criticise England, over the past 4 years we have had the 4th best results in the world, and that is the truth. We rarely reach the last 4 of any competition, but we also very rarely fail to qualify or go out first round, which Holland, France, Spain, Italy, Germany, Portugal and Argentina have all managed to do in the last 10 years, as well as us. We have lost only 19 games out of our last 134. That's an incredible record. If you can think of a better way of ranking teams other than by results, then go for it. This could be quite funny.... Why do they bother at all,just go for the records in big tournaments, that's the only time Countries have there best team playing.. As for England rarely failing to qualify?? Euro 2008???. 74,78,94 world cups? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex_BCFC Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 A lot of teams don't make big tournaments so you can't rank based soley on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Where did I say they are accurate? More importantly, if not on results, how else would you propose ranking teams? if they are not accurate they are not fit for purpose, it's bit like making up interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 A lot of teams don't make big tournaments so you can't rank based soley on that. Very true, qualifiers and tournement only then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Very true, qualifiers and tournement only then! So how do you quantify which is the better tournanment? Euros or Copa America, should more wight be given to one or the other? And is that fair? i think the way it is done at the the moment is fairest. If you do it on Tournaments and Qualifiers, then the likes of Brazil, and ukraine and Poland will only get the points from the tournament, not the qualifiers, as the have already qualified. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 So how do you quantify which is the better tournanment? Euros or Copa America, should more wight be given to one or the other? And is that fair? i think the way it is done at the the moment is fairest. If you do it on Tournaments and Qualifiers, then the likes of Brazil, and ukraine and Poland will only get the points from the tournament, not the qualifiers, as the have already qualified. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I see exactly what your saying, and obviously you are right in correcting me. But..... It is broke isn't it,England are in no way the 4th best team in the World! So someone somewhere has to come up with a better way, or perhaps just don't have rankings. Just stuck everyone in a hat when it comes to the qualifiers etc, it may make it more interesting! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRL Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 I see exactly what your saying, and obviously you are right in correcting me. But..... It is broke isn't it,England are in no way the 4th best team in the World! So someone somewhere has to come up with a better way, or perhaps just don't have rankings. Just stuck everyone in a hat when it comes to the qualifiers etc, it may make it more interesting! Well we certainly don't look 4th best in the world. That is true, but you can only judge on results. And our results over a sustained period ain't that shabby. Be it through luck, bad finishing from the opposition, or us playing well. Rightly the teams that have won tournaments are above us. As much as we dislike it because of our obvious deficiencies, we just don't actually lose in normal and extra time that much, so that also needs rewarding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Why do they bother at all,just go for the records in big tournaments, that's the only time Countries have there best team playing.. As for England rarely failing to qualify?? Euro 2008???. 74,78,94 world cups? Yeah, 4 failures in 40 years. You've actually just backed up my point rather than your own. if they are not accurate they are not fit for purpose, it's bit like making up interest rates. They are as accurate as it can be mathematically. I am baffled as to everyone's problem. They rank by results, which is the best method of doing so. Rather than whinging, if any of you have the intelligence to come up with a better system then I'd love to hear it. Definitely not holding my breath though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.