Red-Robbo Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 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... Well my argument is - and has been throughout this thread - you adjust according to type of match, you adjust according to difficulty of opponent, so why not adjust according to how far you get into a tournament? That way genuinely successful teams - who win things, or make semi-finals or finals - are recognised for what they are: The best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 if they are not accurate they are not fit for purpose, it's bit like making up interest rates. Which nation's ranking points have you identified as being inaccurately calculated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Well my argument is - and has been throughout this thread - you adjust according to type of match, you adjust according to difficulty of opponent, so why not adjust according to how far you get into a tournament? That way genuinely successful teams - who win things, or make semi-finals or finals - are recognised for what they are: The best. I believe a reasonable case could be made for your suggestion. I wondered if it was taken into account by the fact that each team's ranking points were increasing as a tournament went on so I went off to FIFA to see and no, it is not that dynamic. The relevant parameter for opposition strength states that it uses "the opponents’ ranking in the most recently published FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking" (ie at the end of the month before a tournament). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Well my argument is - and has been throughout this thread - you adjust according to type of match, you adjust according to difficulty of opponent, so why not adjust according to how far you get into a tournament? That way genuinely successful teams - who win things, or make semi-finals or finals - are recognised for what they are: The best. Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. It was more to others slating the system, and assuming a better one could be thought up easily . I do think adjusting scores for the round you are in would improve it, without a doubt. As I've said before though, the system shows England have had the 4th best results in the world over the past 4 years, and whether people like it or not, it is accurate. We may not play pretty football or successful football, but we have had the 4th best results in the world. There is no arguing that. Adjusting that with your suggestion would change it I'm sure, but not massively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Yeah, I absolutely agree with you. It was more to others slating the system, and assuming a better one could be thought up easily . I do think adjusting scores for the round you are in would improve it, without a doubt. As I've said before though, the system shows England have had the 4th best results in the world over the past 4 years, and whether people like it or not, it is accurate. We may not play pretty football or successful football, but we have had the 4th best results in the world. There is no arguing that. Adjusting that with your suggestion would change it I'm sure, but not massively. Indeedy. I don't think it needs a wholesale workover, just a bit of a tweak. As it stands, you feel embarrassed telling an Italian "yeah, we're fourth best in the world! You know what they say, PC - there are lies, damn lies ... and statistics! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Yeah, 4 failures in 40 years. You've actually just backed up my point rather than your own. Not at all, that averages out at a failure to get to a major tourno once every 10 years. I don't see any of the major footballing powers in the world doing that. I've said it before and will again, we have reached 3 semi finals in 80 years. Which bit of that don't you understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Not at all, that averages out at a failure to get to a major tourno once every 10 years. I don't see any of the major footballing powers in the world doing that. I've said it before and will again, we have reached 3 semi finals in 80 years. Which bit of that don't you understand. And what, exactly, does that semi final fact have to do with the fact that we have had the 4th best results in the world in the last 4 years? It's completely irrelevant. In case you haven't noticed, we're on about the FIFA rankings, not yet another whiney Englishman who most likely prefers to criticise than support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Which nation's ranking points have you identified as being inaccurately calculated? I was replying to Plymouth City who is defending the rankings whilst saying they are inaccurate. However how can England be possibly ranked as 4th in the world when they are not even the 4th best team in europe? as proved by the recent euro 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Well my argument is - and has been throughout this thread - you adjust according to type of match, you adjust according to difficulty of opponent, so why not adjust according to how far you get into a tournament? That way genuinely successful teams - who win things, or make semi-finals or finals - are recognised for what they are: The best. Because then Portugal would have potentially received more points for defeating Czech Republic than Holland, which is frankly absurd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 I was replying to Plymouth City who is defending the rankings whilst saying they are inaccurate. However how can England be possibly ranked as 4th in the world when they are not even the 4th best team in europe? as proved by the recent euro 2012. Because their results suggest so. For the millionth time, do you have a better solution? No, thought not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 And what, exactly, does that semi final fact have to do with the fact that we have had the 4th best results in the world in the last 4 years? It's completely irrelevant. In case you haven't noticed, we're on about the FIFA rankings, not yet another whiney Englishman who most likely prefers to criticise than support. Whiney Englishmen? You don't know me fella. It's called being a realist and having an opinion which is different from yours. You can bang on and on about results all you want but the facts are,we didn't even get to Euro 2008, we got torn apart two years ago in SA,and have just failed again in another major tournament. That's the facts,it's not about being jingoistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Edit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Worth pointing out that we've been beaten over 90/120 minutes only 3 times at a competitive finals since 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 Whiney Englishmen? You don't know me fella. It's called being a realist and having an opinion which is different from yours. You can bang on and on about results all you want but the facts are,we didn't even get to Euro 2008, we got torn apart two years ago in SA,and have just failed again in another major tournament. That's the facts,it's not about being jingoistic I apologise, it was unnecessary. Problem is, the facts are, the results are based over the last 4 years and we have been the 4th best. That is fact. Whether those results produce tournament success is a separate argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedZepperin Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 ...have just failed again in another major tournament. What's wrong with people back in England? You think that Engand failed at the Euro thingy? Coming top of the group and going out on penalties to the runners-up was a failure? Were you expecting England to win it or something? And another thing. Where/how/why did this fashion for saying "fella" start? A few years ago it was "pal". What's going on? And referring to the pitch as "the park" like we were scousers. What in heaven's name is going on?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted July 6, 2012 Report Share Posted July 6, 2012 What's wrong with people back in England? You think that Engand failed at the Euro thingy? Coming top of the group and going out on penalties to the runners-up was a failure? Were you expecting England to win it or something? And another thing. Where/how/why did this fashion for saying "fella" start? A few years ago it was "pal". What's going on? And referring to the pitch as "the park" like we were scousers. What in heaven's name is going on?????? No, I didn't expect us to win it,far from it. As for the word fella, I lived in NZ and am in constant contact with friends and family from there, fella is used all the time in conversation. Can't see a problem myself. Now, if I was to start calling the pitch a paddock, that would sound strange, they do in NZ. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 Because their results suggest so. For the millionth time, do you have a better solution? No, thought not. Yes I have and so do others on here, use only competitive games (tournaments) and not friendlies, friendlies are a complete waste of space and only used as money spinners for the FA and other world organizations, England are the last team to beat Spain, do you really in your wildest dreams believe we could actually beat Spain in a competitive match?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Ian M Posted July 7, 2012 Admin Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 Yes I have and so do others on here, use only competitive games (tournaments) and not friendlies, friendlies are a complete waste of space and only used as money spinners for the FA and other world organizations, England are the last team to beat Spain, do you really in your wildest dreams believe we could actually beat Spain in a competitive match?. You seem to be suggesting something very similar to the tennis rankings. Grand slams (ATP 2000 events) = World Cup ATP 1000 events = Continental Championships. ATP 500 events = Qualifiers Exhibition matches = Friendlies. (no points) These rankings don't even make allowances for opponent and generally they seem to be a better reflection of the world's best players than the current football rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 You seem to be suggesting something very similar to the tennis rankings. Grand slams (ATP 2000 events) = World Cup ATP 1000 events = Continental Championships. ATP 500 events = Qualifiers Exhibition matches = Friendlies. (no points) These rankings don't even make allowances for opponent and generally they seem to be a better reflection of the world's best players than the current football rankings. They do have 4 slams a year to go on though, rather than a major tournament (for Europe at least) every 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 Yes I have and so do others on here, use only competitive games (tournaments) and not friendlies, friendlies are a complete waste of space and only used as money spinners for the FA and other world organizations, England are the last team to beat Spain, do you really in your wildest dreams believe we could actually beat Spain in a competitive match?. It wouldn't change much. In case you haven't noticed, we dominated our 2010 and 2012 qualifying groups. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 It wouldn't change much. In case you haven't noticed, we dominated our 2010 and 2012 qualifying groups. Try again. Well golf and tennis manage it, but if you believe that England who are ranked between 6 and 10 placings above their true ranking is good enough that is your prerogative, I for one think it's a joke and a complete waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebristolred Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 I don't believe we are that good, whatsoever. My issue is that they measure it on the only thing they can - results. It can be slightly improved, yes, but even with the suggestions outlined in this thread, there wouldn't be that much difference. England would still be higher than perhaps they should be. It's an incredibly boring subject and I'm amazed I've continued on this for so long, but as I said, it's the best system they can do, and as such, it is the closest to accuracy we will get until we have a better idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 Because then Portugal would have potentially received more points for defeating Czech Republic than Holland, which is frankly absurd. Why absurd? The Czech Republic were considerably more successful in the Euros than Holland. What is absurd is claiming that a team that has won nothing for 46 years is the 4th Best In The World. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 Why absurd? The Czech Republic were considerably more successful in the Euros than Holland. So England being ranked 4th is an issue, but Portugal getting more points for beating a rubbish team than one significantly better isn't? Your 'system' completely ignores the huge element of chance that is involved in the finals draw, it's blatantly flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 So England being ranked 4th is an issue, but Portugal getting more points for beating a rubbish team than one significantly better isn't? Your 'system' completely ignores the huge element of chance that is involved in the finals draw, it's blatantly flawed. How are the Czechs, who progressed as far as England and were only just beaten by Portugal "a rubbish team"? But more to the point, do you honestly believe that England are the 4th best team in the world? I can't believe anyone who watches football would make that assertion. If you don't believe that assertion, you have to accept that the Fifa system is flawed and I merely make one suggestion to reflect progression as tournament as one among many factors to be considered in assessing merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 How are the Czechs, who progressed as far as England and were only just beaten by Portugal "a rubbish team"? But more to the point, do you honestly believe that England are the 4th best team in the world? I can't believe anyone who watches football would make that assertion. If you don't believe that assertion, you have to accept that the Fifa system is flawed and I merely make one suggestion to reflect progression as tournament as one among many factors to be considered in assessing merit. Only just beaten by Portugal? They failed to register a shot on target during the entire game, and they got absolutely thumped by a Russia side who failed to qualify. Like I said, your system pays no attention to the randomly assigned strength of the groups; Czech Republic came second in the easiest group in the competition. Any system has its drawbacks, the teams who progress further will already pick up more points by virtue of having won more games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 Only just beaten by Portugal? They failed to register a shot on target during the entire game, and they got absolutely thumped by a Russia side who failed to qualify. Like I said, your system pays no attention to the randomly assigned strength of the groups; Czech Republic came second in the easiest group in the competition. Any system has its drawbacks, the teams who progress further will already pick up more points by virtue of having won more games. But no-one remembers the teams that don't progress. Success in tournaments is what international football is all about. I will agree with you that no system is infallible, but I honestly think that adding progression in tournaments as a weighting factor in the tables would make them more reflective of reality and remove the anomaly whereby losing on penalty shoot-outs is not reflected in any way. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 It is reflected. Italy picked up the points for a win against us, we had the points for a draw. You don't get that with any other result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 It is reflected. Italy picked up the points for a win against us, we had the points for a draw. You don't get that with any other result. It didn't feel like a draw though, as I trudged home from the pub that evening knowing we were out of the tournament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedUn Posted July 7, 2012 Report Share Posted July 7, 2012 What is absurd is claiming that a team that has won nothing for 46 years is the 4th Best In The World. But who is claiming that? England are 4th ranked - they currently have the 4th best total of ranking points, a quantitative measurement of their results in the previous four years. End of. As it happens it matches the highest we've ever been. Who the 4th Best Team in The World might be is a qualitative judgement anyone might care to argue the toss about. Once every four years we find out for real. As with so many other statistics, what the rankings provide is the basis for enquiry ... in England's case, most obviously, what is it about our teams that enable us to ride (fairly) consistently highly in the rankings yet perform so relatively poorly in Tournaments? We can only hope the FA themselves have been asking the right questions and coming up with the right answers for the first time in their existence. That's why I always find it slightly strange when people argue that the presentation of such impartial data - for all to analyse and use as a yardstick to measure progress (or decline) - is a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.