Discussion in 'football' started by editor, Jul 4, 2012.
Seven places above Brazil. LOL.
not even the fourth best in Europe, let alone anywhere else.
FIFA have been smoking on a crack pipe.
Apart from number 1 being usually correct, nobody takes the blindest bit of notice of the FIFA rankings anyway.
I think our qualifying record and consistent QFinalist status keeps us artificially high.
Italy must be a bit peeved
They don't even make the semis!
How can France be nine places behind England?!!!
That's what I just said
You're getting awfully exercised about England's FIFA ranking.
I think it's hilarious. Don't you?
Trouble is though that there'll be no shortage of doofuses who go on to believe that England really are the fourth best team in the world, and then they'll start whining away again after the inevitable early exit.
Aside from a number of fools (within a perfectly internationally normal ratio of population), no one England thinks their team is any good. I don't know why you keep saying this?!
I do indeed want some of what Fifa are smoking though!
If only that was true.
These always make me laugh, just because of how much they annoy some people.
Thing is though England are where they are because of their results. France might have looked better but then they went and lost to Sweden. Maybe someone would like to propose some amendments to the ranking formula to reflect England's status more accurately. A 500 point England-only deduction for 'obviously being shit, right' or something like that?
Did you read the bit about fools?
Russia, Greece and Croatia are also above France. Uruguay are four places above Argentina, eight above Brazil (although actually, given the last WC, that may be less controversial). Greece are only one place behind Brazil.
But of course it's England that everyone complains about. They're all using the same system, England don't have any say over it, the points are awarded on multiple different criteria.
Fist of truth -> deluded faces
Rankings should be done in reverse alphabetical order
the criteria being: 'Keep all the 'big' countries in the top 10 so their fans - with their higher spending power - go to the touranments.'
If only they could get the USA higher than 36th....
Nice to see Palestine are up to 154th
I think there's a danger of thinking of teams in terms of reputation rather than results, though. Argentina barely scraped through qualification for the last WC, for instance.
P'raps, I honestly haven't thought about it that much.
That's very true, which is why I put the caveat in the brackets. It occurred to me I'm not that well-versed on the current state of football outside of Europe, save for bits 'n' pieces I've picked up.
I challenge you to find me one.
Don't; I'm pretty sure he keeps a folder of them.
God you're boring. Bet you can't find one England fan on here who thinks we're the 4th best team in the world.
Everyone at work (well, everyone who gave a flying fuck) was pissing themselves about it when they found out.
Not really as I can't imagine many people in Italy take the rankings that seriously and they moved from 12th to 6th following their performance during the European championships, so the rankings do reflect their improved performance.
The fact that England didn't lose during Euro 2012 (other than on penalties, which doesn't count) nor in their friendlies prior to the competition meant they improved their ranking, overtaking Netherlands who lost all three games. Other than Spain, there weren't any other teams who went home undefeated. Presumably Brazil haven't played much in June to gain many points and so were overtaken by a lot of the European teams.
Whilst no one seriously thinks England are the fourth best team in the world, they are rarely beaten in 90/120 minutes which is presumably why under the ranking system they feature highly.
If you look at the last year, France have played 13 games, winning 8, drawing 3 and losing 2.
Over the same period, England played 12, won 8, drew 3 and lost 1 (a friendly). If you used a basic calculation using points for wins and draws, England would have the same number of points. Considering that England didn't lose at the European championship finals and France lost two games, would suggest (based on the way that the rankings work) that England would deserve more points than France.
Over the 2012 qualification, France lost once; England were undefeated.
Then consider that the rankings are done over four years, which also encompasses the last World Cup where France were knocked out in the first round without winning a game and England progressed to the next stage.
Over that qualification period, England won 9 games and lost 1. France won just 6, drew 3 and lost 1 and needed a play off to qualify.
Therefore, it's not that surprising based on that limited data that England are ranked higher than France and presumably over the rest of the games played in that four year period, England's results must have continued to be better than France.
Whether currently France look a better team than England is irrelevant to these irrelevant rankings. Their results over the four year period have been worse.
You've just been self-pwned by your own poll!
I'll have some of what they're having.
This is all true. Obviously the rankings do flatter England - anything like that is bound to flatter someone - but all the 'Fifa are idiots' comments are a bit silly. It's not like someone at Fifa has sat down and just decided England are fourth.
The criteria (which have been established for a while) are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings. I'd be interested in suggestions as to how they can be amended to ensure England's shitness is properly reflected.
Ten pints of Delusional Ale and a couple of Fantasy Shots.
Separate names with a comma.