Wales ranked at 10th best team in the world!

Discussion in 'football' started by editor, Jul 5, 2015.

  1. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Oops! Fixed.
     
    bendeus likes this.
  2. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    mwgdrwg, oryx, souljacker and 2 others like this.
  3. Lo Siento.

    Lo Siento. Second As Farce

    Feel free to go back to the thread in question to look over the discussion. I answered all of those questions in great detail with plentiful evidence as others on the thread (English and not) began to tell me not to waste my time on you (because you're beyond help). You responded, as you have here, with insults and bluster.
     
  4. miktheword

    miktheword Well-Known Member



    yeah, I will, and will start a thread on it (typical arrogance saying not to waste time of them)
    As said, I will do the proper analysis of how your historical over ranking helps you in qualifying, walking through.

    I have a house sale going on next week, so reason for delay, but the thread will come.

    Insults..I apologised for, after the condescension. Two arguments were put on saturday, unanswered as were many a year ago.

    The little time I had, I put up two points, unreplied to.

    How UEFA have changed their seeding system, removing the historical element that benefited e.g. Arsenal over City, despite the reverse happening in PL..

    I argued last year that that has helped England ..so far, a year, unrefuted.

    i also, a year apart, have said that the 'big' nations (tv audience wise) are what matters to FIFA and UEFA..money therefore.

    In the little time I had saturday, I gave reliable accounts that backed up my claim a year ago of those money seeking organsations that want those big tv paying nations to qualify ..

    also, unanswered...not even by bluster or insult.

    At the bottom of the last citation, it reminded you that England got a top seeding in '82 world cup, despite not qualifying for previous two tournaments, on account of winning it at home in '66. Author of (anti England WSCs) joked that it was a good thing that Hungary didn't qualify that year.

    and you say that's bluster?! whilst I assemble even more evidence on a new thread, you may consider a reply to those..instead of saying even my friends, some of whom aren't even English said not to bother with you. (and I'm beyond help am I?..is that more of your sneering condescending middle class insult?
    so typical of those sent from behind a keyboard than to the face in my experience....'beyond help?'... if I said that, someone of your ilk on these boards would go into one about you questioning my mental ability and how no-one could help me..and you accuse me of insults?! middle class cunt)

    actually, that journo's mention / joke about Hungary?..reminds me, after '53, Puskas etc..weren't you still assembling a team versus 'The Rest of the World' ten years later?

    no arrogance or blinkers there, of course not. ffs even Cundy on talk sport tonight said England were in third tier of teams internationally, and ranking was a joke.

    Until I get that thread going, you, and your mates answers, views, the money thing..and the historical thing..two advantages, some arguments against mine
    maybe.
     
  5. Lo Siento.

    Lo Siento. Second As Farce

    Again, I point you towards the other thread, which was entirely about the question in bold and was dealt with in detail.

    As to the other point, I've not at any point disputed (mainly because it wasn't raised on the other thread) that the 1982 seeding system wasn't unfair.

    I've never argued that England are one of the best teams in the world. It's entirely consistent for a team in the top dozen or so in Europe to be one of the top dozen seeds in UEFA qualifying and still to consistently fail at major tournaments.

    If I'm patronising you it's possibly because I spent a long time on that thread generating a lot of statistics and historical records which you basically refused to discuss at all.
     
  6. miktheword

    miktheword Well-Known Member





    apologies again for my abuse..I may well have done but also thought my arguments were not addressed, but think we may have been arguing different things..

    Look, can we agree to leave it till I get time to do the research to properly support my arguments (and suspicions about UEFA, FIFA concerning the finance they gain from helping the big nation tv audiences?)

    It does need a lot of time to do that research.

    It will be split into 3 parts.

    1).The historical factor.

    ‘82 to ‘90 England were arbitrarily helped by being given top seeding due to winning a world cup (at home) despite not qualifying for the previous two; despite being non top seeded a week before by Havelange, a rep flew to meet FIFA next week with ‘but..but..our hooligans!’..Spai, with slightly better record then got non seeded and England seeded.

    2) How ‘92 onwards, when FIFA rankings began, but also the money thing took over, Sky league worldwide, plus USA world cup being money spinner, the system changed from ranking points for actual tournament’s performance, (arbitrarily given in England’s case ‘66, which I have previously quoted a joke about its a good job Uruguay never qualified in ‘82), to results in qualifying and friendlies..both of which England are prolific at, consistent at..gave them points that ensured seeding.and how tournament performance was reduced by 50 % in importance (not getting beyond quarters didn’t matter)

    Its also more complicated as analysis must include how the top Euro nations, have often gone to the last stages, beat each other in the games that mattered, but also do abysmally at times (Holland, France)..whereas England never do so shit that they don’t get to quarters..except for Brazil. I have previously said that England did get, on FIFA’s rankings anyway, a difficult 2002 or 2006 draw?..the one with Nigeria, Sweden etc..but usually get a relatively easy one..even those stating ‘we got to the quarters, last 16’ etc.. leave out the actual dire tournament performance, a Crouch foul ten minutes from the end to beat Trinidad and Tobago, even the successes, Italia ‘90 (benefitting from the hooligan seeding factor) scraped through the group of death by a one nil v Egypt, following ‘bring them home’ headlines in the press, to being quite lucky v a Belgium who hit the post twice, outplayed by a naive Cameroon - said by England’s players, to being unlucky v Germany ..that is the only semi abroad in 50 years..

    Another relative ‘success’ was Mexico ‘86..(I was actually supporting England then..got very nasty whilst drunk following the second abysmal performance, before do or die v Poland..what made me lean to the Irish side of my London Irishness was Elton Welsby , ITV, pre stuttgart, saying ‘ireland, have they got a chance?..to a panel with Clough, saying ‘I bet England are glad ireland have those two centre halves’..the realisation that Ireland had Liverpool, United, celtic winners throughout the team had escaped them..an ageing Hoddle nearly changed it as a sub, but the arrogance was enough for me) But I’m not ABE, glad when after the 4-1 Germany, more got realistic in their analysis, forcing the media to tone down.


    it’s this lack of tournament success, rather than qualifying exemplary performance, in line with FIFA’s current ratings, that I will argue England’s ranking gives false hopes, expectations.

    Plus the important historical rating, that helps the current group seeding, and even in the tournament itself this is a factor, changes..see the academic article that I cited a week or so ago.
    The other ‘success’..’96, at home, won 2 out of five, Scotland a penalty miss from being either way, Spain a ‘Russian linesman’ maybe from being beaten..but played some of the best I’ve ever seen them v Holland and germany (again, unlucky)

    3) The long bit..how even in the groups given, England’s third seeds were so woefully low in rankings, ensuring, even if losing to a N Ireland, would cause no problem. The best and most consistent team at beating those below them.
    But also ensured, when second seeds, Croatia, Turkey (who were both shit at that time) it would need a keeper to let it through his hands at home for you not to qualify.
    Even when this second in the group rarely occurred meaning a play off, the introduction of seeding at this play off stage, with no prior announcement, backed down by UEFA after threatened legal action by Ireland yet still produced the same initial intended result,with amazing odds, kept up its sleeve by UEFA the last 15 years to help those big tv nations, is beyond dispute. It has helped England, amongst others, get a top seeding, which further helps their next seeding.


    But the ranking system changed, to help England and USA. I’d argue the money spinners. Not tin foil stuff, but in line with UEFA and FIFA’s unarguable love for money, bribes, corruption, enrichment for themselves.
    Plus, how England’s large group of averagely good players will perform better than those of other smaller (tv) nations who don’t send key players to friendlies, or where injuries affect them more; or who don’t take them as seriously as England. Friendlies counted for more; tournament progress beyond the quarters for less.
    Also, the centralisation of tv contracts by UEFA, who stipulated that the six must be drawn into the six team groups recently; FIFA also now use this UEFA model.


    This will take a while to organise.

    The ridiculousness of FIFA rankings is also an issue. It’s not meant to be a league of who’s currently the best or whatever, but an index of team in question against others who they don’t play, over four years with a complex coefficient.There still exists a historical factor to this, which benefits European teams and South American.

    But it will get done. I may not have read/ understood your arguments properly before, responded to them properly as a result , or made mine clear. I will do when I start the thread.

    To make it clear, it’s not so much about England being shit, flat track bullies maybe, to an extent, not about slagging any little Englanders, certainly on here (by the passing of each tournament underperformance, given the ten out of ten success often in qualifying, the analysis has got better, the jingoism much less nationwide, reflection and analysis at its height after the Germany drubbing in S Africa). But it will be along the lines of how England are a money spinner for the two powers, and that the latter will do things to help their enrichment, which does actually have the by product of assisting England in next seedings.

    If I’m wrong in the end, or adjust my thinking on reasoned evidence, I will admit it.
    But it will have to be more than..’we qualified, got to quarters, therefore justified our seeding’

    too simplistic.

    My argument is broadly, England have benefitted historically because of who they were, in the game, more so through changes in how tournament performance and qualifying has changed in importance, how they may have been given an easy ride last ten years (google England’s qualifying groups to see BBC and SKY headlines agreeing with this), but how this has been motivated and enabled by the financially corrupt organisations, who may not love England, but know where their bread’s buttered,

    follow the money..like the Premier league, the recent and the next deal, popular and worth the money worldwide because of the overseas players...a team of carraghers wouldn’t get 10% of that deal. It’s no surprise to me that England get a helping hand, as I will later go into detail to show, to help the moneymen.


    My argument isn't that under FIFA current rules, England don't do as the stats say, as you quote, its that the rules then (historically got an advantage) and now, which have changed since '92/'94 and mostly due to money, (ranking and subsequent seeding system due to tv money, sky and USA potential) ensure they get an advantage over similar ability teams.
     
  7. 1927

    1927 Funnier than he thinks he is.

    The bias for big sides can be seen in the seeding for the Euro finals. Even if Wales top their group, they will be placed in pot 4. The Netherlands, who are only likely to qualify as a best 3rd place team via play offs, will, if they qualify be in Pot 1.
     
  8. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    spartacus mills and Belushi like this.
  9. 1927

    1927 Funnier than he thinks he is.

    editor likes this.
  10. LiamO

    LiamO Well-Known Member

    for at least another fortnight?
     
  11. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    That will be a fortnight longer than some teams I can think of. :D
     
    LiamO and Belushi like this.
  12. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    It's not as daft as Portugal in 4th. :hmm:
     
  13. Favelado

    Favelado Half to the Tower, please.

    So. Bosnia are what then? 7th best in the world?
     
  14. LiamO

    LiamO Well-Known Member

    Absolutely delighted for all the beautiful Welsh people I have met over the years - and there have been many - and also delighted for the two 'orrible cunts from The Leninist back in the day who would have found it impossible to celebrate... anything.
     
    mwgdrwg likes this.
  15. Supine

    Supine Rough Like Badger

    "That was the best defeat of my life," said the Real Madrid forward.

    Lol
     
  16. Batboy

    Batboy Trumpeting is good for you...

  17. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

  18. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    Things are returning to normal(ish)

     
  19. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    Anywhere in the top 40 is good enough for me!
     
  20. Lord Camomile

    Lord Camomile Lemonade socialist

    :D Fair enough!

    Could be a really good European tournament either way.
     
  21. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    They don't release the system they use to work this out, do they?

    Belgium no.1?

    Portugal no.4?

    Austria in at 10? When was the last time they even qualified for anything before this year?
     
  22. Monkeygrinder's Organ

    Monkeygrinder's Organ Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager

    Yeah they do - it's not some big secret. Some of the funny results seem to come from the weighting of highly ranked teams. So beating Belgium now would get you a load of points. And if you then get beaten, etc etc.
     
  23. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    Ah ok. Here it is, in fact.

    First major flaw I see is that you get zero points for any lost match regardless of who it was against. Also the weighting of the teams makes little sense. You only get 25% fewer points for beating a team ranked 50th than for beating the no.1 ranking team. But you get the same - zero - for a loss against either.

    In fact, it's a ridiculous scoring system. No wonder it produces these bizarre tables. :D

    Explains the USA appearing so high so often. To move up, you don't want to be playing the top teams much, if at all. You want to be playing lower-ranking teams and beating them all the time (but not too low). But if you do occasionally get thrashed by a top team, it's no biggie. It's just one zero-point-game like any other defeat.
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2015
  24. skyscraper101

    skyscraper101 0891 50 50 50

    Fifa rankings: Wales up 15 places to 11th as England drop to 13th

    Shouldn't be any surprise that Wales are ahead of England in the FIFA rankings. What IS surprising is that England are even as high as 13.
     
    ddraig likes this.
  25. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    That'll be due to the undefeated group stage at the Euros and a batch of incriminating emails that GCHQ snaffled from the fifa server
     
  26. skyscraper101

    skyscraper101 0891 50 50 50

    editor likes this.
  27. editor

    editor Taffus Maximus

    skyscraper101 likes this.
  28. littlebabyjesus

    littlebabyjesus one of Maxwell's demons

    At least Wales have done something to deserve it now. Feels like less of a fraud.

    tbh 12 is very generous to England.
     
  29. kabbes

    kabbes "A top 400 poster"

    How and why have Italy dropped to 13th?
     
  30. pocketscience

    pocketscience Well-Known Member

    and why are Belgium 2nd?
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice