FIFA World Rankings...

[Sedgley Gold N Black]

Here's the latest update:

Fifa World Rankings Top 20

1. Spain 2. Germany 3. Uruguay 4. England 5. Portugal 6. Italy 7. Argentina 8. Netherlands 9. Croatia 10. Denmark 11. Brazil 12. Greece 13. Russia 14. France 15. Chile 16. Ivory Coast 17. Sweden 18. Czech Republic 19. Mexico 20. Japan

Some others people may wish to know: 26. Republic of Ireland 38. Wales 49. Scotland 102. Northern Ireland

Anyone got any ideas how they've got us ahead of Italy & Portugal?

And Greece one place behind Brazil? Who are also behind us, Croatia & Denmark?

 

[kidder_wolf_II]

We will be ahead if Italy because before the Euros they were $$$$ and lost 3 in a row.

 

[WasStefan]

Haha, quality. One of the best teams in the world ay we

 

[Perton Wolf]

Makes us look a lot better than what we really are

 

[Bankswolf II]

How the hell do they work that out??!!

 

[Golden_Wolf]

FIFA rankings are beyond a joke. They mean nothing to be honest. I'd love to know how they work these things out though.

How you can have a side who were beat by Italy (who got to the finals) and Portugal (who got to the semi's) behind England. Ridiculous.

The rankings are as laughable as Sepp Blatter's views on football and goal line tech.

 

[wolf of sedgley]

Hilarious.

 

[Ulver]

FIFA rankings are beyond a joke. They mean nothing to be honest. I'd love to know how they work these things out though.

How you can have a side who were beat by Italy (who got to the finals) and Portugal (who got to the semi's) behind England. Ridiculous.

The rankings are as laughable as Sepp Blatter's views on football and goal line tech.

Why don't you look it up then, it is freely available.. It is just a points system based on 4 years of matches with heavier weightings for more important (i.e. WC top, Euros/Copa A. second, qualifiers then friendlies) matches. Plus other multipliers for time elapsed etc.

It is what it is.. If you don't like it then make your own objective algorithm.. They don't mean nothing, but you have to at least look at what the calculation is based on and how it is weighted.

To answer your Italy question, they were arguably the worst performing team in WC 2010, behind even New Zealand. They were utterly pathetic.. Therefore a ranking system that takes into account 4 years will allow for that. In two years time if they have a decent WC then I'm sure they will go even higher.

If you are only interested in the last tournament then you have the results of said tournament to show you the 'ranking' as such.

 

[Golden_Wolf]

Why don't you look it up then, it is freely available.. It is just a points system based on 4 years of matches with heavier weightings for more important (i.e. WC top, Euros/Copa A. second, qualifiers then friendlies) matches. Plus other multipliers for time elapsed etc.

It is what it is.. If you don't like it then make your own objective algorithm.. They don't mean nothing, but you have to at least look at what the calculation is based on and how it is weighted.

To answer your Italy question, they were arguably the worst performing team in WC 2010, behind even New Zealand. They were utterly pathetic.. Therefore a ranking system that takes into account 4 years will allow for that. In two years time if they have a decent WC then I'm sure they will go even higher.

If you are only interested in the last tournament then you have the results of said tournament to show you the 'ranking' as such.

Well cheers for explaining how it's worked out.

Either way, it's laughable that England are considered the 4th best team in the world.

Whatever ranking system you want, it just ain't right.

 

[Ulver]

Well cheers for explaining how it's worked out.

Either way, it's laughable that England are considered the 4th best team in the world.

Whatever ranking system you want, it just ain't right.

It is flawed in that I don't think they take into account a group stage match versus a latter stage match though it does take into account the opponent quality. Also of course it is entirely results based (being quantitative) and so therefore if we scrape a one goal victory and another team batters the same team at the same stage then each get the same points..

Also I think it is a little bit tougher for S. American teams to rank highly as their qualifying schedule with all teams in the same group is clearly much tougher than ours.

FIFA did change it a few years ago after criticism so I guess it is something they can refine further. But having said that, I doubt many of us could ever agree on the relative rankings of teams anyway, without any kind of statistical basis.

 

[WasStefan]

It's the "fairest" way to have a ranking system. Even though it is wrong.

 

[wolf97]

At least it proves they like us

 

[Space Wolf]

The World Football ELO Ratings is the other list. It uses a different formula to the FIFA version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

 

[WasStefan]

The World Football ELO Ratings is the other list. It uses a different formula to the FIFA version.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

Sill 5th. We can't be that bad.

 

[johnybig32]

When was the last time we were beaten in 90mins?

 

[WasStefan]

When was the last time we were beaten in 90mins?

True. If you don't count us losing in major tournaments on penalties we haven't lost many games at all in the past 8 years (waits for someone to correct me)

 

[johnybig32]

Didnt we lose in the Ukraine?

 

[WasStefan]

Didnt we lose in the Ukraine?

I think of Germany 2010, N Ireland, Russia, Croatia, Ukraine, France.... Any more? friendly I think?

 

[johnybig32]

Wasnt Ukraine a league game?