PDA

View Full Version : FIFA World rankings.......what complete arse


anti-addick
31-03-2002, 03:32 AM
USA in 13th for a start - what do they base this garbage on???


1 France
2 Argentina
3 Brazil
4 Italy
5 Colombia
6 Portugal
7 Spain
8 Mexico
9 Netherlands
10 Germany
11 Yugoslavia
12 England
13 United States
14 Czech Republic
15 Paraguay
16 Sweden
17 Romania
18 Ireland Republic
19 Cameroon
19 Denmark
21 Belgium
22 Uruguay
23 Croatia
24 Russia
25 Turkey
26 Honduras
27 Costa Rica
28 Slovenia
29 Tunisia
30 Norway
31 Iran
32 Nigeria
33 Poland
34 Trinidad and Tobago
35 Saudi Arabia
36 South Africa
37 Ecuador
38 Japan
39 Morocco

The only thing I can agree with are the French at the moment.

jlmatthews
01-04-2002, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by anti-addick
USA in 13th for a start - what do they base this garbage on???



Just cause we are awesome and you can't take it is no reason to whine about it!! ;):D

sydney eagle
01-04-2002, 03:15 AM
Originally posted by anti-addick

5 Colombia
. :eek: :eek: :eek:

anti-addick
01-04-2002, 03:27 AM
Columbia finished well into the bottom of their group this time and have rarely made it past the group stages in the last few WC's. They always saunter over bragging about how classy they are, yet they still field Valderama and are basically sh*t. 5th in the World, yeah right.

As for the US, FIFA must consider those group matches v Tinidad and Tobago or the Bahamas quite tricky as Mexico seem to get the same treatment from FIFA. It's that or those Gold Cup games are particularly hard, I mean, it's p*ss easy having to win a European group by comparison isn't it.

Dave
01-04-2002, 03:38 AM
Maybe your post should have been along the lines of

'I don't undersand how the FIFA world rankings are determined. Could a more intelligent person please explain to me how it works?'

garner
01-04-2002, 03:57 AM
I agree it's total bollox

here's how they do it

http://www.fifa.com/rank/procedures_E.html

anti-addick
01-04-2002, 04:19 AM
Maybe you can explain it Dave seeing as you're an oracle. I mean, it would be unlike you to sit in the background and make patronising comments wouldn't it.


Oh, and watch your spelling in future or a thicky like me might get confused.:rolleyes:

Sunny Fan
01-04-2002, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by anti-addick
watch your spelling in future or a thicky like me might get confused.:rolleyes:

What, like thinking that cities in South Carolina qualify for World rankings?:moo:

Originally posted by anti-addick
Columbia finished well into the bottom of their group

ozzieEagle
01-04-2002, 09:46 AM
I'd suggest that USA in 13th spot, is supposed to make the news bulletins in america, thus lifting the profile of the game in the US. :rolleyes:

PalaceFan in Alabama
01-04-2002, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by anti-addick
USA in 13th for a start - what do they base this garbage on???


1 France
2 Argentina
3 Brazil
4 Italy
5 Colombia
6 Portugal
7 Spain
8 Mexico
9 Netherlands
10 Germany
11 Yugoslavia
12 England
13 United States
14 Czech Republic
15 Paraguay
16 Sweden
17 Romania
18 Ireland Republic
19 Cameroon
19 Denmark
21 Belgium
22 Uruguay
23 Croatia
24 Russia
25 Turkey
26 Honduras
27 Costa Rica
28 Slovenia
29 Tunisia
30 Norway
31 Iran
32 Nigeria
33 Poland
34 Trinidad and Tobago
35 Saudi Arabia
36 South Africa
37 Ecuador
38 Japan
39 Morocco

The only thing I can agree with are the French at the moment.

You misunderstood, this ranking is for the amount of Coke sold per capita. Now that could be the drink or it could be the real thing :eek:

sydney eagle
01-04-2002, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by PalaceFan in Alabama


You misunderstood, this ranking is for the amount of Coke sold per capita. Now that could be the drink or it could be the real thing :eek: then surely Colombia would be higher then 5th?:o

Boris the charltonhater
01-04-2002, 05:10 PM
Netherlands being ninth is the biggest joke ever. They didn't even qualify for the world cup. The only sides they can beat are in friendlies when their opponents are playing any old person.

Steve in Phoenix
01-04-2002, 05:38 PM
USA 13th is hardly making news. They've been in the top 20 for a few years now. It may be slightly over-rated but not by much.. they actually are a good team now :eek: If you dont think so, I'd like to ask if you've actually seen them.

Colombia are 5th because they won the South American continental tournament. If England were to actually win something.. wouldnt you expect them to be pretty high? It just happens that this year they won was devalued by the non-entry of Argentina amongst others. They weren't too far off toppling Brazil for the final WC place either.. mostly being condemned by a terrible start to their campaign.

If you have a set of ranking rules you have to stick by them and give Colombia the ranking points. You make your own system that you think is fair and I'll gladly poke holes in it. (ie/ that would not involve just saying I think England are 5th in the world yeah.. that sounds about right)

and Holland are one of the most talented squads ever not to make the show.

Selhurst Eagle
01-04-2002, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by anti-addick

26 Honduras



What's with that! There worse than Wales!

FarmerP
01-04-2002, 06:28 PM
Yugoslavia?

Did not make the WC and lost to Brazil....

Steve in Phoenix
01-04-2002, 07:24 PM
Honduras finished 3rd in the Copa America that Colombia won, defeating Brazil 2-0 in the quarter finals and Uruguay twice along the way. They missed out on qualification for the WC by a fraction. I'd like to see Wales try doing that.

There's a reason countries get certain rankings. It might be an idea to see what they did to get there, than dismiss them out of hand?

AJ
01-04-2002, 07:49 PM
These rankings mean nothing.... It all counts on the field in June this year, we will then see who's good and whose crap.

BTW. Where's Scotland;)

Jimbo ?
01-04-2002, 09:06 PM
Originally posted by anti-addick
USA in 13th for a start - what do they base this garbage on???





USA are a good team (maybe not that good) but as Scotland are something like 51st i think they are a load of rubbish!!! - we arent that bad!!

ozzieEagle
02-04-2002, 05:24 AM
Originally posted by Jimbo ?



USA are a good team (maybe not that good) but as Scotland are something like 51st i think they are a load of rubbish!!! - we arent that bad!!

hehe think again jimbo, yours is the one team in europe we beat away ;)

anti-addick
02-04-2002, 04:21 PM
If the US are so good then how come they consistantly fail to reach the second stage then, even losing to worldbeaters Iran last time.

I'd like to see them qualify through the UEFA groups - toughest in the World, that CONCACAF group is a walkover - even Jamaica managed to qualify.

AJ1969
02-04-2002, 04:36 PM
:D :D :D :D :D



Originally posted by Dave
Maybe your post should have been along the lines of

'I don't undersand how the FIFA world rankings are determined. Could a more intelligent person please explain to me how it works?'

Boris the charltonhater
02-04-2002, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
USA 13th is hardly making news. They've been in the top 20 for a few years now. It may be slightly over-rated but not by much.. they actually are a good team now :eek: If you dont think so, I'd like to ask if you've actually seen them.


I've seen Kirovski and Berhalter play :clown:

Levski
02-04-2002, 05:05 PM
Surely the problem is that the EUFA section is the most competitive, hence decent sides still lose games and don't accrue points. Ok, there's plenty of crap in the EUFA section as well, but it is so competitive, it's actually pretty hard to qualify for the WC or EC, whereas the same S American sides are always there. The Rank Proceduces (watch the spelling there) that FIFA uses doesn't really take into account this fact. This is why USA and Colombia are so high up. Using the same score multiplier for EUFA and CONMEBOL is rather unfair.

Scotland do poorly because they draw so many games and don't score any goals. Brown's negative football style has caught up with them.

anti-addick
03-04-2002, 08:15 PM
Firstly, AJ1969, you are a bum-lick - blatently brown nosing Dave. Even the zombies amongst us could see that my original question was rhetorical anyway, why couldn't you?

Secondly, Levski hits the nail on the head and hence my point, that the FIFA World Rankings are tosh. It's like saying that Barry Town are better ranked than Palace because they've qualified for Europe and we haven't. I'd like to see the US in the UEFA groups - in short, they probably wouldn't qualify and they certainly wouldn't be sat in 13th place either.

FIFA should come up with a system that we don't all laugh at.

firesign
03-04-2002, 08:30 PM
Republic of Ireland 18th???!!!

No way - they should be in top 10. They qualified from a very tough group and have beaten the likes of Russis and Denmark in friendlies. (IMHO RoI will make at least the quarter finals.)

Top Dog
03-04-2002, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by anti-addick
Firstly, AJ1969, you are a bum-lick - blatently brown nosing Dave. Even the zombies amongst us could see that my original question was rhetorical anyway, why couldn't you?

Secondly, Levski hits the nail on the head and hence my point, that the FIFA World Rankings are tosh. It's like saying that Barry Town are better ranked than Palace because they've qualified for Europe and we haven't. I'd like to see the US in the UEFA groups - in short, they probably wouldn't qualify and they certainly wouldn't be sat in 13th place either.

FIFA should come up with a system that we don't all laugh at.

Couldn't agree more. Anti-Addick makes a very good, valid point that the FIFA ranking system is a complete joke, and then Dave makes this sickeningly smug, yet inaccurate comment. He doesn't want the system explained, he wants it changed.

It wasn't clever or funny. And then AJ1969 posts it again as he obviously found it so hilarious.

What a pair of losers.

The fact is, the system they currently use is a joke.

It implies that England V America would be a close game. Maybe when Graham Taylor was in charge and our midfield duo comprised Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas, but not anymore!

It would be at least 5-0 to England.

Daniel_Nash
03-04-2002, 08:46 PM
Germany went above England because they beat Israel 5-1! big deal....

does it mean that England could play.. Tibet, Tahiti, Ethiopia, Mauritius, and.. er... Andorra.. wallop them all and go to the top of the ratings because of the 5 wins and massive goals scored?

Tor
04-04-2002, 04:22 AM
I can't believe that Norway's obviously wrong position at 30th hasn't been mentioned yet!

Our enjoyable, pacey football with lotsa flair and fun surely deserves a higher ranking than that!!

Oh, I forgot, we're sh.ite. :( (but better than Honduras!!)

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by anti-addick
If the US are so good then how come they consistantly fail to reach the second stage then, even losing to worldbeaters Iran last time.

I'd like to see them qualify through the UEFA groups - toughest in the World, that CONCACAF group is a walkover - even Jamaica managed to qualify.

Errrrrrrr. They have actually you know. Went out to Brazil in 1994 in the second stage.

CONCACAF is not a walkover. Honduras were unable to qualify from it and this is a team that went to South America and embarrassed many of their leading teams in their version of the European Championships - including a QF 2-0 victory over Brazil and two wins over Uruguay, eventually finishing third.

Originally posted by Dan Nash
Germany went above England because they beat Israel 5-1! big deal....

does it mean that England could play.. Tibet, Tahiti, Ethiopia, Mauritius, and.. er... Andorra.. wallop them all and go to the top of the ratings because of the 5 wins and massive goals scored?

Nope it doesnt. Otherwise Australia would be top of the rankings every year wouldnt they? Incidentially Israel is far better than those countries.

The extent of statistical analysis I see on here is "the fact is it is a joke in my opinion". Not exactly convincing. If its such a joke, you come up with a ranking and we'll all laugh at yours instead. FIFA are on the right lines, the only real flaw is the one that penalises weaker to moderate european teams slightly - for which its co-efficients do need adjusting. But lets throw all that away and put in A-A's Ranking System from the Pub. #1-50 All European teams. #51+ All non-Europeans etc :rolleyes:

sydney eagle
04-04-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix



Nope it doesnt. Otherwise Australia would be top of the rankings every year wouldnt they?

I was about to mention that very point Steve.I think the Aussies scored about 60 odd goals in two games:D ....nothing like good competitive football:o

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Top Dog


Couldn't agree more. Anti-Addick makes a very good, valid point that the FIFA ranking system is a complete joke, and then Dave makes this sickeningly smug, yet inaccurate comment. He doesn't want the system explained, he wants it changed.

It implies that England V America would be a close game. Maybe when Graham Taylor was in charge and our midfield duo comprised Carlton Palmer and Geoff Thomas, but not anymore!

It would be at least 5-0 to England.

Maybe if you understood the system - you'll be able to propose HOW to improve it? Radical eh?

At least 5-0? Are you stuck in the past? America beat Germany 4-2 and narrowly lost to Italy. Quite similar to England's own recent results against those teams. :eek: America hasnt conceded a goal at home for the last 7 games straight.

Daniel_Nash
04-04-2002, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix



Nope it doesnt. Otherwise Australia would be top of the rankings every year wouldnt they? Incidentially Israel is far better than those countries.


Ah, so... am i right in thinking that you get more points for beating teams that are further up the table? which might be why Australia spank all the low teams but aren't all that high.

Top Dog
04-04-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix


Maybe if you understood the system - you'll be able to propose HOW to improve it? Radical eh?

At least 5-0? Are you stuck in the past? America beat Germany 4-2 and narrowly lost to Italy. Quite similar to England's own recent results against those teams. :eek: America hasnt conceded a goal at home for the last 7 games straight.

Fact is, I have no wish to understand a system that obviously isn't working.

Neither am I paid to come up with these systems. If I was, I would make sure I came up with a ranking that represented the true ability of each team. Unlike this system, which everyone laughs at.

No, I'm not stuck in the past. I'm sure America have improved a lot in the last ten years, but friendly results count for nothing my friend. The fact is, that there are at least 30 teams in the world which would regularily beat America in any serious competition.

England are one of those teams. Do you seriously think you would beat us if you met us in the World Cup?

If so I admire your optimism if nothing else.

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 05:24 PM
We thrash Germany 5-1, yet they are higher in the rankings than us? Seems a little strange. No doubt it's because they beat Isreal so well....:rolleyes:

Top Dog
04-04-2002, 05:28 PM
Aaaagggghhhh!!!

I see you have a scary new face Brighton_Eagle???

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 05:36 PM
Yes indeed, it's Mr A Twin......got a bit bored of the last one, and obviously being such an intimidating person I thought it would be appropriate! :D

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Top Dog
Fact is, I have no wish to understand a system that obviously isn't working.

Neither am I paid to come up with these systems. If I was, I would make sure I came up with a ranking that represented the true ability of each team. Unlike this system, which everyone laughs at.

No, I'm not stuck in the past. I'm sure America have improved a lot in the last ten years, but friendly results count for nothing my friend. The fact is, that there are at least 30 teams in the world which would regularily beat America in any serious competition.

England are one of those teams. Do you seriously think you would beat us if you met us in the World Cup?

If so I admire your optimism if nothing else.

You should study history or you're doomed to repeat it. If you cant be bothered to see what was faulty with FIFA's attempt I dont hold out much hope for your own. But now all of a sudden you have to be 'paid' to do it. :rolleyes: Friendly results are devalued in FIFA's system. competitive matches are worth much much more. Most fans would agree they do count for something, but obviously not as much and this has been taken into account.

30 teams? Name them. Please. Or is this yet more ignorant bluster?

If England beat France or Argentina in a friendly Im certain you would be crowing for them to have it included in their rankings.

BTW - Im English, not American. You really need to stop making assumptions about things you dont know a fig about.

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Daniel_Nash
Ah, so... am i right in thinking that you get more points for beating teams that are further up the table? which might be why Australia spank all the low teams but aren't all that high.

Yup, the ranking of the team you beat is included in the score you get for the result. But with teams like Vanautu.. beating them is virtually worthless in the rankings anyway. It also hurts the ranking big time if they dont qualify for the World Cup.

Israel are a moderate team although I think they've done relatively well in recent campaigns and moved up a seeding group. For Germany however.. its not just that game but all their other results this year which also include beating a difficult team in Ukraine easily. In terms of results I'd say they're pretty close to England who have had plenty of games they failed to win that they should have (according to their rank) in their qualifying campaign.

Top Dog
04-04-2002, 06:22 PM
Oooooohhh!! No need to be so tetchy.

My point about being paid was that there are people who work for FIFA who ARE paid to devise these systems, so I am a little surprised that they cannot come up with something better.

Sorry to presume you are American, but you are in Phoenix and you did seem a tad biased towards the American team. No offense.

Friendly results just before a World Cup count the least because the big teams are generally tinkering with different systems and untried players.

I say again, what decent teams have America ever beaten in the World Cup?

As for the thirty teams that are better than America, you'll have to give me a while to compose it, but don't worry, you'll get it.....

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 06:34 PM
Well, I must admit I'm struggling to find 30 better sides than the US, however, here are 18 I'm pretty sure about, in no particular order:

Brazil
Argentina
England
France
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Nigeria
Cameroon
Germany
Sweden
Holland
South Africa
Croatia
Denmark
Republic of Ireland
Czech Republic
Turkey

The Omen
04-04-2002, 06:53 PM
You can take South Africa off that list - the US would beat them for sure, they are awful now.

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 07:05 PM
Ok...so that's 17 then. Any additions you'd care to make.

Jaffa
04-04-2002, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by brighton_eagle
Well, I must admit I'm struggling to find 30 better sides than the US, however, here are 18 I'm pretty sure about, in no particular order:

Brazil
Argentina
England (close)
France
Italy
Spain (close)
Portugal (close)
Nigeria (us would win)
Cameroon (us would win)
Germany
Sweden (close)
Holland
South Africa (us would win)
Croatia (close)
Denmark (us would win)
Republic of Ireland (close)
Czech Republic (close)
Turkey (close)

Take out the ones I think the US would win, then you have only 14 teams above them - so 13th in the world isnt far out - bearing in mind one or two of the close would go the US way, in my opinion.

Thin on Top
04-04-2002, 07:13 PM
Poland, the first European team to qualify (i think !) and yet they are below Iran in 33rd place.

Or was it Sweden ?

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 07:20 PM
Thing is Jaffa, I think any of those teams could beat the US. Obviously there are no guarantees here, thats what makes football interesting, but I do believe any one of those sides could beat the US.

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 07:21 PM
Also, most people on the WC prediction thread go for Poland over the US in that group, and a couple even though Korea.

04-04-2002, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by brighton_eagle
Well, I must admit I'm struggling to find 30 better sides than the US, however, here are 18 I'm pretty sure about, in no particular order:

Brazil
Argentina
England
France
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Nigeria
Cameroon
Germany
Sweden
Holland
South Africa
Croatia
Denmark
Republic of Ireland
Czech Republic
Turkey

Add to that

Romania
Mexico
Columbia (5th best in the world remember!)
Paraguay
Yugoslavia
Belgium
Ukraine
Russia
Norway
Finland
Chile
Uruguay

And you have your 30.

I think all of those teams would beat the US.

zonin2000
04-04-2002, 07:44 PM
the problem is that it is almost impossible to come up with an entirely objective way of ranking footballing nations. Football throws up different results when certain factors change, for example I don't think (a full strength, now there's another variable..) England would have much difficulty in turning over Bolivia at home. Howerver if the game were to be played in the high altitude of La Paz then I think it might be a different story. Also, football is irrational, players and teams have off-days. The Fifa World Rankings are objective, but they don't take many variables into account. It would be difficult to take these variables into account because some of them are hard/impossible to quantify (weather, altitude etc.).


Anyway, I love the World Rankings- gives you something to talk about and another reason to badmouth FIFA :p.

AJ
04-04-2002, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered


Add to that

Romania
Mexico
Columbia (5th best in the world remember!)
Paraguay
Yugoslavia
Belgium
Ukraine
Russia
Norway
Finland
Chile
Uruguay

And you have your 30.

I think all of those teams would beat the US.

Don't forget Iran. They have already beat the US in the last WC and are a better team now. And Hondurus and Costa Rica beat the US in qualifying already.

Mind you, to be fair, how many of those teams would you be confident that England could beat? Remember 2-2 Greece?

Sunny Fan
04-04-2002, 08:12 PM
And Chile managed to lose to Venezuela; they were OK5 or so years ago but are truly dreadful now.
On a more general note, yea the points system could probably use some tinkering but seems pretty fair overall, I don't think the US are flattered, the Dutch not qualifying this year will count against them for a long time to come, and we'll see Brazil slip. Maybe where it could be improved is in lessening the weight given to competitions over four years ago, when it's likely a previous generation of players was shaping the team. See the artificially high ranks of teams such as Chile and Bulgaria for example.
Anyone know how far back the major championship-qualification and performance consideration goes? And how they are weighted?

Top Dog
04-04-2002, 08:40 PM
Originally posted by Unregistered


Add to that

Romania
Mexico
Columbia (5th best in the world remember!)
Paraguay
Yugoslavia
Belgium
Ukraine
Russia
Norway
Finland
Chile
Uruguay

And you have your 30.

I think all of those teams would beat the US.



For some reason I am uncredited on this post but it's me Top Dog!!!

Top Dog
04-04-2002, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Sunny Fan
And Chile managed to lose to Venezuela; they were OK5 or so years ago but are truly dreadful now.
On a more general note, yea the points system could probably use some tinkering but seems pretty fair overall, I don't think the US are flattered, the Dutch not qualifying this year will count against them for a long time to come, and we'll see Brazil slip. Maybe where it could be improved is in lessening the weight given to competitions over four years ago, when it's likely a previous generation of players was shaping the team. See the artificially high ranks of teams such as Chile and Bulgaria for example.
Anyone know how far back the major championship-qualification and performance consideration goes? And how they are weighted?

You honestly believe the US are the 13th best team in the World and basically as good as England???????????????????

Sunny Fan
04-04-2002, 09:30 PM
Originally posted by Top Dog


You honestly believe the US are the 13th best team in the World and basically as good as England???????????????????
No, I said there needs to be some adjusting of the criteria (suggested that US '94 is over-weighted) and I think we'd probably beat them.

But considering recent results (Euro 2000 we were dreadful; qualifying for euro 2000 we were dreadful; France 98 we were OK, but still lost to Romania; etc etc) I'm surprised England is as high as it is in some ways. The US performed creditably in qualifying and have a decent team, sure they're maybe a place or two above where they should be but not nearly as much as you seem to imagine.

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 09:32 PM
Top Dog for starters..

USA has beaten Mexico 4 times out of their last 5 games.
Honduras didnt even qualify yet beat Uruguay twice.. another in your list.

You said 30 teams that you were sure would beat USA. Getting very dodgy after the first 20.

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 09:36 PM
Originally posted by Sunny Fan
And Chile managed to lose to Venezuela; they were OK5 or so years ago but are truly dreadful now.
On a more general note, yea the points system could probably use some tinkering but seems pretty fair overall, I don't think the US are flattered, the Dutch not qualifying this year will count against them for a long time to come, and we'll see Brazil slip. Maybe where it could be improved is in lessening the weight given to competitions over four years ago, when it's likely a previous generation of players was shaping the team. See the artificially high ranks of teams such as Chile and Bulgaria for example.
Anyone know how far back the major championship-qualification and performance consideration goes? And how they are weighted?

From memory, I think it is 8 years - most recent tournaments being weighted a bit more valuable.. but even the oldest ones still have an effect since they have more value than standard qualifying ties I believe.

Jaffa
04-04-2002, 09:37 PM
The US are a better team than you lot give them credit for. Alright, some of those teams would beat them - but on their day they can hold their own against most of the world.

They only lost 1-0 to Italy a month ago... pretty similar to how we fared against Italy... They`ve qualified for the WC 4 times consecutively, beat times like Mexico along the way... beaten Germany twice, Argentina once in the last three years... not a mean record.

I predict a fairly decent WC for the yanks, and more success in the WC by 2010 (possibly a final spot)

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
Top Dog for starters..

USA has beaten Mexico 4 times out of their last 5 games.
Honduras didnt even qualify yet beat Uruguay twice.. another in your list.

You said 30 teams that you were sure would beat USA. Getting very dodgy after the first 20.

True....but that still puts them at least 20th. They qualified third below Costa Rico and Mexico. In that final qualifying group they got the following results:

USA 2-0 Mexico
Honduras 1-2 USA
USA 1-0 Costa Rica
Jamaica 0-0 USA
USA 2-0 Trinidad & Tobago
Mexico 1-0 USA
USA 2-3 Honduras
Costa Rica 2-0 USA
USA 2-1 Jamaica
Trinidad & Tobago 0-0 USA

SO you can certainly add Costa Rica to the list too :eek:

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 09:44 PM
Poland are severely hurt by a terrible qualifying record for tournaments other than the last one. Thats why they are ranked lower.

You see the dilemma? Do you rate non-tournament matches more to give teams like Poland a fairer ranking?? Or as you ask.. give tournament matches even more importance because as you say.. what has USA really done in the World Cup? You cant do both.

Im not (too) biased to USA.. Im just trying to look at it objectively. Im sympathetic to the FIFA rankings - if you try for yourself you'll see you get caught in a trap of trying to correct a team's ranking like Poland and affecting other teams unfairly and so on. You can only take what the results are and try to weight it finely.

Steve in Phoenix
04-04-2002, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by brighton_eagle


True....but that still puts them at least 20th. They qualified third below Costa Rico and Mexico. In that final qualifying group they got the following results:


Yup USA deserve to be ranked around 14-20th IMO Generally I do agree CONCACAF teams are slightly over-ranked but not by much and they and other teams certainly arent as bad as some would suggest.

AJ
04-04-2002, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by Top Dog


You honestly believe the US are the 13th best team in the World and basically as good as England???????????????????

That's a stupid statement, as the rankings are over a period of time, not, over 2 games.
It's like saying, do you think Charlton are a better team than Blackburn (their respective league positions, say they are).

Do you really think that England are that good? England have a very weak defence and if the best English defenders around include the Neville's then, we(yes I am English) are in trouble. Especially that Phil.
I also do not think England have a World Class goalkeeper.

I do not believe that the US players are as good as their English counterparts, but, they play well as a team and are always up for the big games. They are not a 3rd World Football Nation anymore and if teams like England do not give them respect, then the US will beat them.

AJ
04-04-2002, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by brighton_eagle


True....but that still puts them at least 20th. They qualified third below Costa Rico and Mexico. In that final qualifying group they got the following results:

USA 2-0 Mexico
Honduras 1-2 USA
USA 1-0 Costa Rica
Jamaica 0-0 USA
USA 2-0 Trinidad & Tobago
Mexico 1-0 USA
USA 2-3 Honduras
Costa Rica 2-0 USA
USA 2-1 Jamaica
Trinidad & Tobago 0-0 USA

SO you can certainly add Costa Rica to the list too :eek:

One thing to note about the US is that they do not play well away from home. In the qualifying for the WC, I think they only won a couple of times away in the 2 rounds, but, won most of their home games.

Top Dog
04-04-2002, 09:54 PM
Originally posted by Jaffa
The US are a better team than you lot give them credit for. Alright, some of those teams would beat them - but on their day they can hold their own against most of the world.

They only lost 1-0 to Italy a month ago... pretty similar to how we fared against Italy... They`ve qualified for the WC 4 times consecutively, beat times like Mexico along the way... beaten Germany twice, Argentina once in the last three years... not a mean record.

I predict a fairly decent WC for the yanks, and more success in the WC by 2010 (possibly a final spot)

No,they're not.

I doubt the US used eleven substitutions in their game, testing out untried players. You simply can't compare those two results.

The reason they've qualified for the WC so many times is because they have such a piss easy group. Even Wales could qualify from that group.

They beat Mexico? Wow.

The yanks will plummit out of the WC at the group stage.

As for them getting to the World Cup final in 2010 Jaffa! :eek: :rolleyes:

I could only hope you have been on a lunch-time drinking session or you are high on something because that is absolutely laughable mate.

There's no way the US should be in the top 20.

Thin on Top
04-04-2002, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by AJ

I also do not think England have a World Class goalkeeper.


Wash your mouth out !!!!

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by Top Dog
There's no way the US should be in the top 20.

I have to say I agree. Somewhere between 20 and 30 sounds about right to me.

Sunny Fan
04-04-2002, 10:03 PM
Around 20th if I had to put a number to it, certainly better than a lot of the teams mentioned and certainly not a pushover as some are suggesting. What should be done? I imagine more weighting to more recent competitions, as the class of '94 for example has now largely disappeared.

Top Dog
04-04-2002, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
Top Dog for starters..

USA has beaten Mexico 4 times out of their last 5 games.
Honduras didnt even qualify yet beat Uruguay twice.. another in your list.

You said 30 teams that you were sure would beat USA. Getting very dodgy after the first 20.

Maybe I was a tad harsh at first, but I think a placing of about 25 would be about right.

Anyway, didn't lowly Honduras beat the US in qualifying???

brighton_eagle
04-04-2002, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Top Dog
Anyway, didn't lowly Honduras beat the US in qualifying???

Yes indeed. In fact, they got a excellent result and were the only country in that phase of qualifying to beat the US at home. It probably cost the US second place in the group.

Sunny Fan
04-04-2002, 10:15 PM
'Lowly' Honduras are also on the up; they beat Brazil and Uruguay in last year's Copa America and club side Olympia would have been the Central American / Caribbean / US representatives in this year's cancelled world club championship. The country might be poor but it's fashioning improving football sides.

Jaffa
04-04-2002, 10:19 PM
Top Dog, mark my words, the US will become a presence in Soccer, mainly because they have the cash and the infrastructure to win.

In the late 70s they said Australia wouldnt win any swimming gold medals...

zonin2000
04-04-2002, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by Jaffa
cash

yes, but will anyone invest in 'Soccer' stateside?



Originally posted by Jaffa
infrastructure

at the moment, I disagree.



Mars will win the Universe Cup in 2010

pete eagle
04-04-2002, 11:38 PM
Mexico are above us?:eek:

Anyway, Cameroon are a far better team than they are given credit for. They are compact, hard wordking, brimming with confidence and skill and they are full of goals. They held Argentina 2-2 recently.

As for the US, they are getting there, but they always seem to fail at the WC.

As for Trinidad and Tobago being above Scotland........... well we won't mention that:rolleyes:

Steve in Phoenix
05-04-2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by zonin2000


yes, but will anyone invest in 'Soccer' stateside?
...

at the moment, I disagree.

....


Because... ?

America has a **** load of good things going for it. Dont forget they have one of the best women's team now and their men's team is the poor relation but those things tend to even up eventually.

Soccer is THE #1 sport played by 10 and unders. They usually move onto the other 4 pro sports and athletics but the grass roots is definitely there. With its population and money, America has no worries about losing too much talent to other sports.

Perhaps you think the MLS is failing because you heard a team closed down. Well the MLB and NBA close and move teams too and you wouldnt exactly call them failures? Or bad at producing American talent.. Rather I'd look at the attendences which are over 15,000 on average league-wide. That's superior to many countries, including Holland among big names. Many talented young players are coming through the league and hotly sought after by the Euro giants. (Remember the name Quaranta) It may surprise you to hear there is no way Palace could get these guys, on a parallel to Forsell years ago.

Project 40 has been highly successful at bringing through youngsters and America are now regulars at all junior standard world competitions (something that cant be said for England). America's big problem is that the rest of the world isnt standing around waiting for it to catch up and they'll need to continue improving fast to get there and they also still lack that one world class player to lead them like a Beckham or Veron.

Steve in Phoenix
05-04-2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by Top Dog


No,they're not.

I doubt the US used eleven substitutions in their game, testing out untried players. You simply can't compare those two results.

The reason they've qualified for the WC so many times is because they have such a piss easy group. Even Wales could qualify from that group.

They beat Mexico? Wow.


They were both friendlies - of course you can compare them. And you know what? They may not have used 11 substitutions but they certainly werent fielding their full-strength team either! The game came on a European tour and the coach deliberately left out their best players such as Reyna who had already booked their WC tickets. The team was made up mostly of players that were untried and the coach wanted to see them. Berhalter was one of them.

Wales would not qualify from that group. If you think so, more fool you. Do you think Wales could beat Brazil 2-0 in South America or defeat Uruguay twice? (since you probably dont know much about them - Uruguay have one of the meanest defenses - even Argentina find beating them extremely difficult) Your "lowly" Honduras did that and Honduras couldnt qualify from the group. But yeah.. Isle of Man probably could qualify according to you.

Yes they beat Mexico a lot recently. One of the 30 teams you thought were sure bets to beat USA. :rolleyes:

pete eagle
05-04-2002, 04:30 AM
when did USA beat Brazil 2-0 in South America?

Jaffa
05-04-2002, 04:34 AM
read his reply properly - honduras did not the us - he was just showing the toughness of that group

Top Dog
05-04-2002, 04:11 PM
Originally posted by Jaffa
Top Dog, mark my words, the US will become a presence in Soccer, mainly because they have the cash and the infrastructure to win.

In the late 70s they said Australia wouldnt win any swimming gold medals...

Maybe in 2020, but not by 2010. It's just too soon.

James Varcoe
05-04-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Jaffa
Top Dog, mark my words, the US will become a presence in Soccer, mainly because they have the cash and the infrastructure to win.

In the late 70s they said Australia wouldnt win any swimming gold medals...

Despite them having won 6 in 1972?

The Omen
05-04-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by James Varcoe


Despite them having won 6 in 1972?

LMAO!!

Can't believe you researched that just to prove a point! :p

James Varcoe
05-04-2002, 04:29 PM
Glad to be of service

anti-addick
07-04-2002, 03:36 PM
I believe that the Yanks will come good but it's going to take a generation, not 2010! Pele started banging on about that with African nations in the 90's and they're still sh*t.
Football scholarships are now being given by colleges which is good but they are ultimately a nation which demands instant gratification - which is why the womens soccer is so good - they were winning from the start. It's going to take years, but one day they'll be powerful.

I just believe that the US are lower in that list than other teams - 20th seems much more sensible. They score points because they play loads of games and have the easiest qualifying in the world. I believe that there are 19 teams that, if they played the US several times they would win most. I also believe that if the US had to go through UEFA groups then they would hardly feature. I guess this is a good thing for the US as it's the last bastion on earth that fails to recognise the only true World game - Football, and if they failed to reach the finals everytime then 'Soccer' would really struggle to take off in their fickle, cultureless nation.

As for the WC2002, I don't think they'll make the second round this time, as they normally fall over anyway.
Portugal are a classy team, South Korea are at home and the spirit will be tremendous whilst Poland ripped their European group (but did get beaten 2-0 comfortably by Japan last week). I predict 3rd at best - it's a tougher group for them than France 98.

Steve in Phoenix
07-04-2002, 05:40 PM
Easiest qualifying? You're having a laugh. Easier than beating up Papua New Guinea and New Zealand as in Oceania? Easier than taking on the mighty Tibetians and Nepalese in Asia? Concacaf is arguably as strong as the South Americans' group in that Honduras finished third in the South American tournament, yet couldnt qualify from Concacaf's group... despite its' "easiness".

I agree it'll take a generation before USA becomes a power.. but you're missing the obvious.. the generation has already started years ago and you're only just now seeing the effects. It wont be a generation from now. There are some quality players already emerging and the next wave looks even better.. Santino Quaranta in the MLS goalscoring charts at 16 and Freddy Adu scoring in U-17s international tournaments (he's just 12).

How do you mean they dont recognise football? Be specific. They have a national league, well-attended, one of the world's top 20 national teams... its not a crime to not have football as their #1 passion - lots of other countries don't either.

Cultureless? So culture is suddenly important to you is it? :) How many art galleries, theatres, museums, historical lectures do you go to? I bet the only thing you've done recently that could be considered cultured is watch the Queen Mum's funeral. America has a culture and history of its own, just not a very English one.

I used to think the same way, even used to detest US sports for being modern crappy incomprehensible rule-infested unnatural concepts dreamt up because they wanted a game they dominated. It just isnt true. I looked at the histories of the games because I wanted to say how much more traditional, cultured and superior football was to them. I was wrong. Just as we have our Stanley Matthews and WG Grace they have Babe Ruth and Christy Mathewson. Their sports stretch back over more than a century (just like football which isnt as old as you might think) integrated into their national identity and culture.

LLCOOLSTEVE
07-04-2002, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
Freddy Adu scoring in U-17s international tournaments (he's just 12).



:eek:

zonin2000
07-04-2002, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
Concacaf is arguably as strong as the South Americans' group in that Honduras finished third in the South American tournament, yet couldnt qualify from Concacaf's group... despite its' "easiness".


Honduras beat an understrength Brazil, Argentina didn't even enter the tournament. Honduras did very well to get to the Semi's but Wycombe got to the FA Cup Semi Final last season yet they were not one of the four best teams in England..

It is easier to qualify from the Concacaf group than from the Comnebol group.

Steve in Phoenix
07-04-2002, 09:11 PM
The real comparision would be did Wycombe beat some of the four best teams along the way? Nope. This is also international football that involved group stages, not a domestic cup.. not a very valid comparision.

Not only did they beat Brazil in a QF (I dont care if it was understrength.. they have a lot of bloody good players to choose from and would certainly care about losing) they beat Uruguay twice. OK Argentina didnt enter. Say they would win.. that still puts Honduras 4th and still a automatic qualifier since Conmebol has 4.5 automatic places.

I agree Conmebol is better and harder to qualify but not by a lot. If we judge UEFA as so much harder to qualify because plenty of good teams stay home.. look at Conmebol - Generally they send 5 relatively good teams and usually have only 6 good teams trying to qualify - meaning only one or two good teams misses out. Thats just the same situation in Concacaf.. they may get three spots but one or two good teams misses out too. Saying Concacaf is THE easiest is garbage when its closer to Conmebol than to Oceania.

anti-addick
08-04-2002, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
Easiest qualifying? You're having a laugh. Easier than beating up Papua New Guinea and New Zealand as in Oceania? Easier than taking on the mighty Tibetians and Nepalese in Asia? Concacaf is arguably as strong as the South Americans' group in that Honduras finished third in the South American tournament, yet couldnt qualify from Concacaf's group... despite its' "easiness".

Sorry Steve but that's garbage. One thing you 'conveniently' don't mention is that FIFA know that Oceania is a pile of poo so they order the winner to playoff against the 6th team in South America, which they tend to lose. In the Asian group then there is also a playoff - remember the one that Ireland had to win? Sure enough, Iran (the side that beat USA in France 98) lost comfortably. CONCACAF is much weaker than South America, and you dodge the main issue that the US WOULD NOT QUALIFY in the UEFA groups


I agree it'll take a generation before USA becomes a power.. but you're missing the obvious.. the generation has already started years ago and you're only just now seeing the effects. It wont be a generation from now. There are some quality players already emerging and the next wave looks even better.. Santino Quaranta in the MLS goalscoring charts at 16 and Freddy Adu scoring in U-17s international tournaments (he's just 12).

They said this about the next generation of youngsters at Man U 8 years ago but Wes Brown and his friends aren't near the first team - the odd sub appearance for Chadwick and Greening before being flogged off was as close as this got. Frankly i doesn't hold water until it happens. Mr Q and Mr A may be class acts, but on the other hand they may be playing against sh*te.


How do you mean they dont recognise football? Be specific. They have a national league, well-attended, one of the world's top 20 national teams... its not a crime to not have football as their #1 passion - lots of other countries don't either.

Correct me if i'm wrong but MLS attendance has been steadily falling from 25,000+ crowds to 16,000- crowds since the US WC 94. As for #1 sport, it's not even #4 sport, and often those countries where it isn't big are crap at it and aren't falsely placed in the top 13.


Cultureless? So culture is suddenly important to you is it? :) How many art galleries, theatres, museums, historical lectures do you go to? I bet the only thing you've done recently that could be considered cultured is watch the Queen Mum's funeral. America has a culture and history of its own, just not a very English one.

OK, OK, it was a shallow side swipe at the yanks ;)


I used to think the same way, even used to detest US sports for being modern crappy incomprehensible rule-infested unnatural concepts dreamt up because they wanted a game they dominated. It just isnt true. I looked at the histories of the games because I wanted to say how much more traditional, cultured and superior football was to them. I was wrong. Just as we have our Stanley Matthews and WG Grace they have Babe Ruth and Christy Mathewson. Their sports stretch back over more than a century (just like football which isnt as old as you might think) integrated into their national identity and culture.

I'm not digging at their games, I like America Football and know it's rules well. And yes, it's been going for about 90 years now (although football stretches back 3/400) But I find FIFA's stats bollox generally - the US was an example of a few countries misplaced.

Steve in Phoenix
08-04-2002, 02:20 AM
Originally posted by anti-addick Sorry Steve but that's garbage. One thing you 'conveniently' don't mention is that FIFA know that Oceania is a pile of poo so they order the winner to playoff against the 6th team in South America, which they tend to lose. In the Asian group then there is also a playoff - remember the one that Ireland had to win? Sure enough, Iran (the side that beat USA in France 98) lost comfortably. CONCACAF is much weaker than South America, and you dodge the main issue that the US WOULD NOT QUALIFY in the UEFA groups

I'd have thought it was obvious. Who did the Oceania winners Australia lose out to? Uruguay (its actually 5th place team). Who did Uruguay lose to in competition, twice? Honduras.

You obviously didnt follow the Asian qualifying or you would know Iran was actually the #5 team in Asia. China and Saudi Arabia obtained direct qualification by beating such mighty teams as Qatar, Thailand and Kazakhstan. All that with two of the strongest teams removed from Asia as well in Japan and Korea who were also granted direct qualification.

Im not dodging the hypothetical issue that USA would find it hard in UEFA. Of course they would.. its the best group. However I ask you.. would you have predicted Poland to qualify at the start? Really? Or Slovenia? If they could do it, so could America. Its no certainty they wouldnt.


They said this about the next generation of youngsters at Man U 8 years ago but Wes Brown and his friends aren't near the first team - the odd sub appearance for Chadwick and Greening before being flogged off was as close as this got. Frankly i doesn't hold water until it happens. Mr Q and Mr A may be class acts, but on the other hand they may be playing against sh*te.


Fair enough.. they arent anything till they prove it at the highest level. All it shows is that America is producing some promising young top-class talent that MAY improve its standing.


Correct me if i'm wrong but MLS attendance has been steadily falling from 25,000+ crowds to 16,000- crowds since the US WC 94. As for #1 sport, it's not even #4 sport, and often those countries where it isn't big are crap at it and aren't falsely placed in the top 13.

I dont know if its been falling but 16K is still higher than most leagues in the world. As for being crap.. Russia, Finland, Czech/o/slovakia, China doesnt seem like a bad selection of countries where football is not #1.

I'm not digging at their games, I like America Football and know it's rules well. And yes, it's been going for about 90 years now (although football stretches back 3/400) But I find FIFA's stats bollox generally - the US was an example of a few countries misplaced. [/B]

Okay it just seemed that way that you were digging.

Actually I think its more than 90 years.. more like 120. Association football does not go back 3-400 years. It was founded in the 1860's.. less than 150 years ago. There were forms of ball games played before then but they resembled rugby much more than football and every village had wild variations.

I agree being at 13th is slightly high. I personally would place them at around 16-19th as I said before. But the stats ARE based on results. The system is actually very much how many of us would set out to do it. All they can do is take the results and factor it in.. they cant very well say "Well all European teams can get a bonus point because they play in Europe".

With all ranking systems, some countries get boosted above their level. Its a natural statistical phenomenon. Remember England being #1 for a few weeks in Rugby Union? Not very accurate.. but their results put them there. Reality took it away. If America doesnt deserve it, they will drop.

Elephant with mouse gyp
09-04-2002, 03:58 PM
Have to defend Steve in Phoenix's defence of the FIFA rankings.

What convinced me was an article on the issue in the Racing Post a few years ago. The writer - a bookie - acknowledged that there was a popular consensus that the rankings were a load of rubbish, and then proceeded to show how reliable a guide they actually were when it came to predicting results - obviously an important factor for a man of his trade.

I can't remember the exact details now, but he came up with a rule of thumb where a team placed more than five places (I think) below another would have only a tiny chance of winning, a theory tested against previous results.

To settle the debate, before the World Cup finals, we could feed a FIFA rankings based prediction into the prediction thread in this forum. My guess is it would beat the rest of us.

anti-addick
18-04-2002, 04:38 PM
Yeah, US 5 places ahead of Ireland who beat them last night. The way they were opened up for the first goal was division 3 stuff.

Colombia 5th, beaten 2-0 at home in the qualifiers by Paraguay who we stuffed last night. Beazil scraped through in the end but sit in 3rd - this thing should be a little more up to date - they take too much account of years ago. Sure, fair enough, a 5 year spans is good but doesn't it go back a little too far? Except for the chec rep which seem to be discounted - a consistant team that does well in tournos gets stuffed into 14th place, behind the likes of the US, colombia and Mexico!!

firesign
18-04-2002, 04:41 PM
As I posted previously, Ireland should be in the top 10 - easy.

Jaffa
18-04-2002, 04:45 PM
The US got beaten 2-1 away to a pretty good Ireland side.

Hardly as rubbish as you make them out to be eh Anti?

Levski
18-04-2002, 04:51 PM
I think Steve and Anti both make valid points. However it seems to me that all sports rankings are theoretical and arbitrary by their very nature. Whenever someone like Marcelo Rios becomes World No 1 in tennis everyone moans. People tend to fuss over the cricket rankings as well. But there will always be discrepencies. However, nothing is actually decided by these rankings, so it doens't really matter. I think there are some problems with FIFA's rankings, as I said earlier in this thread, but basically, its just something else to have an argument over, nothing is settled by it, so who really cares. The real stuff starts on May 31st, that's when we'll find out who's the best.

Although even then people will say 'ooh we had to travel too far to make the games, the Far Eastern climate doesn't suit our style of play, the collars on our shirts chafed...'

Nothing in this world is perfect, I suppose.

zonin2000
18-04-2002, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
Who did Uruguay lose to in competition, twice? Honduras.


Once

AJ
18-04-2002, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by Levski

Although even then people will say 'ooh we had to travel too far to make the games, the Far Eastern climate doesn't suit our style of play, the collars on our shirts chafed...'

Nothing in this world is perfect, I suppose.

Yes, but one advantage is that it is the rainy season, something no English player can claim, they are not used too.

More likely, the fried dog butty, will be the downfall of the team:(

JamieBcpfc
04-05-2002, 11:28 PM
Ukraine 47th absolute balls
they should have qualified for the last 3 major tournaments but for crappy playoff performences against Slovenia being in the same group as germany at their peak and playing germany and italy in the playoffs they could beat about 25 or even more of those teams. They may not have reached the world cup but loads more of those teams hadnt its just on games won against crappy teams

ive had my rant and now ill go away

Steve in Phoenix
05-05-2002, 12:08 AM
Originally posted by zonin2000
Once

Twice. Beaten in the group stage and Honduras won the 3rd place game on penalties.

zonin2000
05-05-2002, 12:15 AM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix


Twice. Beaten in the group stage and Honduras won the 3rd place game on penalties.


exactly one defeat and one draw.

Steve in Phoenix
05-05-2002, 12:30 AM
Pedant :D

Sorry but Honduras won the drawn game on penalties - that makes Uruguay the losers. Man Utd lost to Leverkusen despite two draws. England lost to Germany on penalties. So on that score Uruguay lost to Honduras twice.

zonin2000
05-05-2002, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
Pedant :D

Sorry but Honduras won the drawn game on penalties - that makes Uruguay the losers. Man Utd lost to Leverkusen despite two draws. England lost to Germany on penalties. So on that score Uruguay lost to Honduras twice.


yeah fair enough, I was going to say "you would also disagree If I told you that England were unbeaten at Euro 96."

But anyway your point was that Honduras were better than Uruguay and you proved it. Besides, Honduras outclassed Uruguay in the play-off and I was being, as you said, a pedant :).

Twyford Bee
05-05-2002, 01:29 AM
The main faults with the FIFA ranking system are:

They seemed to be biased towards teams who play a lot of qualifying matches (e.g. CONCACAF teams), or teams who play friendlies against good teams. Our highest ever position in the FIFA rankings was 4th, after having beaten Italy and France in the "Tournoi" in 1997. We wouldn't usually play friendlies against 3 of the world's top 10 teams in the space of a week, hence our sudden climb.

The results are averaged out over an enormous amount of time (I think it's either 8 or 10 years), meaning we're technically still paying for our faliure to grace USA 94 to a certain extent.

American Samoa lost 31-0 to Australia and moved up 2 places. There is nothing right about that!

The bigger fault is with the world cup seeding system than the rankings IMHO, since it's always worked out so that we are made to pay for past faliures over and over. How the hell did Turkey or Ireland get seeded above us in the Euro 2004 draw, for example? Even being seeded below Germany is laughable, bearing in mind the criteria for seeding were the Euro 2000 finals performances (beat Germany and finished above them), and the WC 2002 qualifying campaign (beat them 5-1, lost to them 1-0, finished above them again).

Also the 2002 finals draw was done by region (the "top 8" excluded), meaning we got probably one of the toughest African/Asian teams in the finals, one of the top seeds, and another tricky European team. When you see the group that some other teams in our pool got (remember we could have got South Korea instead of Argentina), that's when you want to cry.

Steve in Phoenix
05-05-2002, 05:53 AM
We are still paying for USA 94 but the value is statistically diminished significantly the longer ago it was. But I dont think its wrong to include the previous two World Cups as part of a ranking.. I much prefer that to a one year ranking. It takes quite a long time for a country to play a broad spectrum of competitive games and friendlies.

I agree about the seeding procedure (which is a completely different ranking). I was under the impression that it was based almost exclusively on the previous two qualifying campaigns that European countries had played without any regard to actual competition results. It also didnt make allowances for group size - hence countries like Turkey benefitted from being in large and/or easy groups.. getting an extra two games against easy opposition twice to boost their average rating (with four extra wins). Denmark actually suffered the worst from this particular skew having twice been in small tough groups, (but were still ahead of us in the line to be seeded). Sweden were named #1 seeds.

Si121
05-05-2002, 08:42 AM
I don't know if this has been mentioned because I can't be bothered to read through the whole thread but I can't see how Germany are above us after we beat them 5-1 and came higher than them in our group. It's a loa* of ****.
Friendlies shouldn't count. We change all 11 players! Hardly goona show our full potential is it!

JamieBcpfc
05-05-2002, 12:35 PM
hell yeah

anti-addick
05-05-2002, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by Steve in Phoenix
We are still paying for USA 94 but the value is statistically diminished significantly the longer ago it was. But I dont think its wrong to include the previous two World Cups as part of a ranking.. I much prefer that to a one year ranking. It takes quite a long time for a country to play a broad spectrum of competitive games and friendlies.


Precisely why it's wrong Steve. How can you include 2 World Cups?? They are 8 YEARS apart, which in international football is basically a career of a player who will usually join the full setup at a later age and leave it younger. This means that the US 94 qualification team was COMPLETELY DIFFERENT to the current team. This is also why teams shine and fade so quickly on the international scene (eg, Bulgaria, Norway, Poland) - hence the current ranking is no good.

In my opinion it should be based far more on serious competition and recent form. The number of matches played should not matter, the seriousness and strength of opposition should, with the emphasis on the age of the match. Clearly Germany should never have been above England, let alone seeded before teams like Denmark and Sweden - everybody knows that they've been crap for 2 years but their previous good form has given them an unfair advantage to better teams since they're now in an easy group and can't fail but to make the second round - thus boosting them further for future ratings again.

Currently I see that many of the CONCACAF teams are overrated, and because they keep playing each other and qualifying for competitions easily they keep boosting themselves, to the loss of better, lower ranked teams like Ireland and Denmark. I'll wager that Holland plummet down the rankings for their failure, but i'd have put my house on them p*ssing the CONCACAF area easily - they had a tough group and will be punished for it.

Steve in Phoenix
05-05-2002, 10:37 PM
anti - you are mixing up the FIFA rankings with the UEFA seedings which are calculated in separate and very different ways. Germany are above us in UEFA seedings because they have a better recent qualification record over the last 2 campaigns. They are below us in the current FIFA world rankings.

IMO the seedings were pretty poor as I already said. They were based on the two most recent qualifying campaigns. UEFA actually did what you wanted! They based it on recent form only in serious competition. And what did you get? Sweden as #1 seeds ahead of Italy and France and Turkey joining the seeded group. That the seedings were clearly much less accurate than the rankings proves that you shouldnt base it only on recent form in serious competition. Its much too narrow a field statistically in the UEFA system with less than 20 games - instead of an estimated 65+ that the FIFA rankings take into account. It easily becomes grossly distorted as indeed happened with Turkey. At least Colombia actually had to win something to jump into the top 5 and distort the FIFA rankings.

"Number of matches should not matter" - Where does it matter in the rankings? It only matters in the UEFA seeding process which is separate.

8 years is fine by me - incidentially it is not always 8 years, only at the most extreme time is it ever that long since it goes from 4 to 8.. a much more reasonable spread and helps to balance out those flash-in-the-pan teams. And the older of the tournaments is weighted to be of increasingly and quite significantly less value. If England won the World Cup 5 years ago.. would you not be outraged if it played no part in the rankings at all? I think so.

I still think FIFA's rankings are better than anything any of us could come up with. If we were to try and create our own system for calculating rankings (ie/ unbiased objective procedure) then you see it does actually take into account many things we would want it to. I agree with adjustment of the statistical weighting but not with denouncing it as bollox.

Twyford Bee
06-05-2002, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Si121
Friendlies shouldn't count. We change all 11 players! Hardly goona show our full potential is it!

I see your point, but I've been to 90% of home England games since 1995 (including friendlies), and can't remember any game ever having less meaning than that Italy game. It was a bit farcial to change all 11 players, but it's not Sven's fault that Houllier, Ferguson etc didn't want their players to play more than 45 minutes each. I've never been to a game where nobody on one team started and finished the match before. England games, and indeed all internationals, are not usually that disjointed.

I think friendlies still have their place in rankings, remember France haven't played a World Cup qualifier since 1993, in a way you'd be punishing them for their recent successes. Remember Brazil play a lot more qualifiers (mainly due to the ludicrous qualifying system in South America) and friendlies (mainly due to Nike's demands) than England or France do, so that has to be taken into account.

LLCOOLSTEVE
15-05-2002, 07:20 PM
ZURICH (Reuters) - In the final rankings before the start of the World Cup, world champions France held their top position while Argentina, favourites to win the 2002 tournament, pulled alongside Brazil in second place.

Three of the top 10 countries in FIFA's monthly rankings will not be at the tournament in South Korea and Japan - fourth-placed Colombia, the Netherlands and Yugoslavia.

China, in the World Cup for the first time, is the lowest ranked of the 32 teams in 50th place.

France, also European champions, have 802 points with Brazil and Argentina on 784. Colombia are fourth on 728 followed by Portugal (726), Italy (717), Mexico (716), and Spain (713).

Germany and England, both former World Cup winners, are 11th and 12th respectively, swapping positions this month. The World Cup begins on May 31.

Random*
16-05-2002, 04:18 AM
Wales are 96th in the world currently.
Germany are 11th (above England).

Which of these teams would you expect to win in a friendly?

Other oddities in the World Rankings - odds from eurobet:

Croatia (21) vs Mexico (7) - Croatia Evens favourites
Japan (32) vs Belgium (23) - Both teams 8/5
Poland are only 2 places above Korea, but are 10/11 favourites
South Korea (40) vs USA (13) - Korea 6/5 fav
Poland (38) vs USA (13) - Poland 4/6 fav
Mexico (7) vs Italy (6) - Italy 2/5 fav

What does this tell me? It tells me that the North American nations, and to a lesser extent, the Asian nations, are given an easy ride rankings wise.

firesign
16-05-2002, 12:53 PM
The complete list from www.fifa.com

(How difficult is to make the national team of Montserrat do you reckon?)
Rank: *Team: Points:
1 *France 802
2 *Brazil 784
2 *Argentina 784
4 *Colombia 728
5 *Portugal 726
6 *Italy 717
7 *Mexico 716
8 *Spain 713
9 *Netherlands 703
10 *Yugoslavia 702
11 *Germany 695
12 *England 694
13 *United States 690
14 *Romania 675
15 *Ireland Republic 674
15 *Czech Republic 674
17 *Cameroon 672
18 *Paraguay 671
19 *Sweden 665
20 *Denmark 657

21 *Croatia 655
22 *Turkey 654
23 *Belgium 653
24 *Uruguay 652
25 *Slovenia 649
26 *Honduras 647
27 *Nigeria 644
27 *Russia 644
29 *Costa Rica 643
30 *Iran 635
30 *Tunisia 635
32 *Japan 634
33 *Norway 631
34 *Saudi Arabia 627
35 *Trinidad and Tobago
35 *Ecuador 624
37 *South Africa 623
38 *Poland 615 (No way!!!)
39 *Morocco 612
40 *Korea Republic 603

41 *Finland 600
42 *Senegal 599
43 *Egypt 598
44 *Ukraine 593
45 *Chile 590
46 *Cte d'Ivoire 580 (Where?? )
47 *Peru 578
48 *Australia
49 *Slovakia
50 *China PR 566
51 *Israel 563
52 *Ghana 558
52 *Greece 558
54 *Bulgaria 557
54 The Moon (okay I made that one up...)
54 *Scotland 557 :D
56 *Iceland 553
57 *Jamaica 549
58 *Angola 545
58 *Georgia 545
60 *Thailand 544

61 *Austria 543
62 *Guatemala 538
63 *United Arab Emirates 536
64 *Switzerland 531
65 *Zambia 530
66 *Zimbabwe 527
67 *Uzbekistan 523
67 *Hungary 523
69 *Togo 518
70 *Bolivia 512
71 *Iraq 509
72 *Bosnia-Herzegovina 508
73 *Qatar 507
74 *Congo DR 505
75 *Canada 504
76 *Liberia 500
76 *Kuwait 500
78 *Cuba 498
79 *Algeria 497
79 *Burkina Faso 497 (Where??????)

81 *Haiti 496
82 *Cyprus 492
83 *Venezuela 488
84 *El Salvador 480
85 *Mali 471
85 *Estonia 471
85 *New Zealand 471
88 *Belarus 463
89 *Macedonia FYR 462
90 *Northern Ireland 455
91 *Oman 454
92 *Indonesia 453
93 *Syria 449
94 *Lebanon 445
95 *Albania 442
96 *Wales 440 (Oh dear...)
97 *Congo 439
98 *Lithuania 436
99 *Latvia 435
100 *Jordan 434

101 *Armenia 433
102 *Kazakhstan 429
103 *Moldova 425
104 *Gabon 422
104 *Namibia 422
106 *Kenya 418
107 *Vietnam SR 417
108 *Bahrain 409
109 *Barbados 407
110 *Guinea 399
111 *Panama 388
112 *Malaysia 384
113 *Singapore 381
114 *Turkmenistan 377
114 *Azerbaijan 377
116 *Libya 374
117 *Madagascar 366
117 *Malta 366
119 *Faroe Islands 365
120 *Uganda 364

121 *Sudan 360
122 *Malawi 353
123 *India 350
124 *Swaziland 349
125 *Fiji 340
126 *Korea DPR 339
127 *Mauritius 335
128 *Tahiti 332
129 *Mozambique 330
130 *Burundi 328
131 *St. Vincent and the Grenadines 327
132 *St. Kitts and Nevis 320
133 *Rwanda 319
134 *Ethiopia 318
134 *St. Lucia 318
136 *Lesotho 313
137 *Solomon Islands 305
137 *Grenada 305
139 *Botswana 303
140 *Yemen 297
Rank: *Team: Points:

141 *Andorra 286
142 *Sri Lanka 281
143 *Hong Kong 280
144 *Sierra Leone 279
145 *Luxembourg 266
146 *Surinam 260
147 *Palestine 247
148 *Maldives Republic 245
149 *Bangladesh 241
149 *Liechtenstein 241
151 *Benin 239
152 *Tanzania 237
153 *Myanmar 229
154 *Gambia 227
155 *Tajikistan 221
156 *Nepal 214
157 *Antigua and Barbuda 211
159 *San Marino 204
160 *Cape Verde Islands 202

161 *Dominican Republic 198
162 *British Virgin Islands 197
162 *Dominica 197
164 *Laos 196
165 *Samoa 195
165 *Kyrgyzstan 195
167 *Cayman Islands 188
168 *Bermuda 187
169 *Eritrea 182
170 *Vanuatu 180
171 *Cambodia 175
172 *Chinese Taipei 170
173 *Tonga 157
174 *Guinea-Bissau 147
175 *Philippines 145
176 *Chad 144
177 *Guyana 143
178 *Mauritania 140
179 *Cook Islands 139
180 *Papua New Guinea 130

180 *Pakistan 130
182 *Macao 109
183 *Central African Republic 106
184 *Bahamas 103
185 *Netherlands Antilles 101
186 *Aruba 99
187 *So Tom e Prncipe 97
188 *Mongolia 92
189 *Nicaragua 88
190 *Brunei Darussalam 83
191 *Equatorial Guinea 76
192 *Djibouti 73
193 *Niger 68
194 *Seychelles 67
195 *Somalia 66
196 *Anguilla 63
197 *Puerto Rico 53
198 *US Virgin Islands 46
199 *Guam 24
200 *Turks and Caicos Islands 19
200 *American Samoa 19
202 *Bhutan 13
203 *Montserrat 9

The Omen
16-05-2002, 03:01 PM
Originally posted by firesign
46 Cte d'Ivoire 580 (Where?? )

Ivory Coast...

Skin Up
16-05-2002, 03:22 PM
Watch out Sweaties the mighty Iceland are on your tail.

Reps AJ
16-05-2002, 03:24 PM
I absolutely refuse to believe that Guatemala (62nd), Togo (69th) and Qatar (73rd) are better then Northern Ireland (90th), Wales (96th) and even Latvia (99th) :eek: :( :moo:

TD2
16-05-2002, 03:45 PM
Looking at that list, I think the US would fit in rightly at about 27, just after Nigeria, who I fancy would give them a damn good hiding.

As for the US being one place below England (!) what an absolute disgrace. I am still laughing about that one.

Can we not arrange a quick pre-World Cup friendly against them just to make a mockery of these rankings when we stuff five goals past them?

I can only conclude that the American government paid for their position at 13th...

Nevermind, at least we will have the joy of watching them crash out of their World Cup group - a group Scotland could probably get through...

Skin Up
16-05-2002, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by TD2

Nevermind, at least we will have the joy of watching them crash out of their World Cup group - a group Scotland could probably get through...

What? Their group is the 2nd hardest (after ours :( ) they have

Portugal: 3rd best team in Europe IMO

Poland: Pissed their qualifing group

S Korea: Hosts so crowd support and refereeing decisions guarenteed.

I think the Yanks can count themselves very hard done by with the draw the've recieved.

TD2
16-05-2002, 04:05 PM
But surely a team ranked 13th best in the World should be able to dispose of Poland and South Korea. :rolleyes: After all, they are the 38th and 40th best teams, respectively.

Just proves the point that the rankings are an embarrassment to whoever devised them.

On the subject of Portugal, I actually quite fancied them at 15-1 this summer, but after seeing Figo's shocking display last night I am not so sure now.

He really was poor wasn't he?

Steve in Phoenix
16-05-2002, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by TD2
Looking at that list, I think the US would fit in rightly at about 27, just after Nigeria, who I fancy would give them a damn good hiding.

As for the US being one place below England (!) what an absolute disgrace. I am still laughing about that one.

Can we not arrange a quick pre-World Cup friendly against them just to make a mockery of these rankings when we stuff five goals past them?

I can only conclude that the American government paid for their position at 13th...

Nevermind, at least we will have the joy of watching them crash out of their World Cup group - a group Scotland could probably get through...

You mean like in 1995 when USA beat Nigeria 3-2? Yeah that sounds like a hiding alright. Since then, they've beaten Sweden, Argentina, Germany..

Why dont you take a look at when England played USA. I dont remember stuffing 5 goals past them..

TD2
16-05-2002, 04:10 PM
We did have Turnip-head in charge though so really all results under him should be stricken from the record.

Don't worry though, the US has been on the receiving end of some real cricket scores from England in the past, and will probably never beat us again.

Skin Up
16-05-2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by TD2

On the subject of Portugal, I actually quite fancied them at 15-1 this summer, but after seeing Figo's shocking display last night I am not so sure now.

He really was poor wasn't he?

I think he was carrying an injury he's just shaken off, he'll be as right as rain in two weeks. I agree Portugal are well worth a punt at each way

Jaffa
05-06-2002, 04:06 PM
Thought Id bump an appropriate thread up.