11 Aug 12
Originally posted by scacchipazzohttp://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2292/editorials/2012/08/09/3296680/how-fifa-rankings-work-heres-why-england-are-third?source=breakingnews
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1130654/england-climb-to-third-in-fifa-rankings?cc=5901
I don't know, but I think it is somewhat high. I certainly don't think they are ahead of Italy. I also think Germany is ranked too high. Spain unquestionably is #1!
That is an explanation.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by damionhoneganThe explanation makes some sense except for counting PK shootouts as draws. That I do not get one bit. I think it is great for England to be so highly ranked, but in the end rankings mean nothing as we saw today between Mexico and Brazil! Unafraid teams get results.
http://www.goal.com/en-india/news/2292/editorials/2012/08/09/3296680/how-fifa-rankings-work-heres-why-england-are-third?source=breakingnews
That is an explanation.
11 Aug 12
Originally posted by scacchipazzoWhen there is a penalty shootout no team has won so it counts as a draw. The team that wins the shootout gets 2 points and the team loses gets 1 point. If a team won during normal or extra time would get 3 points. If you drew during non-knockout game both teams get 1 point. A team that loses during normal or extra time gets 0 points.
The explanation makes some sense except for counting PK shootouts as draws. That I do not get one bit.
Technically, a team that loses a shootout didn't lose the game.
12 Aug 12
Originally posted by scacchipazzoIn the end rankings mean nothing? Do you mean to say you reckon that there are people who think rankings "mean" that higher ranked teams will always beat lower ranked teams? I've never thought rankings meant that. Mexico beat Brazil even though it was the lower ranked team. "In the end" rankings here mean that it was a famous victory. To take away the significance of Mexico's 'lower ranking' is to take away some of the excitement of Mexico's achievement. To claim that "rankings mean nothing" seems a little odd. They reflect performances over a period of time. Don't you follow football much?
...in the end rankings mean nothing as we saw today between Mexico and Brazil!
12 Aug 12
Originally posted by FMFAs usual you engage in word twisting and misinterpretation. I guess I could say similarly about you in that you don't seem to read much for you read this completely incorrectly. Ranking means nothing to the extent that these do not result in seeding and don't seem to confer much advantage. BY saying rankings mean nothing I am exalting Mexico's lack of fear of the higher ranked, "more famous" team. I believe it is you who thinks that by simply stepping on the field the higher ranked team should win. Mexico paid no heed to rankings and took it to Brazil as all lower ranked teams should. Same applies to England. This third ranked spot will net them nothing at all. They always seem to play as if they were a lowly team and not a talent rich side. Mexico's was a glorious victory and will live in the memories of the great nation for decades to come. Literally half of Mexico City emptied into the streets in celebration.
In the end rankings mean nothing? Do you mean to say you reckon that there are people who think rankings "mean" that higher ranked teams will always beat lower ranked teams? I've never thought rankings meant that. Mexico beat Brazil even though it was the lower ranked team. "In the end" rankings here mean that it was a famous victory. To take away the significan ...[text shortened]... dd. They reflect performances over a period of time. Don't you follow football much?
- Joined
- 18 Jan 07
- Moves
- 12477
13 Aug 12
Originally posted by scacchipazzoWell, these rankings have always been out of whack, and always will be. FIFA can explain the system all they want, and they may be able to explain that these rankings are correct according to the system, but that only shows that the system is wrong. Now they have the Netherlands and Germany roughly where they should be (yes, Germany is certainly second, unless you want to tell me which South American team should be between them and Spain), but they've got England where they certainly do not belong - they should be one spot above us at best.
http://soccernet.espn.go.com/news/story/_/id/1130654/england-climb-to-third-in-fifa-rankings?cc=5901
I don't know, but I think it is somewhat high. I certainly don't think they are ahead of Italy. I also think Germany is ranked too high. Spain unquestionably is #1!
The problem is, I don't think it is possible to devise a system which is always correct for all situations. I'm not even sure it is possible to devise a system which is reliably better than the current one. You have to contend with both the performance of the day, and more during form. It is probably not possible to take both into account in such a way that you don't get any odd results.
Point in case right now: Italy. Sure, they seem to have found proper form in the recent EC. But will that last? If you don't put them two places behind Germany and four above England, you don't do justice to their recent form. But if you do, and they can't keep that up over the next year, you look silly.
Richard
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueNo doubt you're right. Italy indeed an anomaly and probable flash in the pan. Italy hurt itself with the lousy WC showing in 2010 and their UEFA results must surely influence perceptions as I feel they do for England. And they should. Were England ever to put together a showing like Chelsea's sky's the limit. I know, I know. UEFA results are not counted, but the rankings are not entirely computerized, are they? Netherlands is way overrated. Germany is a deserving second. Spain is a solid 1st. Brazil is in decline. Great individualists like the Dutch, but don't seem to gel as a team. I foresee another big push by African countries such as Senegal. Their athleticism in the Olympics was impressive indeed. I agree no current South American team deserves mention. Even Mexico, in spite of the Olympic gold, do not have the same performance out of their first tier players. Once they get noticed they are ruined by inflated egos. Exceptions: Enriquez, Corona and Oribe Peralta. I wonder why more teams don't try Mexico's brilliant corner kick set piece play with Enriquez in near post flicking to a player who then goes unmarked. But I digress!
Well, these rankings have always been out of whack, and always will be. FIFA can explain the system all they want, and they may be able to explain that these rankings are correct according to the system, but that only shows that the system is wrong. Now they have the Netherlands and Germany roughly where they should be (yes, Germany is certainly second, ...[text shortened]... But if you do, and they can't keep that up over the next year, you look silly.
Richard
16 Aug 12
Originally posted by Shallow BlueLook at Mexico last night! Fresh of Olympic glory, in a game where they maintained possession for almost 70% of the game then they concede and even then not even a counterstrike! I'm not saying Mexico is overrated, simply that underestimating an opponent leads to disaster! Look at Olympic final. Brazil was cutting through the stout Mexican defense like butter, but could not finish! Brazil really thought Mexico would fold in awe and tremble in their boots at Brazil's past glories. To Mexico's credit they took it to them the way more teams should. Brazil never defends well.
We just lost 4-2 to Belgium. Belgium! The worst swearword in the entire universe, and we lose 4-2 to them.
Richard
14 Sep 12
I don't know what exactly made England ranked 3rd in the world, but as an Englishman myself i say it's a joke lol
We NEVER look threatening in any tournament against the top sides, and drawing 1-1 to ukraine recently just concretes how hopeless our chances are of re-living what we had back in "66.
Saying that, the welsh performance against Serbia was... shall i say, spectacular? XD