Originally posted by Hopsterwell im english, and top 6 is a joke! we are no where near good enough to even be mentioned with the top sides in the world, until we get rid of the passionless capello and bring in someone english i.e redknapp, who will get the team playing with their heart on thier sleeve, we will always be a non starter in the world of football!
Devils Advocate. Outside of the top 5 who are better?
Originally posted by mr carlsbergThat is true, but doesn't answer the question.
well im english, and top 6 is a joke! we are no where near good enough to even be mentioned with the top sides in the world, until we get rid of the passionless capello and bring in someone english i.e redknapp, who will get the team playing with their heart on thier sleeve, we will always be a non starter in the world of football!
Spain
Brazil
Germany
Argentina
Holland
who next?
Italy - worse world cup than England. Portugal, poor qualifying last time, and not off to a great start this. France - a shambles. None of the African teams are great shakes. USA are in the top 10. Chile and Uruguay are decent, but better than England? A few European teams perhaps.
Rankings are based on competitive games. While England had a poor tournament. Their previous qualifying was spot on, and their latest qualifying is also excellent.
What other measure should FIFA use - a hope vs expectation vs disappointment formula.
I understand peoples sentiments - but given the top 5 are way ahead based on the last WC, there is nothing much in it between say 6 and 20, and England may well lead that group.
What is not correct is people suggesting England are well below that figure.
So no, the rankings a re not a joke. But neither should they be used to suggest that England will win the WC anytime soon. Why, because for starters there are 5 teams way better.
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19036
Originally posted by Hopsterok, so the top 5 is set. only debate on the order but they're the top 5 teams in the world. imo fifa rankings should be done in 4 year cycles which ends after the world cup, so with england having a terrible world cup and not qualifying for euro 2008 (with a group involving two teams which weren't in s. africa) should not be ranked above teams like portugal and italy who were both in euro 2008 and the world cup, not to mention their better performance at the 2006 world cup than england, this is solely about the last 4 years.
That is true, but doesn't answer the question.
Spain
Brazil
Germany
Argentina
Holland
who next?
Italy - worse world cup than England. Portugal, poor qualifying last time, and not off to a great start this. France - a shambles. None of the African teams are great shakes. USA are in the top 10. Chile and Uruguay are decent, but better than England ...[text shortened]... t England will win the WC anytime soon. Why, because for starters there are 5 teams way better.
then you've got uruguay who finished forth at the world cup and forth at the 2007 copa america, losing to brazil on pens in the semis. paraguay - world cup 1/4, joint second with chile for qualifying and a 1/4 place at the copa america like chile. better 4 years than england? i'd say so. What have england actually done in the past 4 years? beaten to third by russia and croatia for euro 2008 qualifying, topped a poor world cup qualifying group but did it with only one loss and the rest wins then crashed out in the last 16 after coming second in their group, which was again a poor group. If I had to choose which of the countries i’ve mentioned I’d be most disappointed with over the past 4 years if i was a fan of that country, it’s got to be england on results alone. so that puts them no better than 11th in the world.
edit: forgot about ghana. runners up at the arfican cup of nations 2010 and third in 2008 with a 1/4 at the world cup appearance.
england - no better than 12th.
But you have elected a criteria that is wholly negative against England. Now apply other wholly ngative criteria against every other team in the world and what are you left with.
Argentina had a terrible qualifying campaign.
First off you, you elect to base rankings on the performance of the last WC. You drop qualifying games completely. Then you add in the previous WC and Eoru tournament to make other teams look better.
Good job you are not doing the FIFA rankings. Where is your rational.
I would put England around 9th personally.
Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay qualifies from a poorish South American group. Uruguay beat Costa Rica over two legs to get there. This is a Costa Rica side that were beaten to Automatic by The USA, a poor Mexican qualifying side and Honduras.
Do you really think Paraguay are a match for England and rank above them in World football. I see an argument for The USA. Paraguay had a cracking start to their qualifying but went off the fizz.
Chile were great. But this was their first qualification since 1994. They were disqualified for feigning a goalkeeping injury for 1998. They were poor in 2002 and 2006.
Cop SudAmerica counts for little if Argentina and Brazil always win it. It is a 9 team tournament. Getting to the semi is performing a little above par.
African teams are rubbish.
As for Russia and Croatia, where were they in the Worlds. England beat Croatia home and away and put the twonks legacy behind them.
Let's not be negative or negative sake.