Daggers Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 We all know they's bollox, but am I right in assuming that as Portugal have lost their last two internationals we will be placed above them? Wouldn't that be jolly funny
Milky Posted 9 July 2006 Posted 9 July 2006 those rankings are complete arse gravy, just stinky stool water.
shen Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 those rankings are complete arse gravy, just stinky stool water. Indeed... not only do they not reflect a real team comparison, but they even fail to make use of the rankings properly! As a Dane, I have a very hard time understanding how Denmark could only be put in the THIRD seeding pot for the 2008 Euro qualifiers after having qualified for 5 consecutive Euro's, winning in '92 and reaching the 1/4 finals in 2004. Meanwhile, Croatia, Turkey, Romania and Poland, who have achieved nothing of note in recent Euro history, and certainly nothing as impressive as Denmark, get a spot in the SECOND seeding pot.
MC Prussian Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 It's all FIFA politics, and the odd calculation system is only there to confuse everybody... Heard they're coming up with a new ranking, though. Anybody seen it already?
IDEA OR IKEA Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 It's all FIFA politics, and the odd calculation system is only there to confuse everybody... Heard they're coming up with a new ranking, though. Anybody seen it already? Yes, i have
Sparky Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 scotland , northern ireland and wales are shite but usually they are below countrys the stature of bahrain , oman and india !!!!!! surely that cant be right
Dr The Singh Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 scotland , northern ireland and wales are shite but usually they are below countrys the stature of bahrain , oman and india !!!!!! surely that cant be right Everyone knows India are a great footballing nation... the only reason they never win anything is because they pick the ball up and throw it at the opposition and shout ...'hows that'!! Or if they are punjabi, they think they are playing kabadi and try and tag an wrestke the opposition!!
Manwell Pablo Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 Indeed... not only do they not reflect a real team comparison, but they even fail to make use of the rankings properly! As a Dane, I have a very hard time understanding how Denmark could only be put in the THIRD seeding pot for the 2008 Euro qualifiers after having qualified for 5 consecutive Euro's, winning in '92 and reaching the 1/4 finals in 2004. Meanwhile, Croatia, Turkey, Romania and Poland, who have achieved nothing of note in recent Euro history, and certainly nothing as impressive as Denmark, get a spot in the SECOND seeding pot. Now Now, Croatia and Poland both qualfiyed for world cup, and Turkey finished 3rd in 2002 Romania you may possible have a point, however they did well @ France 98 and Euro 200. the world champions in the second seeding pot now thats what I dont understand
Daggers Posted 10 July 2006 Author Posted 10 July 2006 scotland , northern ireland and wales are shite but usually they are below countrys the stature of bahrain , oman and india !!!!!! surely that cant be right Do Wales still play football? I thought that was just one of those funny internet jokes...
Molson Canadian Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 the united states is the biggest joke the only reason why they are ranked so high is because they play so many games against teams in the CONCACAF teams such as bahama's, barbados, haiti, pananma, el salvador, aruba and so on and of course they win and the more games they play against teams like this and winning all the time makes them just go way up in the rankings. This ranking system really has to be revised
davieG Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 A revised system coming out this week (wednesday) based on the last four years not eight. From FIFA In Berlin today (6 July 2006), three days before the final of the 2006 FIFA World Cupâ„¢, FIFA presented the revised FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking. The new method will be applied immediately after this year's FIFA World Cupâ„¢, with the first new FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking to be published on 12 July. "We have acknowledged the need for a substantial revision. I am convinced that our experts have come up with a satisfactory solution for a new way of calculating the ranking. We are aware that it is difficult to meet everybody's expectations, but are confident that the new system will provide an accurate measure of the strength of each of our member associations," said Blatter. Since its introduction in August 1993, the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking has become a regular part of international sports reports and an important indicator for FIFA's 207 member associations to find out where their respective teams stand in world football and how they are progressing. Nevertheless, the increasingly high profile of the world ranking also attracted some criticism indicating that its calculation formula was too complicated. Therefore, in 2005, under the chairmanship of Michel Platini (France) and ÃÂngel MarÃÂa Villar Llona (Spain), the FIFA Technical and Development Committee and the FIFA Football Committee decided to revise the ranking in order to simplify the way in which it is calculated. A multinational group comprising FIFA staff and external experts was subsequently formed to find a new procedure for drawing up the world ranking. Extensive tests and assessments were then carried out, which - following a number of presentations - reached their conclusion at the end of 2005. Transparency and simplicity - the key principles guiding the revision - have been combined with sporting criteria and statistical requirements to establish the new and simplified method of calculation that the FIFA Executive Committee ratified at its meeting in Leipzig, Germany, on 7 December 2005. The most important change to the calculation of the ranking is that it will no longer take into account the last eight years of results but only the last four. At the same time, all of the other factors previously taken into account (result, importance of match, strength of opponents, regional strength, number of matches considered) were tested, analysed and, in some cases, totally revised. In fact, two of the factors that were previously used (goals scored and home advantage) will no longer have any impact on the ranking. Next year, the official website of the football's world governing body, FIFA.com, will also offer an online tool that will make it possible to carry out hypothetical calculations for all teams based on the consolidated database of FIFA's Information Services Department.
Daggers Posted 10 July 2006 Author Posted 10 July 2006 FIFA ... revised ranking ... accurate measure ... transparency and simplicity Doh!
Bert Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 The rankings are a joke, Mexico who are not better than us IMO are or were above, simply because they play more matches.
Alexikokopops Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 The rankings are a joke, Mexico who are not better than us IMO are or were above, simply because they play more matches. No, it's because they play matches against CONCACAF teams such as bahama's, barbados, haiti, pananma, el salvador, aruba and so on, as krazydipper put it so beautifully. After their performance at the World Cup though I'm beginning to think they are a better team than us...
The People's Hero Posted 10 July 2006 Posted 10 July 2006 ' date='Jul 10 2006, 10:59 PM' post='348473']No, it's because they play matches against CONCACAF teams such as bahama's, barbados, haiti, pananma, el salvador, aruba and so on, as krazydipper put it so beautifully. After their performance at the World Cup though I'm beginning to think they are a better team than us... Actually, as EVERY England fan knows, you're only as good as the media hype. So England are amazing. Or are we rubbish at the moment? I can't remember.. Either way, we're either the best team in the world or the worst team in the world.
Daggers Posted 10 July 2006 Author Posted 10 July 2006 Actually, as EVERY England fan knows, you're only as good as the media hype. So England are amazing. Or are we rubbish at the moment? I can't remember.. Either way, we're either the best team in the world or the worst team in the world. You're SO right! Hang on a minute, maybe you're SO wrong
shen Posted 11 July 2006 Posted 11 July 2006 Now Now, Croatia and Poland both qualfiyed for world cup, and Turkey finished 3rd in 2002 Romania you may possible have a point, however they did well @ France 98 and Euro 200. the world champions in the second seeding pot now thats what I dont understand But for the Euro's the World cup doesn't count as far as I know. And if it did count, then Denmark should be in the second seeding pot anyway after having qualified for 98 reaching the quarters there, and reaching the knockout stages in 2002. According to the FIFA rankings, they were the best team who weren't present at this year's World Cup, not that I'd put too much weight into that. I just don't get it...
Ultra Posted 12 July 2006 Posted 12 July 2006 The latest rankings were published today (see here) England are 5th! The top 10 are as follows: 1 Brazil 2 Italy 3 Argentina 4 France 5 England 6 Netherlands 7 Spain 8 Diving, cheating scumPortugal 9 Germany 10 Czech Republic USA are down to 16 and Mexico are at 18. Let's see if these turn out to be any more reliable than the previous version
SystonFox Posted 12 July 2006 Posted 12 July 2006 The latest rankings were published today (see here) England are 5th! The top 10 are as follows: 1 Brazil 2 Italy 3 Argentina 4 France 5 England 6 Netherlands 7 Spain 8 Diving, cheating scumPortugal 9 Germany 10 Czech Republic USA are down to 16 and Mexico are at 18. Let's see if these turn out to be any more reliable than the previous version id say its about right except number 8. the team name is not Portugal, its Cheating Diving Portuscum FC.
Tommeh Posted 12 July 2006 Posted 12 July 2006 At last a world rankings that make sense and a top 10 which actually deserves to be top 10, would have like Italy above Brazil though after winning the world cup they should be rank 1 as Brazil were shite
Daggers Posted 12 July 2006 Author Posted 12 July 2006 FIFA ... revised ranking ... accurate measure ... transparency and simplicity 1 Brazil 2 Italy 3 Argentina 4 France 5 England 6 Netherlands 7 Spain 8 Portugal 9 Germany 10 Czech Republic Bwahahahaha... Fifa Check Revised Check accurate measure <_< DOH! transparency and simplicity What a fudging nonsense...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.