shen Posted 27 May 2010 Posted 27 May 2010 As I have said to Chandler/Radovan/Fosse, they aren't perfect. There are some really quite strange ones but still not as flawed as the FIFA rankings. Denmark are playing in their first tournament finals since 2004 so that goes some way to explaining their lowly ranking of 21st. That seems harsh on a team that beat Portugal in the qualifiers but a damned sight better than FIFA's ranking of 36th, especially when Portugal are a ridiculous 3rd. And England are playing their first tournament finals since 2006. Since then we've been very much on par with England, even beating you lot 4-1 in the only meeting between the two countries in since those 2004 finals. I'm not complaining about the Danish ranking, but just bemused at the high ranking England have. Oh and Ghana are ranked 42nd compared to 32rd on the FIFA list. You're right, it's not perfect. It is just as flawed as the FIFA wankings.
Fosse Fox Posted 27 May 2010 Author Posted 27 May 2010 OK folks when you adjust the historical World Cup record by taking 1950 rather than 1930 as the base date and by omitting home successes (wins - 4th place finishes) the amended rankings read as follows WINNERS 1 Brazil 5 W ('58, '62, '70, '94, '02) 1 RU ('98) 1 3RD ('78) 1 4TH ('74) 2 Italy 2 W (''82, '06) 2 RU ('70, '94) 1 4TH ('78) 3 Germany^ 2 W ('54, '90) 4 RU ('66, '82, '86, '02) 1 3RD ('70,) 1 4TH ('58) 4 Argentina 1 W ('86) 1 RU ('90) 5 Uruguay 1 W ('50) 2 4TH ('54, '70) RUNNERS-UP 6 Holland 2RU ('74, '78) 1 4TH ('98) 7 France 1RU ('06) 2 3RD ('58, '86) 1 4TH ('82) 8 Czechoslovakia# 1RU ('62) 9 Hungary 1RU ('54) THIRD PLACE 10 Sweden 2 3RD ('50, '94) 11 Poland 2 3RD ('74, '82) 12 Austria 1 3RD ('54) 13 Portugal 1 3RD ('66) 1 4TH ('06) 14 Croatia 1 3RD ('98) 15 Turkey 1 3RD ('02) FOURTH PLACE 16 Bulgaria 1 4TH ('94) 17 England 1 4TH ('90) 18 Belgium 1 4TH ('86) 19 Soviet Union# 1 4TH ('66) 20 Yugoslavia# 1 4TH ('62) 21 Spain 1 4TH ('50) ^ = includes results representing West Germany between 1954 and 1990 # = states that have since split into two or more independent nations You will notice that Brazil come away relatively unscathed but that another national side fall off a cliff (and it would be Everest if you factored in the Euro's/Nations Cup). More reason then to beware Group C...
shen Posted 27 May 2010 Posted 27 May 2010 More reason then to beware Group C... Another stat says that England haven't failed to get past the first group stage at the World Cup on the previous nine occasions (since 1958, not counting the WCs they didn't qualify for from then to now)
Jordan Posted 27 May 2010 Posted 27 May 2010 For comparison's sake, ESPN's Soccer Power Index (a far more complicated metric than the FIFA World Rankings, but it was developed by Nate Silver, perhaps the most awesome statistician in the world) 1. Brazil 2. Spain 3. England 4. Argentina 5. Netherlands 6. Germany 7. Portugal 8. Uruguay 9. Chile 10. Serbia 11. Italy 12. France 13. Russia 14. Egypt 15. Ivory Coast 16. United States 17. Croatia 18. Ukraine 19. Mexico 20. Denmark 21. Paraguay 22. Czech Republic 23. Turkey 24. Sweden 25. Colombia 26. Honduras 27. Cameroon 28. Bosnia-Herzegovina 29. Australia 30. Norway 31. South Korea 32. Ecuador 33. Nigeria 34. Switzerland 35. Slovenia 36. Ghana 37. Costa Rica 38. Greece 39. Israel 40. Ireland 41. Venezuela 42. Japan 43. Scotland 49. Slovakia 59. South Africa 60. Northern Ireland 62. Algeria 70. Wales 79. North Korea 91. New Zealand edit to add that trying to rank these teams is a pointless exercise
shen Posted 27 May 2010 Posted 27 May 2010 For comparison's sake, ESPN's Soccer Power Index (a far more complicated metric than the FIFA World Rankings, but it was developed by Nate Silver, perhaps the most awesome statistician in the world) edit to add that trying to rank these teams is a pointless exercise Pointless maybe, but certainly not worthless as they hold real value to the teams in the form of seedings. Had a quick glance at those rankings and suspect that friendlies (again) have too much influence. Might be wrong though...
Guest Bilo Posted 27 May 2010 Posted 27 May 2010 England 3rd in the world seems more than a little silly. No way are we better than Holland who won their qualification group by 14 points and Argentina, while shockingly run by Maradona, have more quality. 5th best team going into the World Cup probably isn't all that far off though.
Fosse Fox Posted 28 May 2010 Author Posted 28 May 2010 Another stat says that England haven't failed to get past the first group stage at the World Cup on the previous nine occasions (since 1958, not counting the WCs they didn't qualify for from then to now) I think that England will probably qualify from Group C but it will be a lot tighter than most fans think - we could be looking at between 4 - 7 pts and maybe even second place. A premature flight home is more likely than maximum points. By merely qualifying for 2010 England have gazumped their own historical trend because every sixteen years or so England have a downer (England didn't qualify for USA '94 or Argentina '78). If it hadn't been for Capello's appointment and Croatia's exertions at Euro '08 we would probably be sitting this tourno out. England had a bit of a stinker in Germany and are heavily dependent on largely the same squad - very little new exciting talent or Beckhamesque talisman has emerged. That, and the absence of a target team in Group C to stretch us and test our mettle, should be sources of concern. So whilst it probably won't be 1958 and all that it might be a desperately close run thing...
poopbutt Posted 28 May 2010 Posted 28 May 2010 England 3rd in the world seems more than a little silly. No way are we better than Holland who won their qualification group by 14 points and Argentina, while shockingly run by Maradona, have more quality. 5th best team going into the World Cup probably isn't all that far off though. we scored the most goals in qualifying and were in the only European group with 3 teams who featured at the last world cup, six of the 8 other groups only contained one.
shen Posted 28 May 2010 Posted 28 May 2010 I think that England will probably qualify from Group C but it will be a lot tighter than most fans think - we could be looking at between 4 - 7 pts and maybe even second place. A premature flight home is more likely than maximum points. By merely qualifying for 2010 England have gazumped their own historical trend because every sixteen years or so England have a downer (England didn't qualify for USA '94 or Argentina '78). If it hadn't been for Capello's appointment and Croatia's exertions at Euro '08 we would probably be sitting this tourno out. England had a bit of a stinker in Germany and are heavily dependent on largely the same squad - very little new exciting talent or Beckhamesque talisman has emerged. That, and the absence of a target team in Group C to stretch us and test our mettle, should be sources of concern. So whilst it probably won't be 1958 and all that it might be a desperately close run thing... So the current group has you concerned. The fact there is no top team like France, Portugal or Cote d'Ivoire in the group has you further concerned, even though it would presumably make qualification from the group harder. And I'm not sure why you should take anything away from an England side that qualified very comfortably and convincingly At least you acknowledge that Capello has been a good appointment. Something I'm sure you didn't think when he first arrived... Edit: This should all be in the other thread.
James. Posted 28 May 2010 Posted 28 May 2010 I think that England will probably qualify from Group C but it will be a lot tighter than most fans think - we could be looking at between 4 - 7 pts You could drive a bus through that spread, FF.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.