The ranking system is a joke. We lose 20 points for beating Italy.
I think you've put that very well; consistancy is the key. Gotta remember that apart from a very dissapoint World Cup in 2010 we usually just go out on penalties; and Who's not got a poor World Cup in them? France, Argentina, Holland, Italy, Spain; all come a cropper from time to time!!!
England are like Andy Murray…..3rd in world rankings but when it comes to a major tournament….certain disaster
I agree. Italy lost in the Euros. England didn't. So England did better than Italy at the Euros. Which is reflected in the rankings.
england are consistent.....................................................
consistently schite
We are no way 3rd best international side in the world. It should be based how well you do in the big two competitions. There are atleast six sides better than us.
I would say (Spain,Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Holland & Italy)
Unless we're in the Olympics Wild Rover! Oh wait......
The system is indeed objective and fair but it does come up with ridiculous outcomes, mainly because it relies on comparing data sets that are based on very different situations. E.g. Brazil don't play many games because they haven't got a competition to qualify for and they go down in the rankings. Another team wins a few easy friendlies and it shoots up.
The system is a joke but it would be hard to devise a realistic system that didn't rely on subjective human judgements and corrections along the lines of "England look a bit shi_, let's subtract 100 points from their score."
If we had to play all the top 10 teams in fifa's ranking over the period of a season (home and away) would be quite interesting!
Hornchurch
How did Holland do in the Euros? 3 losses. How did Argentina do in the world cup? Lost 4-0 to Germany and bombed in the Copa America. How did Brazil do in those two competitions? Bombed as well.
Only Spain can be considered a team that has done consistently amazing in the last 4 years.
England are the only team not to have lost a game at Euro 2008 and Euro 2012. Surely this puts us ahead of Spain. I seem to remember them conceding a lot more goals than us at Euro 2008, and to be the best you also have to have a good DEFENCE.
I think the only way to judge it is on the big competitions (Ie Euro,World,Copa America, African Nations)
Friendly's & Qualifiers shouldn’t have any basis on the points. If you don’t qualify you don’t get anymore points.
I dont know if that would work but I think its a better indication!
England are like Andy Murray…..3rd in world rankings but when it comes to a major tournament….certain disaster
________
But Andy Murray's never a disaster in tournaments? He always finishes in the position he's ranked. 3rd or 4th.
You surely gotta base it on more than one competition. Holland were world cup finalists....
People saying we don't do well at major tournaments. We only lost 1 knock out stage game at the World cup and 1 at the Euros. Losing only 1 knock out stage game at each tournament is bloody impressive if you ask me.
Losing only 1 knock out stage game at each tournament is bloody impressive if you ask me.
Yes losing in a knock out competition is rather good isn't it!
Since 96 the best we have ever done is got to the Quarter Finals and we didn't qualify for one of them and this is in a small competition on the world scale. How can we be 3rd best in the world. If you think this makes sense then you should work for FIFA!
They should base rankings on performances in tournaments, but then you so many qualifying matches for tournaments, which will be unranked.
comment by Wild_ Rover (U5211)
posted 18 minutes ago
England are like Andy Murray…..3rd in world rankings but when it comes to a major tournament….certain disaster
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-sign this.
England are 'consistent' alright: they are consistently average and they consistently underperform.
The same sort have thing I was saying Mr Chelsea. How can a side who hasnt been to a Semi Final of any Major Competition since 96 be ranked 3rd! It clearly shows flaws in the system.
England being ranked so lowly means they get such tough qualifying groups and have to play lots of top teams. Even then they still qualify easily like for world cup 2010 and Euro 2008 etc. England are so unlucky to be ranked so lowly hence getting these really tough groups and STILL being able to qualify so easily. So brave. HEROES is a word thrown around too often these days, but John Terry, Wayne Rooney, Ashley Cole etc should be knighted and one of them possibly could take over from the queen because she is getting old now and we need a national hero to replace her.
Red Con
The rankings are taken over the past 4 years. Who has in your eyes been consistently better than England in qualifying games, friendlies and tournaments?
Italy had a woeful WC, Holland had a woeful EC, Argentina had an average WC and a poor Copa America. Brazil the same. Portugal were drawing at home against Cyprus and losing to Denmark when England were winning their group with ease.
Fun Rob,
All of them sides you meantioned have performed better at one major competition in the last 4 years. Friendlies and Qualifiers shouldn't even come into account.
Sign in if you want to comment
England deserve their FIFA ranking.
Page 1 of 2
posted on 16/8/12
The ranking system is a joke. We lose 20 points for beating Italy.
posted on 16/8/12
I think you've put that very well; consistancy is the key. Gotta remember that apart from a very dissapoint World Cup in 2010 we usually just go out on penalties; and Who's not got a poor World Cup in them? France, Argentina, Holland, Italy, Spain; all come a cropper from time to time!!!
posted on 16/8/12
England are like Andy Murray…..3rd in world rankings but when it comes to a major tournament….certain disaster
posted on 16/8/12
I agree. Italy lost in the Euros. England didn't. So England did better than Italy at the Euros. Which is reflected in the rankings.
posted on 16/8/12
england are consistent.....................................................
consistently schite
posted on 16/8/12
We are no way 3rd best international side in the world. It should be based how well you do in the big two competitions. There are atleast six sides better than us.
I would say (Spain,Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Holland & Italy)
posted on 16/8/12
Unless we're in the Olympics Wild Rover! Oh wait......
posted on 16/8/12
The system is indeed objective and fair but it does come up with ridiculous outcomes, mainly because it relies on comparing data sets that are based on very different situations. E.g. Brazil don't play many games because they haven't got a competition to qualify for and they go down in the rankings. Another team wins a few easy friendlies and it shoots up.
The system is a joke but it would be hard to devise a realistic system that didn't rely on subjective human judgements and corrections along the lines of "England look a bit shi_, let's subtract 100 points from their score."
posted on 16/8/12
If we had to play all the top 10 teams in fifa's ranking over the period of a season (home and away) would be quite interesting!
posted on 16/8/12
Hornchurch
How did Holland do in the Euros? 3 losses. How did Argentina do in the world cup? Lost 4-0 to Germany and bombed in the Copa America. How did Brazil do in those two competitions? Bombed as well.
Only Spain can be considered a team that has done consistently amazing in the last 4 years.
posted on 16/8/12
England are the only team not to have lost a game at Euro 2008 and Euro 2012. Surely this puts us ahead of Spain. I seem to remember them conceding a lot more goals than us at Euro 2008, and to be the best you also have to have a good DEFENCE.
posted on 16/8/12
I think the only way to judge it is on the big competitions (Ie Euro,World,Copa America, African Nations)
Friendly's & Qualifiers shouldn’t have any basis on the points. If you don’t qualify you don’t get anymore points.
I dont know if that would work but I think its a better indication!
posted on 16/8/12
England are like Andy Murray…..3rd in world rankings but when it comes to a major tournament….certain disaster
________
But Andy Murray's never a disaster in tournaments? He always finishes in the position he's ranked. 3rd or 4th.
posted on 16/8/12
You surely gotta base it on more than one competition. Holland were world cup finalists....
posted on 16/8/12
People saying we don't do well at major tournaments. We only lost 1 knock out stage game at the World cup and 1 at the Euros. Losing only 1 knock out stage game at each tournament is bloody impressive if you ask me.
posted on 16/8/12
Losing only 1 knock out stage game at each tournament is bloody impressive if you ask me.
posted on 16/8/12
Yes losing in a knock out competition is rather good isn't it!
posted on 16/8/12
Since 96 the best we have ever done is got to the Quarter Finals and we didn't qualify for one of them and this is in a small competition on the world scale. How can we be 3rd best in the world. If you think this makes sense then you should work for FIFA!
posted on 16/8/12
European scale*
posted on 16/8/12
They should base rankings on performances in tournaments, but then you so many qualifying matches for tournaments, which will be unranked.
posted on 16/8/12
comment by Wild_ Rover (U5211)
posted 18 minutes ago
England are like Andy Murray…..3rd in world rankings but when it comes to a major tournament….certain disaster
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Co-sign this.
England are 'consistent' alright: they are consistently average and they consistently underperform.
posted on 16/8/12
The same sort have thing I was saying Mr Chelsea. How can a side who hasnt been to a Semi Final of any Major Competition since 96 be ranked 3rd! It clearly shows flaws in the system.
posted on 16/8/12
England being ranked so lowly means they get such tough qualifying groups and have to play lots of top teams. Even then they still qualify easily like for world cup 2010 and Euro 2008 etc. England are so unlucky to be ranked so lowly hence getting these really tough groups and STILL being able to qualify so easily. So brave. HEROES is a word thrown around too often these days, but John Terry, Wayne Rooney, Ashley Cole etc should be knighted and one of them possibly could take over from the queen because she is getting old now and we need a national hero to replace her.
posted on 16/8/12
Red Con
The rankings are taken over the past 4 years. Who has in your eyes been consistently better than England in qualifying games, friendlies and tournaments?
Italy had a woeful WC, Holland had a woeful EC, Argentina had an average WC and a poor Copa America. Brazil the same. Portugal were drawing at home against Cyprus and losing to Denmark when England were winning their group with ease.
posted on 16/8/12
Fun Rob,
All of them sides you meantioned have performed better at one major competition in the last 4 years. Friendlies and Qualifiers shouldn't even come into account.
Page 1 of 2