TooR, you are talking as if England have to play Germany, Spain and Netherlands to qualify. They didn't, they had San Marino, Montenegro, Poland and Moldova. The only half decent team was Ukraine, who I struggle to see as better than USA or Mexico.
Yet England pick up extra points for beating minnows just because they are UEFA nations.

comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 33 seconds ago
Not to mention they play in weak qualifiers and thus have more chance of winning and qualifying, something they haven't done very often. They're a team of players scattered throughout the world where only one player is at a top club and he hasn't even broke through yet, spending time out on loan. One at Fulham, one at Levante and god knows where the rest play.

-----------

The perceived quality of the players and the teams they play for has nothing to do with it.

CR competed against US and Mexico. Tricky enough. Doing well against those teams would suggest they'd do alright against Poland and Montenegro and the like
----------------------------------------------------------------------
How many games did they play also? 16 games? Is that not 6 more than England? Does that not mean they have a better chance of scoring more points, considering only two games will be against the only decent sides, USA and Mexico and the rest against very weak sides?

Weak sides compared to San Marino and Moldova

A lot of nations get points for beating very weak teams. When the top 32 get to play each other a team should absolutely move up the rankings if they beat their competitors. Likewise a team should drop a few places if they get beat by similarly ranked teams

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 2 minutes ago
TooR, you are talking as if England have to play Germany, Spain and Netherlands to qualify. They didn't, they had San Marino, Montenegro, Poland and Moldova. The only half decent team was Ukraine, who I struggle to see as better than USA or Mexico.
Yet England pick up extra points for beating minnows just because they are UEFA nations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do England pick up extra points for beating UEFA nations? I wasn't aware of that, I thought it was according to ranking?

I posted the formula for how FIFA calculate the rankings on page 1.

comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 42 seconds ago
A lot of nations get points for beating very weak teams. When the top 32 get to play each other a team should absolutely move up the rankings if they beat their competitors. Likewise a team should drop a few places if they get beat by similarly ranked teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you feel the rankings are fair? Or at the very least the best way to rank the teams?

Costa Rica monstered our group and then some. The fact that they qualified against The Bahamas or Haiti is moot. You beat what is in front of you.

England get 65.5 points for the unenviable task of beating San Marino.

does anyone actually give a shít about rankings?

How many games did they play also? 16 games? Is that not 6 more than England? Does that not mean they have a better chance of scoring more points, considering only two games will be against the only decent sides, USA and Mexico and the rest against very weak sides?

----------

They can't be punished for playing more games. Against US and Mexico they done great in their 4 games and then had a great World Cup showing. Why shouldn't they move up a few places? It seems quite intuitive that if you have a good run of games over the previous year or so that your ranking should reflect that

comment by CrouchEndGooner - The seductiveness of French... (U13531)
posted 36 seconds ago
does anyone actually give a shít about rankings?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
When it comes to tournament seedings and draws I would imagine a few do.

Basel finished above United in the group stage not long ago, nobody thinks they are better than them, though.

shutit DJ you square

DJ

Not sure what system you would prefer?

LOL

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 42 seconds ago
A lot of nations get points for beating very weak teams. When the top 32 get to play each other a team should absolutely move up the rankings if they beat their competitors. Likewise a team should drop a few places if they get beat by similarly ranked teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you feel the rankings are fair? Or at the very least the best way to rank the teams?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting words in my mouth won't help your argument. I've already said the ranking system is imperfect and gave a good example why. I just can't get behind your argument that CR are where they are based in a 'few' games and that they shouldn't be there because individual players seemingly aren't as good as some from other nations.

Ahem...

when is the draw next world cup qualifiers?

comment by 'Bats' (U18355)
posted 21 seconds ago
Basel finished above United in the group stage not long ago, nobody thinks they are better than them, though.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because over a period of time United performed better. UEFA use a rolling 5 year system, which ranks United ahead of Basle.
FIFA use a rolling 4 year system I think, and in those 4 years Costa Rica have outperformed England.

comment by GunaDave (U7710)
posted 1 minute ago
DJ

Not sure what system you would prefer?

LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None that have been suggested, that is why I am defending this.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 42 seconds ago
A lot of nations get points for beating very weak teams. When the top 32 get to play each other a team should absolutely move up the rankings if they beat their competitors. Likewise a team should drop a few places if they get beat by similarly ranked teams
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So you feel the rankings are fair? Or at the very least the best way to rank the teams?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Putting words in my mouth won't help your argument. I've already said the ranking system is imperfect and gave a good example why. I just can't get behind your argument that CR are where they are based in a 'few' games and that they shouldn't be there because individual players seemingly aren't as good as some from other nations.


----------------------------------------------------------------------
What in the world? I'll ask you again. Do you think the rankings are a fair reflection? Do you think it's the best way to rank teams or is there a better way?

It is being revamped, Fifa decided to look at the rankings when it was seen how far Switzerland had crept up the rankings to get their seeding in the world cup by cherry picking their friendlies..
Whether sept will agree to it is a different matter

Belmonty - but is it not a few games? They moved up twelve places because of a few games, did they not?

It is impossible to have a system that is 100% accurate in the fast changing world of international football. Most nations don't play each other in the 4 year cycle, instead are concentrated in their own confederation.
When they do play it is usually in a friendly which should not be a gauge for ranking teams.
Thus this system, with weightings that seem reflective, is the best system I have heard to rank nations.

Ill just copy and paste my response the first time you posed the question

Imperfect as it may be, I'm not aware of any better system to compile rankings