comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think it would be more exciting for the people who follow the weaker teams who qualified. Perhaps also for the people who follow their own side into the competition against basically the same sides every time.
----------
Well yes, I'd be much more excited if NI got to the finals. I don't see that it would make their team stronger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No? Well let's say Northern Ireland qualified for the finals. Would all the young kids here not take much more notice of football instead of throwing bottles at each other in the streets? Would they not think, I'd love to be part of that? Would they not put more effort in? Would the government provide more funding, seeing they now have a chance of doing something?
I feel it could make a country grow, in terms of football and in the case of NI, general life too.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Surely it is best to have the best teams at the finals, and not a bunch of the best teams missing out due to luck of the draw.
It would devalue the finals if 4 or 5 top nations missed out because the best 8 were all lumped together.
We see nations improving all the time, and Bosnia were yet another debutant this year. Teams can progress and improve without needing to rely on lucky draws, especially in international football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it lucky draws or fair draws? Why do these better nations need to rely on set favourable draws to qualify? Would more difficult draws no improve them also as they'd have to play better in qualifying? Would this not improve their chances in finals if they qualified?
Let's give Israel and Palestine a place in the World Cup, them maybe the kids there will think I would love to part of that and stop the war, and live happily ever after....
If your theory rang true, why didnt you see a reaction made by the kids of 86??
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Let's give Israel and Palestine a place in the World Cup, them maybe the kids there will think I would love to part of that and stop the war, and live happily ever after....
If your theory rang true, why didnt you see a reaction made by the kids of 86??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know, I was only born in '84
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think it would be more exciting for the people who follow the weaker teams who qualified. Perhaps also for the people who follow their own side into the competition against basically the same sides every time.
----------
Well yes, I'd be much more excited if NI got to the finals. I don't see that it would make their team stronger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No? Well let's say Northern Ireland qualified for the finals. Would all the young kids here not take much more notice of football instead of throwing bottles at each other in the streets? Would they not think, I'd love to be part of that? Would they not put more effort in? Would the government provide more funding, seeing they now have a chance of doing something?
I feel it could make a country grow, in terms of football and in the case of NI, general life too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, all the youngsters wouldn't suddenly stop the sectarian violence and turn to football. For a few weeks there'd be a nice glow (from half the community) and then it'd disappear and the deep rooted divide would again be apparent. What happened after 82 and 86? The team didn't exactly get stronger due to higher rankings. Rather a world record for longest period without a goal.
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Surely it is best to have the best teams at the finals, and not a bunch of the best teams missing out due to luck of the draw.
It would devalue the finals if 4 or 5 top nations missed out because the best 8 were all lumped together.
We see nations improving all the time, and Bosnia were yet another debutant this year. Teams can progress and improve without needing to rely on lucky draws, especially in international football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it lucky draws or fair draws? Why do these better nations need to rely on set favourable draws to squalify? Would more difficult draws no improve them also as they'd have to play better in qualifying? Would this not improve their chances in finals if they qualified?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So a group of Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and France and another one of Malta, Georgia, San Marino, Gibralter and Faroe Islands, with one from each group going to the WC, would improve either set of teams?
4 very good teams would not go, and one very very average team would go to get thrashed by South Americas best.
It would be like Tahiti in the Confeds.
That does not make for better football, nor fairer.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Surely it is best to have the best teams at the finals, and not a bunch of the best teams missing out due to luck of the draw.
It would devalue the finals if 4 or 5 top nations missed out because the best 8 were all lumped together.
We see nations improving all the time, and Bosnia were yet another debutant this year. Teams can progress and improve without needing to rely on lucky draws, especially in international football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it lucky draws or fair draws? Why do these better nations need to rely on set favourable draws to squalify? Would more difficult draws no improve them also as they'd have to play better in qualifying? Would this not improve their chances in finals if they qualified?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So a group of Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and France and another one of Malta, Georgia, San Marino, Gibralter and Faroe Islands, with one from each group going to the WC, would improve either set of teams?
4 very good teams would not go, and one very very average team would go to get thrashed by South Americas best.
It would be like Tahiti in the Confeds.
That does not make for better football, nor fairer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It definitely makes it fairer. Better? Maybe not.
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
an article about the rankings without stating the rankings or providing a link to them……
poor show.
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
It's like West Ham let's say, sitting 20th in the league on the last day
----
this happened not too long ago
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 1 minute ago
an article about the rankings without stating the rankings or providing a link to them……
poor show.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit late fecking 70 odd comments in with making the suggestion!
http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html
i only just came on line son
Rnk Team Pts +/- Pos
1 Germany 1724 1 Up
2 Argentina 1606 3 Up
3 Netherlands 1496 12 Up
4 Colombia 1492 4 Up
5 Belgium 1401 6 Up
6 Uruguay 1330 1 Up
7 Brazil 1241 -4 Down
8 Spain 1229 -7 Down
9 Switzerland 1216 -3 Down
10 France 1202 7 Up
11 Portugal 1148 -7 Down
12 Chile 1098 2 Up
13 Greece 1091 -1 Down
14 Italy 1056 -5 Down
15 USA 989 -2 Down
16 Costa Rica 986 12 Up
17 Croatia 955 1 Up
18 Mexico 930 2 Up
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina 917 2 Up
20 England 911 -10 Down
21 Ecuador 901 5 Up
22 Ukraine 898 -6 Down
23 Russia 897 -4 Down
24 Algeria 872 -2 Down
25 Côte d'Ivoire 850 -2 Down
26 Denmark 807 -3 Down
27 Scotland 734 0 Equal
28 Romania 733 1 Up
29 Sweden 724 3 Up
30 Venezuela 720 10 Up
There you go.
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 3 minutes ago
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
Northern Ireland moved up a place.
Take that Benin and Botswana. Watch your àss Palestine!
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 3 minutes ago
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the four very best teams get drawn together in qualifiers you lose 3. Then the best teams could all be drawn together in the finals, making the knockouts very, very, very dull and of poor quality.
Apart from the South Americans who will still have their best 5 teams there.
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 11 seconds ago
Northern Ireland moved up a place.
Take that Benin and Botswana. Watch your àss Palestine!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the worst Northern Ireland team I've seen in my lifetime. Absolutely woeful. Not only that but nobody wants to play. You have players choosing to play for the Republic, which is understandable in some cases and so so many who just fake injury, not to play. It's a disgrace. The manager is woeful and that's a complete understatement. So bad he makes you want Lawrie Sanchez back.
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
--------
But didn't you just make a case for no seedlings? If all the top teams are drawn together in qualifying the best can't make it to the finals.
This is the worst Northern Ireland team I've seen in my lifetime. Absolutely woeful
--------
Ahem. 1298 goalless minutes.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 3 minutes ago
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the four very best teams get drawn together in qualifiers you lose 3. Then the best teams could all be drawn together in the finals, making the knockouts very, very, very dull and of poor quality.
Apart from the South Americans who will still have their best 5 teams there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do the South Americans all have their five best teams there?
What you're suggesting is very unlikely anyhow for two draws to happen so unfavourably. However if it did happen once in a few decades, then perhaps it would give a fairer chance to another team to win the World Cup. To my mind there has only been about five or six winners, is that correct?
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 2 minutes ago
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
--------
But didn't you just make a case for no seedlings? If all the top teams are drawn together in qualifying the best can't make it to the finals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can. The best teams who qualify will be the best.
The thing is, seedings does not prohibit improvement or progress. The Netherlands won through to the semi finals despite not being seeded, and France and Costa Rica both made the quarter finals without the need for seed.
Club football is a bit different, what with financial benefits being vital to team improvement, but at international level seeding is overcome quite often by fast improving nations.
Such as the Costa Rican team you started this article off by trying to beat back down the ranking table.
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 seconds ago
The thing is, seedings does not prohibit improvement or progress. The Netherlands won through to the semi finals despite not being seeded, and France and Costa Rica both made the quarter finals without the need for seed.
Club football is a bit different, what with financial benefits being vital to team improvement, but at international level seeding is overcome quite often by fast improving nations.
Such as the Costa Rican team you started this article off by trying to beat back down the ranking table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't trying to beat them down the rankings table. I just feel the rankings system isn't great.
Of course the seedings system prohibits progress, for the weaker teams and improves the chances of progress for the better teams, that's the whole point of it, otherwise why have it? This doesn't mean there can't be a shock and a weak team can play their hearts out and get a bit of luck and do well.
Sign in if you want to comment
FIFA World Rankings
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7
posted on 18/7/14
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think it would be more exciting for the people who follow the weaker teams who qualified. Perhaps also for the people who follow their own side into the competition against basically the same sides every time.
----------
Well yes, I'd be much more excited if NI got to the finals. I don't see that it would make their team stronger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No? Well let's say Northern Ireland qualified for the finals. Would all the young kids here not take much more notice of football instead of throwing bottles at each other in the streets? Would they not think, I'd love to be part of that? Would they not put more effort in? Would the government provide more funding, seeing they now have a chance of doing something?
I feel it could make a country grow, in terms of football and in the case of NI, general life too.
posted on 18/7/14
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 18/7/14
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Surely it is best to have the best teams at the finals, and not a bunch of the best teams missing out due to luck of the draw.
It would devalue the finals if 4 or 5 top nations missed out because the best 8 were all lumped together.
We see nations improving all the time, and Bosnia were yet another debutant this year. Teams can progress and improve without needing to rely on lucky draws, especially in international football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it lucky draws or fair draws? Why do these better nations need to rely on set favourable draws to qualify? Would more difficult draws no improve them also as they'd have to play better in qualifying? Would this not improve their chances in finals if they qualified?
posted on 18/7/14
Let's give Israel and Palestine a place in the World Cup, them maybe the kids there will think I would love to part of that and stop the war, and live happily ever after....
If your theory rang true, why didnt you see a reaction made by the kids of 86??
posted on 18/7/14
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
Let's give Israel and Palestine a place in the World Cup, them maybe the kids there will think I would love to part of that and stop the war, and live happily ever after....
If your theory rang true, why didnt you see a reaction made by the kids of 86??
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't know, I was only born in '84
posted on 18/7/14
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 2 minutes ago
I think it would be more exciting for the people who follow the weaker teams who qualified. Perhaps also for the people who follow their own side into the competition against basically the same sides every time.
----------
Well yes, I'd be much more excited if NI got to the finals. I don't see that it would make their team stronger.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No? Well let's say Northern Ireland qualified for the finals. Would all the young kids here not take much more notice of football instead of throwing bottles at each other in the streets? Would they not think, I'd love to be part of that? Would they not put more effort in? Would the government provide more funding, seeing they now have a chance of doing something?
I feel it could make a country grow, in terms of football and in the case of NI, general life too.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, all the youngsters wouldn't suddenly stop the sectarian violence and turn to football. For a few weeks there'd be a nice glow (from half the community) and then it'd disappear and the deep rooted divide would again be apparent. What happened after 82 and 86? The team didn't exactly get stronger due to higher rankings. Rather a world record for longest period without a goal.
posted on 18/7/14
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Surely it is best to have the best teams at the finals, and not a bunch of the best teams missing out due to luck of the draw.
It would devalue the finals if 4 or 5 top nations missed out because the best 8 were all lumped together.
We see nations improving all the time, and Bosnia were yet another debutant this year. Teams can progress and improve without needing to rely on lucky draws, especially in international football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it lucky draws or fair draws? Why do these better nations need to rely on set favourable draws to squalify? Would more difficult draws no improve them also as they'd have to play better in qualifying? Would this not improve their chances in finals if they qualified?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So a group of Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and France and another one of Malta, Georgia, San Marino, Gibralter and Faroe Islands, with one from each group going to the WC, would improve either set of teams?
4 very good teams would not go, and one very very average team would go to get thrashed by South Americas best.
It would be like Tahiti in the Confeds.
That does not make for better football, nor fairer.
posted on 18/7/14
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 40 seconds ago
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 6 minutes ago
Surely it is best to have the best teams at the finals, and not a bunch of the best teams missing out due to luck of the draw.
It would devalue the finals if 4 or 5 top nations missed out because the best 8 were all lumped together.
We see nations improving all the time, and Bosnia were yet another debutant this year. Teams can progress and improve without needing to rely on lucky draws, especially in international football.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But is it lucky draws or fair draws? Why do these better nations need to rely on set favourable draws to squalify? Would more difficult draws no improve them also as they'd have to play better in qualifying? Would this not improve their chances in finals if they qualified?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So a group of Germany, Spain, Netherlands, Italy and France and another one of Malta, Georgia, San Marino, Gibralter and Faroe Islands, with one from each group going to the WC, would improve either set of teams?
4 very good teams would not go, and one very very average team would go to get thrashed by South Americas best.
It would be like Tahiti in the Confeds.
That does not make for better football, nor fairer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It definitely makes it fairer. Better? Maybe not.
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
posted on 18/7/14
an article about the rankings without stating the rankings or providing a link to them……
poor show.
posted on 18/7/14
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
posted on 18/7/14
It's like West Ham let's say, sitting 20th in the league on the last day
----
this happened not too long ago
posted on 18/7/14
comment by Chronic (U3423)
posted 1 minute ago
an article about the rankings without stating the rankings or providing a link to them……
poor show.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
A bit late fecking 70 odd comments in with making the suggestion!
posted on 18/7/14
http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html
posted on 18/7/14
i only just came on line son
posted on 18/7/14
Rnk Team Pts +/- Pos
1 Germany 1724 1 Up
2 Argentina 1606 3 Up
3 Netherlands 1496 12 Up
4 Colombia 1492 4 Up
5 Belgium 1401 6 Up
6 Uruguay 1330 1 Up
7 Brazil 1241 -4 Down
8 Spain 1229 -7 Down
9 Switzerland 1216 -3 Down
10 France 1202 7 Up
11 Portugal 1148 -7 Down
12 Chile 1098 2 Up
13 Greece 1091 -1 Down
14 Italy 1056 -5 Down
15 USA 989 -2 Down
16 Costa Rica 986 12 Up
17 Croatia 955 1 Up
18 Mexico 930 2 Up
19 Bosnia and Herzegovina 917 2 Up
20 England 911 -10 Down
21 Ecuador 901 5 Up
22 Ukraine 898 -6 Down
23 Russia 897 -4 Down
24 Algeria 872 -2 Down
25 Côte d'Ivoire 850 -2 Down
26 Denmark 807 -3 Down
27 Scotland 734 0 Equal
28 Romania 733 1 Up
29 Sweden 724 3 Up
30 Venezuela 720 10 Up
There you go.
posted on 18/7/14
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 3 minutes ago
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
posted on 18/7/14
Northern Ireland moved up a place.
Take that Benin and Botswana. Watch your àss Palestine!
posted on 18/7/14
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 3 minutes ago
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the four very best teams get drawn together in qualifiers you lose 3. Then the best teams could all be drawn together in the finals, making the knockouts very, very, very dull and of poor quality.
Apart from the South Americans who will still have their best 5 teams there.
posted on 18/7/14
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 11 seconds ago
Northern Ireland moved up a place.
Take that Benin and Botswana. Watch your àss Palestine!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the worst Northern Ireland team I've seen in my lifetime. Absolutely woeful. Not only that but nobody wants to play. You have players choosing to play for the Republic, which is understandable in some cases and so so many who just fake injury, not to play. It's a disgrace. The manager is woeful and that's a complete understatement. So bad he makes you want Lawrie Sanchez back.
posted on 18/7/14
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
--------
But didn't you just make a case for no seedlings? If all the top teams are drawn together in qualifying the best can't make it to the finals.
posted on 18/7/14
This is the worst Northern Ireland team I've seen in my lifetime. Absolutely woeful
--------
Ahem. 1298 goalless minutes.
posted on 18/7/14
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 17 seconds ago
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 3 minutes ago
However I definitely think it would improve the chances of the top teams if they had a more difficult group and time of it getting to the finals. Whoever qualifies will have had to have formed a very good team.
-------
Well of course it would improve their chances. They'd be playing Northern Ireland and Samoa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If the four very best teams get drawn together in qualifiers you lose 3. Then the best teams could all be drawn together in the finals, making the knockouts very, very, very dull and of poor quality.
Apart from the South Americans who will still have their best 5 teams there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do the South Americans all have their five best teams there?
What you're suggesting is very unlikely anyhow for two draws to happen so unfavourably. However if it did happen once in a few decades, then perhaps it would give a fairer chance to another team to win the World Cup. To my mind there has only been about five or six winners, is that correct?
posted on 18/7/14
comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 2 minutes ago
The very best teams will still be at the finals and will still contest the latter stages.
--------
But didn't you just make a case for no seedlings? If all the top teams are drawn together in qualifying the best can't make it to the finals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They can. The best teams who qualify will be the best.
posted on 18/7/14
The thing is, seedings does not prohibit improvement or progress. The Netherlands won through to the semi finals despite not being seeded, and France and Costa Rica both made the quarter finals without the need for seed.
Club football is a bit different, what with financial benefits being vital to team improvement, but at international level seeding is overcome quite often by fast improving nations.
Such as the Costa Rican team you started this article off by trying to beat back down the ranking table.
posted on 18/7/14
comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 4 seconds ago
The thing is, seedings does not prohibit improvement or progress. The Netherlands won through to the semi finals despite not being seeded, and France and Costa Rica both made the quarter finals without the need for seed.
Club football is a bit different, what with financial benefits being vital to team improvement, but at international level seeding is overcome quite often by fast improving nations.
Such as the Costa Rican team you started this article off by trying to beat back down the ranking table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I wasn't trying to beat them down the rankings table. I just feel the rankings system isn't great.
Of course the seedings system prohibits progress, for the weaker teams and improves the chances of progress for the better teams, that's the whole point of it, otherwise why have it? This doesn't mean there can't be a shock and a weak team can play their hearts out and get a bit of luck and do well.
Page 4 of 7
6 | 7