http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8818696.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/world_cup_2010/8818696.stm)
After that showing in the world cup how on earth have we gone up?
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html (http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html)
We went up 'cos Italy, France and Portugal plummeted. If Uruguay hadn't done so well we'd have gone up by two.
edit: Plus, we've actually done OK, results-wise, since data was last published in May. We won two friendlys, drew against a pretty good team (US) and a rubbish one (Algeria), and beat Slovenia. Our only loss was to 3rd/4th (WC/world rankings) Germany.
So, I guess this means Fabio gets a pay rise? :012:
USA moves up one spot to 13th.
Er they were only the 13th best team in South Africa, how does this figure? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/12/england-2010-world-cup (http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/jul/12/england-2010-world-cup)
It's an accumulative score. Most of the 12 better teams than England this world cup were either much better already (e.g. Spain) so had no impact on our rank, or their score was much lower than England's to start with so didn't catch up. Plus, as I said, Italy/France/Portugal bombed (and didn't pretty badly in friendlys too).
Quote from: ImperialWhite on July 14, 2010, 10:36:52 AM
It's an accumulative score. Most of the 12 better teams than England this world cup were either much better already (e.g. Spain) so had no impact on our rank, or their score was much lower than England's to start with so didn't catch up. Plus, as I said, Italy/France/Portugal bombed (and didn't pretty badly in friendlys too).
Well if this is true, England wasn't any better than the United States so why aren't we ranked higher?
Quote from: Tom on July 14, 2010, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: ImperialWhite on July 14, 2010, 10:36:52 AM
It's an accumulative score. Most of the 12 better teams than England this world cup were either much better already (e.g. Spain) so had no impact on our rank, or their score was much lower than England's to start with so didn't catch up. Plus, as I said, Italy/France/Portugal bombed (and didn't pretty badly in friendlys too).
Well if this is true, England wasn't any better than the United States so why aren't we ranked higher?
It's all about points. We had more to start with (it's accumulative), and we earned more since May; presumably cos we beat Mexico/Japan/Slovenia and drew with you guys.
The same reason Germany are only 4th in the world - they have less points than Brazil who are 3rd (Germany would have earned more
during the cup itself, of course).
Quote from: ImperialWhite on July 14, 2010, 07:14:09 PM
Quote from: Tom on July 14, 2010, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: ImperialWhite on July 14, 2010, 10:36:52 AM
It's an accumulative score. Most of the 12 better teams than England this world cup were either much better already (e.g. Spain) so had no impact on our rank, or their score was much lower than England's to start with so didn't catch up. Plus, as I said, Italy/France/Portugal bombed (and didn't pretty badly in friendlys too).
Well if this is true, England wasn't any better than the United States so why aren't we ranked higher?
It's all about points. We had more to start with (it's accumulative), and we earned more since May; presumably cos we beat Mexico/Japan/Slovenia and drew with you guys.
The same reason Germany are only 4th in the world - they have less points than Brazil who are 3rd (Germany would have earned more during the cup itself, of course).
Thanks ImperialWhite for the explanation. I don't agree with it though.
Hmmm - it's a clever compromise I think. I don't think there's any other way of ranking all FIFA members, all 202 of them. You also have occasions where good teams don't qualify for major tournaments for whatever reason, take Egypt as an example. Clearly a good team, 7 times ANC champions but failed to qualify for WC2010 - so it would be unfair to drop them from the top 32. Similarly Russia, Euro 2008 SFs, who didn't manage to qualify. Tricky.
(Of course it does throw up anomalies like Portugal/Ital who could easily beat England if they wanted!).
LOOK....don't get me started. Thsi whole thing is absolute boll0x. It is still about maintaining the big countries positions to generate money. England DID NOT HAVE ONE DECENT TEAM in their qualifying group. Then they follow this up with friendlies against teams they are almost certain to beat.
Then they get, on paper, a relatively easy group in the WC. Apart from USA, who were miles better than England, the word relative doesnt belong here. In fact, lets be honest, they got a walk through, the weakest group of the lot.
Watch what happens next in the Euro draw, more of the same. San marino, Luxembourg, etc etc.
Then all this absolute GARBAGE starts again.
England are poo with a CAPITAL P. It is time for a shake up at FIFA and move to a format which is not designed to just make money. They do everything they can to manipulate the system, heaven forbid, poo like England, France and Italy don't make the finals. Oh dear, what happens to the tv money then. I for one, will be glad to see the back of them all, particularly the whingeing poms (no, I am not an aussie)
The thing i dont get is how Egypt went up 3 spots w/ out playing a game surely that should count against them? to be honest they should have been punished in the ranking because they didnt make it, they can't be considered better than Ghana after the showing they put on
It is all because of Howard Webb put such an excellent effort in
It's all a load of nonsense, just as UEFA have us as something daft like 20th best club in Europe, I mean, come on, can you name more than one or two who are better than Fulham? I can't. :022:
Anyway, take it all with a pinch of salt, actually, probably a mill of salt. The best in the world is Spain, they just proved it last week, the rest is just squabbling over the scraps.
Quote from: finnster01 on July 14, 2010, 11:35:48 PM
It is all because of Howard Webb put such an excellent effort in
brilliant!
Mr. Rupert,
We all know it is a joke however, aske the Belgians, Welsh, Scots, Fins, Poles, Rumanians if they like the fact that the bigger (money) countries get preferential treatment.
It has got up my nose for years.
I want to see a fairer system and also a system that generates some surprises. for example NO SEEDING based on corrupt data.
Quote from: jarv on July 15, 2010, 12:14:21 AM
Mr. Rupert,
We all know it is a joke however, aske the Belgians, Welsh, Scots, Fins, Poles, Rumanians if they like the fact that the bigger (money) countries get preferential treatment.
It has got up my nose for years.
I want to see a fairer system and also a system that generates some surprises. for example NO SEEDING based on corrupt data.
How is it corrupt? That's a fairly heft accusation to level without explanation. A win's a win, a draw's a draw and a loss is a loss, all totted up in black and white. England have a fair few points because we won all but one (dead rubber) match in qualifying. Scotland lost to Macedonia! A draw would have taken them to the World Cup. Tough. Points means prizes.
No seeding would be all fun and games until you get a World Cup group consisting of Andorra, Lichenstein, Somalia and Albania. Even this World Cup saw what could happen to a certain extent - all but a couple of the good teams (Brazil/Netherlands) on one side of the table.
Mr. Imperialwhite, sorry for the use of the word corrupt, probably not the best choice. But it IS all about doing their best to protect the money. How does a decent team get out of pot 3 to improve their chances in the draw? Play friendlies against Leichtenstein and Luxembourg several times a year to get more points.!! Why do friendlies even count? They are not taken seriously by too many. Certainly not the clubs or the players. Then the manager makes 9 subs at half time. Ludicrous.
Remember the 70s. The great friendlies at Wembley. I wouldn't waste the bus fare now to watch one.
The South American system seems, at a glance too be much fairer. They are all in one big group I believe, so the winner is the winner. OK, Europe has too many teams for that but there is always a way to create a similar league situation. How does Africa do it? My guess is FIFA doesn't care about those regions. They assume Brazil and Argentina will always make it and as long as there is African representation, they don't give a hoot who it is.
Maybe I am just getting old, but I think the WC used to be much more entertaining. France with Tigana, Germany with Netzer. etc Probably helped that we were not saturated in tv games back then.
