Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

England up to 4th in Fifa world rankings

2

Comments

  • RugbyAddick
    RugbyAddick Posts: 2,083
    I was looking at it the other day. Teams that lose on penalties still get points.
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,771
    Probably the best way is to weight tournaments much higher - but I suppose England were technically unbeaten so wouldn't have done that poorly based on the Euros. You can't take into account the way they play.

  • Mortimerician
    Mortimerician Posts: 5,222
    England have - in history - made the last four of 3 tournaments, two at home, so an ability to dispose of Montenegro in the group phases is neither here nor there.

    I'd have thought that if you gave every international manager the choice of four teams that they'd like immunity from playing in tournaments that England wouldn't feature in a single list.
  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,731
    I'm pretty sure- penalty shoot outs don't influence the rankings - which is probably correct.
    Win, draw or defeat

    In previous years a complicated system of points allocation was used, depending on how strong the opponent was, and how large the loss margin, which allowed weaker losing teams to gain points when playing a much stronger opposition, if they managed to put up a decent match. With the new system, the points allocation is simpler: three points for a win, one point for a draw, and zero points for a loss, in line with most league systems around the world.

    In the event of a match being decided by a penalty shootout, the winning team receives two points, and the losing team one point.



    Result

    Points
    Win (no penalty shootout)
    3

    Win (penalty shootout)
    2

    Draw

    1

    Loss (penalty shootout)

    1

    Loss (no penalty shootout)

    0
  • Big William
    Big William Posts: 3,848
    Apparently the rankings were to be used as a tie-break in the Euro group stages if points/goal diff/head to head/away spport/height of the back four etc couldn't separate teams.
  • Dazzler21
    Dazzler21 Posts: 51,432
    I think top 10 should be:

    Spain, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Italy, England, Uruguay, Holland, France



  • ScrappyCAFC
    ScrappyCAFC Posts: 278
    I think top 10 should be:

    Spain, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Italy, England, Uruguay, Holland, France



    Although they beat us not to long ago, i dont think Holland can beat themselves out of a wet paper bag...
  • DRF
    DRF Posts: 2,455
    I'm pretty sure- penalty shoot outs don't influence the rankings - which is probably correct.
    Doesn't this basically mean then that you get a better ranking if you go out on penalties at an earleir stage than if you lose in the final?

    Which is clearly shit.
  • DRF
    DRF Posts: 2,455
    Apparently the rankings were to be used as a tie-break in the Euro group stages if points/goal diff/head to head/away spport/height of the back four etc couldn't separate teams.
    Really? I never heard this mentioned once, they kept going on about it all coming down to a coin toss - which I think they've done before?
  • cafc4ever
    cafc4ever Posts: 567
    Its complete rubbish if I am honest, I think that only one is about right and that is Spain at number 1

  • Sponsored links:



  • Tewkesbury_Addick
    Tewkesbury_Addick Posts: 627
    Its complete rubbish if I am honest, I think that only one is about right and that is Spain at number 1
    Hmmm not sure about that. After all they are "boring"

    ;-)
  • randy andy
    randy andy Posts: 5,457
    I'm pretty sure- penalty shoot outs don't influence the rankings - which is probably correct.
    Doesn't this basically mean then that you get a better ranking if you go out on penalties at an earleir stage than if you lose in the final?

    Which is clearly shit.
    And wrong, you're always at least a point better of having won the penalty shoot out, even if you go out in the very next game. If you don't lose the next game, you're accruing even more points that you wouldn't have got if you'd gone out on penalties.

    Under the old system it could have been better to go out. Say you beat Spain on penalties, and then face a surprise opponent (like Greece) and lose. You'd be worse off under the old system than if you'd lost on penalties to Spain, and avoided the defeat to a lower ranked opponent.

    I imagine this is why the system was changed, shock results in the knock-out stages of competitions were probably having too big an effect on the rankings.

  • colthe3rd
    colthe3rd Posts: 8,486
    People getting upset at FIFA over this, you all need to realise there are bigger and better sticks to beat FIFA with than this. Is this system perfect? No of course it isn't. Is it that fairest way of doing it? Probably.

    For those moaning about where we are compared to Italy, remember this takes in a 4 year period, this time 2 years ago they finished bottom of their WC group behind New Zealand, isn't it fair that that is taken into consideration with what they have just acheived over the past month? I would say so. As of this point in time are they better than England, well obviously based on what they did at the Euros but as I said this is a 4 year average, if the rankings were done to look at the past 6 months then Italy would clearly be above England.

    If people don't like this system then just ignore it, not like it actually affects anything in the real world.
  • Big William
    Big William Posts: 3,848
    Apparently the rankings were to be used as a tie-break in the Euro group stages if points/goal diff/head to head/away spport/height of the back four etc couldn't separate teams.
    Really? I never heard this mentioned once, they kept going on about it all coming down to a coin toss - which I think they've done before?
    First I heard about it was in the Daily Scouser Torygraph during the tournament - I checked it (link attached folks!) and it was the UEFA national team coefficient ranking system which is probably the European version of the FIFA index. The only criteria below the ranking is the fair play index - should have got Paul Miller out of retirement to exploit that.

    http://fredericiana.com/2012/06/12/uefa-euro-2012-tie-breaker-rules/
  • Stu_of_Kunming
    Stu_of_Kunming Posts: 17,122
    I'm pretty sure- penalty shoot outs don't influence the rankings - which is probably correct.
    Doesn't this basically mean then that you get a better ranking if you go out on penalties at an earleir stage than if you lose in the final?

    Which is clearly shit.
    If you can get to the final whilst losing everygame. (you can't)
  • dizzee
    dizzee Posts: 5,616
    It's because we are one of the only nations not to test things out in friendlies.

    We always stick to our first team. Even if we played San Marino we would still start with Gerrard, Lampard, Cole, Terry etc...

    Whereas other countries try out youngsters and different formations etc...

    Realistically England should be below Spain, Italy, Holland, Portugal, Germany, Uruguay, Argentina, Croatia, Brazil, France and Russia...

    Making us around 12th.

    4th is a JOKE.
  • supaclive
    supaclive Posts: 6,518
    I'm not sure about Croatia and Russia and probably on par with a very temperemental French squad!
  • dizzee
    dizzee Posts: 5,616
    I'm not sure about Croatia and Russia and probably on par with a very temperemental French squad!
    A french team that battered us in the opening match of the Euro's?

    I think Croatia would beat us.

    I sort of agree with you on Russia but I think over 10 matches they would win more.
  • Tewkesbury_Addick
    Tewkesbury_Addick Posts: 627
    I'm not sure about Croatia and Russia and probably on par with a very temperemental French squad!
    A french team that battered us in the opening match of the Euro's?
    I think Croatia would beat us.

    I sort of agree with you on Russia but I think over 10 matches they would win more.
    I'm pretty sure we drew...
  • dizzee
    dizzee Posts: 5,616
    I'm not sure about Croatia and Russia and probably on par with a very temperemental French squad!
    A french team that battered us in the opening match of the Euro's?
    I think Croatia would beat us.

    I sort of agree with you on Russia but I think over 10 matches they would win more.
    I'm pretty sure we drew...
    Yes but we got absolutely battered in terms of football.

  • Sponsored links:



  • Callumcafc
    Callumcafc Posts: 63,829
    They're incredibly inconsistent though. On another day, they would've put us to the sword, and on another we would've won by 2 goals.

    They lost to a Sweden side who were already out and then caused no threat to what everyone thought at the time was a struggling Spanish side after their group matches against Italy and Croatia.
  • MuttleyCAFC
    MuttleyCAFC Posts: 47,771
    I suppose you could say that Spain and England were the only 2 unbeaten team sin the Euros!!!!
  • dizzee
    dizzee Posts: 5,616
    I suppose you could say that Spain and England were the only 2 unbeaten team sin the Euros!!!!
    England were beaten.

    And you forgot Portugal if you're going to go with that way of thinking.
  • supaclive
    supaclive Posts: 6,518
    Portugal lost to Germany in their first game
  • Algarveaddick
    Algarveaddick Posts: 21,175
    I'm not sure about Croatia and Russia and probably on par with a very temperemental French squad!
    A french team that battered us in the opening match of the Euro's?
    I think Croatia would beat us.

    I sort of agree with you on Russia but I think over 10 matches they would win more.
    I'm pretty sure we drew...
    Yes but we got absolutely battered in terms of football.
    So rather than the old fashioned way of counting goals, FIFA should go on the opinion of " some random bloke on an Internet forum" then, Diz? ;-)
  • guinnessaddick
    guinnessaddick Posts: 28,731
    I'm not sure about Croatia and Russia and probably on par with a very temperemental French squad!
    A french team that battered us in the opening match of the Euro's?
    I think Croatia would beat us.

    I sort of agree with you on Russia but I think over 10 matches they would win more.
    I'm pretty sure we drew...
    Yes but we got absolutely battered in terms of football.
    So rather than the old fashioned way of counting goals, FIFA should go on the opinion of " some random bloke on an Internet forum" then, Diz? ;-)
    Would solve the need for goal line tech. ;-0)
  • Bradders_1983
    Bradders_1983 Posts: 130
    I thought this thread was a joke thread untill i just saw the rankings myself. Cant believe it!
  • bolloxbolder
    bolloxbolder Posts: 7,973
    Fact - next month England will move up to third due to Uruguay's performance over the last year!
  • C_Jensens_Love_Child
    C_Jensens_Love_Child Posts: 1,598
    Not exactly sure how much baring friendlies have as I read, Ireland went down 2 places after beating Italy in a neutral friendly. Have always thought its a strange way of doing things.
  • Algarveaddick
    Algarveaddick Posts: 21,175
    I suppose you could say that Spain and England were the only 2 unbeaten team sin the Euros!!!!
    Depends if you think Charlton beat Chelsea at the Bridge in the league cup I suppose Muttley? We should ask Jose...

Categories

“Marketplace”