FIFA World Rankings...

So we finished 4th at a tournament that began with every team in the world. The World Cup, which all nations are eligible. We finished 4th out of all the teams in the world. And we get ranked 6th.

EDIT: And I do say we, I am English after all

 

Same situation for Belgium & Brazil placements et al.
It would help if the "formula" was published ?

 

Do you think rankings are based solely on the last World Cup?

 

It's something to do with beating good teams and losing to bad ones.

 

No, I know how the rankings work. I'm saying having a World Cup, which by definition tells you which teams are the best in the world, should have more of a bearing on the rankings. How can England be 6th, when the two teams above them were knocked out earlier in the tournament?

 

Because, as you yourself have just written, World Cups have a bearing on rankings only.

 

I suspect the rankings will be based on some "rolling (4 or 5 year)" form valuation, several factors based on inter-Federation qualification form/results, major Federation based competitions and finally the World Cup results themselves.

 

Cheers.

 

Yeah I get that, it's just, we've just had a worldwide competition. England finished 4th in that tournament. So why aren't they ranked fourth? Surely the World Cup should provide a baseline for the other nations to build on until the next one in 4 years time?

 

By that logic, would you say that in 2004 Greece should've been the highest ranked team in Europe?

 

We were the second best team in the FA Cup though. We got further than hundreds of others did and only one finished ahead of us. I get that there are different criteria for ranking teams, but if you're going to have a World Cup to determine the Champions of the world and then have 'world rankings', it just seems contradictory to not have them match up.

By your reckoning, just because France won the World Cup doesn't make them the best team in the world.

 

They won a tournament to prove they were, so why wouldn't they have been? Leicester won the Premier League, they finished top of the English football league system and were therefore the top team in the country that year. Generally speaking, when you win something, you come first, it means you're better than everybody else for the time being. It's no good finishing 4th and saying "yeah but we're better". Well, you aren't. You finished 4th. That's how Liverpool and Arsenal fans convince themselves to keep going every year, because they think they're the best. Unless you win the league, you aren't. There's somebody better than you.

 

Teams can be 'the better team' but still lose - I imagine you've used that phrase about City in the past.




I'll put you with BCC as the only people with the opinion that Greece in 2004 were the best team in Europe.


I assume the Denmark team in 1992 that failed to qualify for the Euros but were awarded a place were also the best team in Europe too?

 

They won the tournament. Until they played another international, they were the best team in Europe. It's not as though they didn't make it out of the group and I'm claiming they were the best. They won the tournament. You can't lose in the group stage and still claim to be the best team in Europe, can you, what's that based on?

If you come fourth in a competition that involves every single footballing nation on Earth, you should be ranked fourth in the world, that's the point of the World Cup, at least until the next round of internationals is played.

Having a more skilled team, and being ranked, aren't the same thing. If the Turks and Caicos Islands somehow won the World Cup, it would make them, by default, the best team in the world, as they'd finished ahead of every other team in the world. Otherwise what are you ranking it on? France won the World Cup, they're top of the pile. Belgium won the third placed play off but are ranked second. Croatia came second but are third. England came fourth but are ranked sixth in the world.

The World Rankings don't represent skill, they are based on results. I understand that it takes into account other results in recent history, but I'm merely suggesting that the World Cup should provide a baseline for a nation's ranking. The USA didn't even qualify for the World Cup, so they shouldn't be higher than Tunisia who did.

 

I knew that. You don’t drop down the rankings because you get beaten in extra time by Arsecunts.