nearly fifty years since england won a contrived world cup, how can they be twelve places above brazil in the rankings today
Because it's a points system, Technically you don't need to win anything to to take top spot but it helps.
Our qualifying groups are always the same. Us, one average as **** side like Montenegro then the rest is dross. We go into tournaments with 8 wins 2 draws. Lots of points for nowt worthy.
this might be though the worst Brazil side in living memory. Neymar is about as good as Wilfried Zaha
Because rankings are calculated on competitive games. As host, Brazil haven't had any, just friendlies. Simple.
Not strictly true. They are calculated as follows: "The basic logic of these calculations is simple: any team that does well in world football wins points which enable it to climb the world ranking. A teamâs total number of points over a four-year period is determined by adding: · the average number of points gained from matches during the past 12 months; and · the average number of points gained from matches older than 12 months (depreciates yearly). Calculation of points for a single match The number of points that can be won in a match depends on the following factors: ⢠Was the match won or drawn? (M) ⢠How important was the match (ranging from a friendly match to a FIFA World Cup⢠match)? (I) ⢠How strong was the opposing team in terms of ranking position and the confederation to which they belong? (T and C) These factors are brought together in the following formula to ascertain the total number of points (P). P = M x I x T x C The following criteria apply to the calculation of points: M: Points for match result Teams gain 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a defeat. In a penalty shoot-out, the winning team gains 2 points and the losing team gains 1 point. I: Importance of match Friendly match (including small competitions): I = 1.0 FIFA World Cup⢠qualifier or confederation-level qualifier: I = 2.5 Confederation-level final competition or FIFA Confederations Cup: I = 3.0 FIFA World Cup⢠final competition: I = 4.0 T: Strength of opposing team The strength of the opponents is based on the formula: 200 â the ranking position of the opponents As an exception to this formula, the team at the top of the ranking is always assigned the value 200 and the teams ranked 150th and below are assigned a minimum value of 50. The ranking position is taken from the opponentsâ ranking in the most recently published FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking. C: Strength of confederation When calculating matches between teams from different confederations, the mean value of the confederations to which the two competing teams belong is used. The strength of a confederation is calculated on the basis of the number of victories by that confederation at the last three FIFA World Cup⢠competitions (see following page). Their values are as follows: UEFA/CONMEBOL 1.00 CONCACAF 0.88 AFC/CAF 0.86 OFC 0.85" The fact is Brazil have not done that well in their friendlies of late (1 win against 58th ranked Bolivia and drawn 5 others on 2013). Then they were dumped out in the QF by Netherlands at WC and Copa America by Paraguay. Basically at present they are not that good. Young side though and have a year to sort it out.
Ok, but that does mean of course they'd have to win 3 games to get the points we got for beating San Marino, yes? Farce.
Shocking statement. every England player that day was a hero, not our fault what the Russian linesman did or did not see. We played better than the Germans and deserved to win. I remember the game although I was a young lad....did you actually see it, somehow I doubt it very much given this ridiculous statement.
Dont think so but just woke up so my maths is maybe way out. Us beating san marino (207th in the world so 50 min points) 3 * 2.5 * 50 * 1 = 375 If Brazil beat us (7th in the world 200-7 = 193) 3 * 1 * 193 * 1 = 579 Beating Bolivia 58th in the world 200-48 = 142 3 * 1 * 142 * 1 = 426 Think thats right anyway. How Croatia is 4th and Columbia 6th I dont know but it must work out correct with the points. It does throw up some weird ones.
the only side in wc history to play all games at there home stadium , never happened before and has never happened since,all the other sides were playing all around the country. and yes i did see it
How the hell is that Englands fault then. This is an tournament run by FIFA, nothing to do with the hosts. to say it was contrived shows your understanding of the game. I am staggered you are old enough to remember the world cup, given this post and your others I had you down as friendless teenager..how wrong can I get
1930 Uruguay but surely its just the luck of the draw if England had finished 2nd in their group they would have played West Germany in Sheffield then Semi finals in Liverpool before going back to London.
this as well of a lot of other things i would think, i was thirteen at the time they won it, i can remember my father who was from glasgow being so happy for them.
Italy nearly did in 1990. All group matches in Rome Last 16 Rome QF Rome Rome didnt host a semi final so they couldnt keep it up so it was naples. then Rome for the final if they had made it that far its not until 1994 in the USA that they started to mix the group stages into different stadia for the host nation anyway. another point is, how many countries have a Host Stadium where only the internationals (and cup finals are hosted) IE they dont have a club team playing there for league games. I cant think of any (but there has to be some).
I have watched it back and agree with the original poster it was contrived, the Argentine captain done fck all and got sent off in qf. The ball never crossed the line in the final at all. Furthermore, france's world cup was also fixed as was Newcastle's 4-4 draw vs Arsenal. Thousands of bets went on that game been a draw at half time on Asian markets when Arsenal were leading 4-0. watch closely when Tiote has his only ever shot on target in England as Arsenal gk pulls his hands out of the way. in addition there was a game at the Sol a fw years ago where Joe Hart put his hand behind his back to deliberately let in a last minute Bent penalty. I said to the bloke sitting next to me 'he's got one hand behind his back, he's gonna let it in'. The bloke said 'No he hasn't'. despite it been obvious. After the game Bent and Hart were laughing and joking. I have been very suspicious of all games since that.
Its something that football fans do not like to admit but it's a fact a lot of games are fixed. I am telling you that Joe Hart had one hand behind his back. I saw it with my own eyes.
this PEN? https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=1445333331432 it cant be that one though as he doesnt have his hand or hands behind his back at all.