The rankings really confuse me, admittedly I'm not sure how the points are calculated and I can fully understand England being down to 20th but some of the teams rankings are a bit bemusing. Bosnia and Herzegovina for a start, don't get me wrong England have been pony for too long but since when did Bosnia do anything of note? Also, Brazil and Spain both below Belgium, Colombia and Uruguay? Both teams didn't reach expectations in the World Cup but I don't see how that pushes them below the sides mentioned. Spain had won the past 3 major tournaments prior to this one where as Brazil finished 4th and have always been a powerhouse on the national stage.
For the first time in a long time, I would genuinely have rather watch Wales play, only to discover the game wasn't being shown on itv/s4c. Then Ifound out the game was actually today, and I've checked and its on sky sports. Genius. A nation made up of some of the poorest regions in Europe, possibly entering its most exciting qualification since Mark Hughes and 3/4 of the country can't watch the game. It says a lot that not only had nobody any interest in the England match, but people have been actively dissuaded from watching what is a poor team play poor football. And my final point; until Welbeck scored last night, the commentary team really had it in for him, while actively brown nosing Sterling, who was awful. My mate made £50+ on Welbeck scoring because he was the only creative output England had last night. Sterling was woeful, Rooney was anonymous and Henderson may as well have been painting the changing rooms for all the good he did on the pitch.
The only surprise from last night's game is that we won, and I think we were lucky to win. Hart had a good game. United demonstrated why they really ought to be fighting a relegation battle this season: Rooney anonymous, and one of the prime reasons for Wellbeck having to leave to get games, s**te yet again! By the way, the bench is looking fine, now. Creosote hasn't quite dried, though, so I've told the kids to be careful.
Apparently Hodgson is our savior now. Except that Wellbeck wouldn't have even been playing if Sturridge had been available. And of course both can't play together as Rooney is undroppable.
Rooney must know how ****e he is, and he must know that his is probably the most undeserved captaincy in the history of English football.
Is that how the rankings are done then - performance/ results in the recent tournament? - or was that a tongue in cheek comment HBIC? I can't tell lol. I thought it was down to some sort of points accumulation over a period of time. Though it still doesn't make sense then if Brazil are ranked lower than Colombia, Belgium and Uruguay... :-S **** this ****, I'm out
The ranking system is just stupid. It's completely ineffectual and self-perpetuating and ends up with oddities like Switzerland in 9th and Jordan above Ireland.
Last night was just what I wanted to see from England. We played attacking football and with the kind of pace you see in the PL, there's no reason it should have taken 2 years for us to get there under Hodgson, he was over cautious for far too long, perhaps he just doesn't think there's anything to lose anymore. Problems that I pointed out still remain in my opinion. Wilshere's crap and needs to be dropped so we can have a better balanced midfield. I still don't think Stones and Chambers are up to it at this early stage, even with injuries we still had the impressive Clyne to call upon. We need to give more chances to players like Delph, who showed more energy and worked harder than any of the World Cup flops did. Really enjoyed watching the game last night, even at half time when it was 0-0, it looked like a totally different team. Still improvements need to be made but this game was important, it sets the bar to what Hodgson should be achieving, no more excuses for him now.
Rock bottom, below Bhutan. That's quite a useful example of why the system's crap, though. Bhutan's last set of opponents included Afghanistan, the Maldives and Sri Lanka. They lost them all. San Marino faced the likes of England, Ukraine and Poland and they got slaughtered, losing all ten group games and ending up with -53 goal difference. Stick Bhutan in that group and I doubt they'd have even managed that.
That's probably correct. The worry, now, of course, is that should England string together a series of wins that get us close to the Euro Final, Hodgson will revert back to his dull and, ultimately, unsuccessful defensive style of play and **** it all up, again. I still maintain that we need to drop Rooney.
Personally, I thought England looked o.k. Coming forward. The defence, however, would scare the crap out of me if I were Hodgson.
The maths that FIFA use are convoluted as hell, as points are based on: Win/Lose/Draw, Importance of Match, Strength of Opposition, Confederation Strength At times they make sense: if you start the clock at Brazil's quarter final exit in the 2010 World Cup, since then they were eliminated in the quarter final stages of the 2011 Copa America, played friendlies while the rest of South America were playing World Cup qualifiers, won the 2013 Confederations Cup (which has about as much importance on the international stage as the Community Shield) before being teabagged by Germany and Holland in the space of four days in this year's World Cup (to the amusement of the entire world) - so it's no wonder they got overtaken by Argentina (topped the CONMEBOL qualification), Uruguay (fourth-place in the 2010 WC, won the 2011 Copa America, fifth in CONMEBOL qualification/won AFC/CONMEBOL play-off) and Columbia (second in CONMEBOL qualification) in that time. It also made sense when Montenegro shot up the FIFA rankings a couple of years ago, as at the time they were in the same pot as the cannon fodder for a few years - but because they're clearly a better side than the Faroe Islands or Estonia, they won games so earned more points because for a time the likes of Latvia were considered "stronger" than them by FIFA's definition. It gets bizarre when you get to the likes of San Marino and Andorra, though: San Marino are at the very bottom and Andorra aren't much higher, yet in theory they have a chance of qualifying for the World Cup or European Championships as they are in the final qualification group - while the British Virgin Islands or Turks and Caicos were eliminated in the first round of CONCACAF qualification for the WC - yet the heavyweights of the region (Mexico, USA, Costa Rica, Honduras) come in at the third round of qualification, and there's a final fourth round after that. So while San Marino and Andorra played ten World Cup qualifiers (including two games against England, Ukraine, Montenegro and Poland) while the British Virgin Islands played two, against the US Virgin Islands - so it's clear to anyone that San Marino are the "stronger" team due to: playing more Important games, playing eight games against Strong Opponents, as well as UEFA being a Stronger Federation than CONCACAF.
All teams should play to their strengths. England have youth, pace and energy in Sterling, Sturridge and Welbeck. These three lack finesse, game awareness and technique at times (especially Welbeck, of course, who could be lethal with a good first touch and calmness under pressure in front of goal). At times last night, the ability to convert defence into attack at pace was devastating. No point trying trying to pass your way round teams or out skill them when you don't possess the likes of Pirlo or Messi or anybody close. Rooney looked better deeper linking up those breaks at speed. His delivery of the ball, when on song, is crucial.
Well said YV, would really like to see Tom Huddlestone given the chance to play in the position Wilshire had last night, he would protect the back four better and he is the best passer we have available
I think we can all agree, though, that Wiltshire should never be permitted to pull on an England jersey again, no?
