We should scrap all this and use "shots on target/game played over one random game played on April 1st each year" - in my opinion !
If 8 athletes ran a race, would you say the bloke that came 7th was the best runner because he'd beaten the winner two years ago?
No and neither would I say that a team that came fourth in a knock out competition was the fourth best team in the world over a period of years. It is only in that competition that it applies.
You're right, were not the second best in England, were by far the greatest team the world has ever seen... I've heard us singing it many times
Joke of a system.. But....... 13th overall Ahead of the likes of Germany & Colombia? Might like it after all
If we played against France in the World Cup, we would have lost. If we played against Brazil in the World Cup, we would have lost. If we had played against Uruguay in the World Cup, Suarez would have scored about 6 against us. If we had played against Portugal, Ronaldo would have beat us on his own. We are not the 4th best team in the world. If the competition was in a league format, fair enough, but it is not. We did well, but got through with quite a lucky draw. I think the rankings have been a bit generous to us, but we did get to the semis, so 6th seems about fair.
One for Brady: Using Sterling’s ‘theory’, Scotland did become world champs, after beating England in 1967. Then, whoever beat Scotland next became the new world champs, someone like Rhodesia, Suriname or Luxemburg ... probably
Rhodesia, Suriname or Luxemburg - nearly spat *two quids worth of Laphroaig over my keyboard when I read that *a very small sip, before anyone comments on gob sizes.
the difference there is that all 8 athletes competed against all the other athletes. that didn't happen in the world cup. there is no perfect rankings method. they all have flaws. one reason to use matches spread across four years (I haven't read the details of the new method) is to give the ranking points and positions a modicum of stability. older matches count for less than recent ones.
so now i read about the new system. teams started, approximately, from the number of points they had last month (at the end of may, probably) and then get points added or subtracted depending on how they get on in a fixture and what sort of fixture it is. that seems reasonable.
The Scots did say after that win that the Jules Rimet Trophy should be handed over to them as they were now the World Champions. Of course they didn't qualify for the World Cup in 1966 despite having players like Law, Mackay, Bremner, Ron Yeats, Willie Johnston, Alan Gilzean, Charlie Cooke, Pat Crerand, Jim Baxter, and the great Jimmy Johnstone amongst those available and all the Celtic players not mentioned there who won the European Cup a year later. Terry Dolan would have qualified with that lot. Their fans have always been deluded.
There was some quality back then for Scotland. Not like nowadays with the snivelling Snotgrass and the dirty **** Scott Brown.
