FIFA World Rankings...

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
originallambrettaman

originallambrettaman

Mod Moderator
Staff member
Jan 24, 2011
114,235
72,887
113
East Yorkshire
England up to 6th, Germany down to 15th, Italy out of the top 20 (this is based on the new formula)...

1
You must log in or register to see images
France 1726(1726.41) 1198 6
2
You must log in or register to see images
Belgium 1723(1722.66) 1298 1
3
You must log in or register to see images
Brazil 1657(1656.84) 1431 -1
4
You must log in or register to see images
Croatia 1643(1642.72) 945 16
5
You must log in or register to see images
Uruguay 1627(1627.19) 1018 9
6
You must log in or register to see images
England 1615(1614.61) 1051 6
7
You must log in or register to see images
Portugal 1599(1599.25) 1274 -3
8
You must log in or register to see images
Switzerland 1597(1596.89) 1199 -2
9
You must log in or register to see images
Spain 1580(1580.29) 1126 1
9
You must log in or register to see images
Denmark 1580(1579.92) 1051 3
11
You must log in or register to see images
Argentina 1574(1573.53) 1241 -6
12
You must log in or register to see images
Chile 1570(1570.05) 1135 -3
13
You must log in or register to see images
Sweden 1565(1565) 880 11
14
You must log in or register to see images
Colombia 1563(1562.53) 986 2
15
You must log in or register to see images
Germany 1561(1560.71) 1558 -14
16
You must log in or register to see images
Mexico 1560(1559.97) 989 -1
17
You must log in or register to see images
Netherlands 1540(1539.96) 981 0
18
You must log in or register to see images
Poland 1538(1537.69) 1183 -10
19
You must log in or register to see images
Wales 1536(1536) 953 -1
20
You must log in or register to see images
Peru 1535(1534.76) 1125 -9
 
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 :emoticon-0102-bigsm
 
Sterling Archer said:
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 :emoticon-0102-bigsm
Click to expand...
Same situation for Belgium & Brazil placements et al.
It would help if the "formula" was published ?
 
Sterling Archer said:
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 :emoticon-0102-bigsm
Click to expand...

Do you think rankings are based solely on the last World Cup?
 
  • Like
Reactions: tigerscanada
Barchullona said:
Do you think rankings are based solely on the last World Cup?
Click to expand...

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?
 
Sterling Archer said:
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?
Click to expand...

Because, as you yourself have just written, World Cups have a bearing on rankings only.
 
Sterling Archer said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
tigerscanada said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Sterling Archer said:
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?
Click to expand...

I hate to break this to you, but when we lost the FA Cup final, it didn't make us the second best team in English football.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash, What? A full dog?, Des Head and 3 others
Sterling Archer said:
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?
Click to expand...

By that logic, would you say that in 2004 Greece should've been the highest ranked team in Europe?
 
originallambrettaman said:
I hate to break this to you, but when we lost the FA Cup final, it didn't make us the second best team in English football.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Quill said:
By that logic, would you say that in 2004 Greece should've been the highest ranked team in Europe?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sterling Archer said:
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.
Click to expand...


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?
 
Last edited:
Quill said:
Okay, 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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Sterling Archer said:
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.
Click to expand...

It's done over a period of time, as it's a far better gauge of a teams real ability, than a single knockout competition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back