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!
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 !
 
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...

I think you've lost the plot on this one Sterling.
 
Sterling Archer said:
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?
Click to expand...



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.
 
Joke of a system.. But.......

13th overall
Ahead of the likes of Germany & Colombia?

Might like it after all :emoticon-0143-smirk
 
Sterling Archer said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Des Head
What? A full dog? said:
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.
Click to expand...

Spot on
 
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
 
  • Like
Reactions: spesupersydera
Leon T Trout AFC said:
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
Click to expand...

I'm confused
 
Leon T Trout AFC said:
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
Click to expand...

Rhodesia, Suriname or Luxemburg - nearly spat *two quids worth of Laphroaig over my keyboard when I read that <laugh>

*a very small sip, before anyone comments on gob sizes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leon...
Sterling Archer said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leon T Trout AFC said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
Leon T Trout AFC said:
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
Click to expand...

ussr.
 
Barchullona said:
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.
Click to expand...

There was some quality back then for Scotland.
Not like nowadays with the snivelling Snotgrass and the dirty **** Scott Brown.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back