As against number 4, Andy Murray, who has never won a slam. Anyways, Federer is the world number one, not three. Englands record before 2008 is by and large irrelevant, and shouldn't be factored in to current rankings. You can't base rankings on personal interpretations. The cold, hard fact is that Italy did not beat England in normal time. England very rarely lose games, because they are a top 10 side. A fair ranking for England would be 6-10, behind Spain, Italy, Holland, Germany and Uruguay. Beyond that the teams are very similar, but England's recent results stack up fine against the likes of Argentina, Brazil, Portugal and France.
Spain Argentina Italy Brazil Uruguay Portugal Holland (despite their awful EC) Germany France Others I would consider on a par with England are Russia Croatia Ukraine Ivory Coast Thanks for listening!
If you look at France's last two tournaments and qualifying campaigns, there's no basis for putting them above England. Portugal are debatable (although they did better in the Euros, granted), and I'd agree with putting the Netherlands above England, despite their dodgy Euro finals. But even if we accept all of your suggestions in the first list - which I don't - that would still only put 9 teams clearly above England, meaning that it's not ridiculous for us to be considered top ten: by your reckoning, we're as good a shout as anyone to be 10th! Ah, I'm sorry, I just felt like being picky. As someone else said, our proper place is probably somewhere between 5th and 10th. Sometimes we'll punch a bit above that, but the rankings are a bit of farce.
Looks as though the Birthday Boy is playing the diplomacy game in his team selection for next weeks friendly game against Italy. Who the heck organised Internationals 3 days before the premiership starts !!?? http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/aug/09/john-terry-england-friendly-italy
Greece won the Euro's in 2004, doesn't mean they're better than England. You see what I'm getting at? And I think it would take an incredibly biased fan to suggest that Ukraine did not deserve anything against England when playing them in the group stage. Croatia also had a very tough group containing both finalists. England would have done no better than third in that group either. Russia again were incredibly unlucky in their game against Greece where they absolutely battered them and were very unlucky not to go through.
I do see what you're getting at; but what you're saying is that based on England's "quarter final failure" they don't deserve to be 3rd in the rankings, but also that England don't deserve to be judged ahead of the teams you mentioned by their Euro progress - which is it? If the rankings are so bogus, then why are Spain number one? It may not tell the whole story but it isn't devoid of fact. We can all agree that England aren't the third best team in the world, despite the rankings showing as much. Anything beyond that is purely subjective.
Well of course not all of the rankings are going to be 'way out' Spain just retained the EC and are the current world champions, if they weren't ranked the best in the world there would be anarchy! By and large the rankings are actually relatively accurate, with only the position of Brazil, Uruguay and England baffling me. Surly, yes now Federer is world number one but before Wimbledon he was number three, yet still had multiple Grand Slam's to his name.
I really can't be bothered to continue this Bids, let's just both agree that England are not the third best team in the world and that will do for me.
'Sir' Roy issues some wise words ahead of tomorrows game about transfers such as Rodwell to Man City - http://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/football/news/england-v-italy-preview-jack-1261338
