If the co-efficient system is unchanged from when we (Fulham) were last in Europe, it's based on results in European competition - not domestic leagues - over two seasons, not just one. When we featured in the Europa last season, we still got the seeding benefit of our run to the final in 2010. The next time we qualify, that will mean nothing. Chelsea will get the benefit of their Champions League win this season and next, but nothing after that. Also, each team gets a bonus based on the performances of other teams from their association as well as their own specific achievements. That means that if an English team who doesn't usually qualify for Europe takes part, they get some credit for being good enough to qualify from a high-standard league, and would be ranked considerably higher than a first-time team from, say, Iceland. Results in the Champions League also gain more pts in the co-efficient than results in the Europa League. So, Chelsea might lose out to Barca based on their respective results in 2010-11, not just 2011-12. Chelsea would also, presumably, pay a small price for the early exits by Manchester United and Manchester City last season. Those two factors are probably why Barca are ranked higher.
Fair enough, I stand corrected - as do all the Chelsea fans complaining that they're not rated above Barca because of winning the CL last season. I'm pretty sure that it was two years at the start of 2011-2012, so either they've changed it or I'm remembering it wrongly. Good news for both of our teams, either way.
Form is variable, not only from week to week, but season to season! I have to say , taken over the pst 5 years and with what seems to be a sensible scoring system , this is a reasonable assessment of our club! 3RD in Europe,I'll take that--but lets work on moving into 1st ASAP!
Why do people even care about things like this? England are the 3rd best team in the world according to FIFA's rankings FFS. We won the Champions League last season - that's a concrete achievement and all that matters in the long run. Anyone with half a brain would look at our league form and accept that we're NOT the best team in Europe though, so plenty of room for improvement on that score.
Haha you lot represented your selfs well enough last time you qualified. These rankings mean nothing, imo Barca would be at number one for the Champions league whilst I would have Real Madrid as the best for winning a domestic league. Who cares about what FIFA/EUFA say have you seen how they interpret the international rankings.
Yeh.... but we were unqustionably the best team in europe. Thats what winning both the league and CL does for a club. Any club can win the CL given some luck and what not...... the league and CL is left to the very best.
Exactly. Winning ANY cup can come down to slices of luck. We had it and so did you. Bayern murdered you that night.
And then they only won it in Moscow after we hit the woodwork 3 times including a slip in the deciding penalty (having sent the keeper the wrong way). How can United talk about luck in C.L finals?? When they haven't had luck they've been battered twice by Barca. I still cringe at England's so called greatest ever club playing long ball football in the C.L final in their own Country.
Liverpool beat you 3 times last season. So that makes them better than you and Barcelona does it? Don't be so stupid.
Actually--giving this a bit more thought--Chelsea are not the 3rd best in Europe. They are the very best! I've supported them since 1959 and I have always said that Chelsea are the best team in the world, not just Europe! COYB !!!
