FIFA World Rankings - Ireland up to 31st

Laois_Man

points of interest....

Spain 1st
England 4th
Brazil 5th
Russia 17th
Slovakia 21st
Ireland 31st
Scotland 61st
Norther Ireland 62nd
Armenia 70th
Macedonia 98th
Wales 114th
Andorra 203rd

I always raise a couple of eyebrows when this comes out.
Japan 13th, Ivory Coast 14th, Montenegro 16th etc

Looks a bit odd!

VW 1

The biggest eyebrow raiser is without a doubt, England. How? 4th? Joke.

Montenegro as well how do they jump to 16th from only entering FIFA in recent years

IRISHSPORTSGUY

Irritating that Montenegro could be the reason we miss out on Pot 2. No way are they better than us.

And when was the last time Norway qualified for anything?! Yet they're looking on course for Pot 1.

homerjay2005

its a flawed system alright, but if you keep winning, you rise up the ladder. beat teams in higher position and you rise...its all calculated, though it is flawed.

england are there as they are always ranked high, get more wins, albeit against crap teams, nearly always get to major tournaments etc etc

dont forget,they won 9 in a row in qualifying last time.

ireland are 19th i think in europe, so need to rise to 16th to be 2nd seads for the WCC draw. 4 wins and a draw from out next 5 games should see that, its not that hard to rise and a few teams are in freefall.

Predalien

That Montenegro ranking is nonsense, we finished on twice as many points as them in the qualifying for 2010! They've had a few decent results since but that is an absolute joke.

TerryTibbs!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

Much more realistic. Accurate imo too.

Laois_Man

homerjay2005 wrote: »

its a flawed system alright, but if you keep winning, you rise up the ladder. beat teams in higher position and you rise...its all calculated, though it is flawed.

england are there as they are always ranked high, get more wins, albeit against crap teams, nearly always get to major tournaments etc etc

dont forget,they won 9 in a row in qualifying last time.

I think you're missing the point - They have risen WITHOUT winning!

They have moved up two places to 4th since the last ranking even though the only game they've played in that time was a 2-2 draw at home to Switzerland who are ranked 29th.

They have moved ahead of Brazil who, since the last World Rankings have drawn with Holland ranked #2 and beaten Romania!

Glico Man

But competitive games count more than friendlies which are pretty much worthless in the rankings. The rankings and the way they are calculated are a bit of a joke tbh

keano_afc

I see England's draws with Switzerland and Ghana have helped their rise. :rolleyes:

Laois_Man

aaronh007 wrote: »

But competitive games count more than friendlies which are pretty much worthless in the rankings. The rankings and the way they are calculated are a bit of a joke tbh

Points wise, England have gone down 17 - Brazil have gone down 295

Beefy78

It's a very proud day to be English

Seriously though, the points are calculated over a rolling four year period so I'm guessing the Three Lions are benefiting from the disasterous run under Steve McClaren no longer counting against them.

Paully D

Perhaps we should start playing friendlies against the likes of the North Pole to increase our rankings, like a few teams in the top bracket have been doing!

VW 1

Paully D wrote: »

Perhaps we should start playing friendlies against the likes of the North Pole to increase our rankings, like a few teams in the top bracket have been doing!

Sure wasnt the Nations Cup a series of competitive matches, surely that should boost us up a few more places!!:pac:

Laois_Man

VW 1 wrote: »

Sure wasnt the Nations Cup a series of competitive matches, surely that should boost us up a few more places!!:pac:

They wouldn't count as "Compeditive" matches as far as the FIFA system is concerned

Would they?

ArmaniJeanss

Laois_Man wrote: »

I think you're missing the point - They have risen WITHOUT winning!

They have moved up two places to 4th since the last ranking even though the only game they've played in that time was a 2-2 draw at home to Switzerland who are ranked 29th.

Results in the same time period 2 and 4 years now count for less - results in the same time period 6 years back now don't count at all.
So of course you can rise places by draws if defeat are dropping off your rankings.
By the same logic you can win games and fall in the rankings, if better wins are dropping off your ranking.

Its not just a FIFA thing, if Rory McIlroy comes only second in the next two US Open then it'll adversely affect his ranking points.

The 'Montenegro Effect' is a definite flaw though, with so few games played (your score is divided by the amount of games) they will get a massive zigzag effect at each good/bad result.

3hn2givr7mx1sc

TerryTibbs! wrote: »

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings

Much more realistic. Accurate imo too.

That's way off as well, imo. Jamaica, Panama, Costa Rica and Chinda ahead of Slovakia?
Sweden ahead of France?
Croatia tenth?
Qatar, Kuwait, Burkina Faso, Uganda, Zambia, Uzbekistan ahead of Wales?
Gabon ahead of Norn Iron?

Drumpot

homerjay2005 wrote: »

its a flawed system alright, but if you keep winning, you rise up the ladder. beat teams in higher position and you rise...its all calculated, though it is flawed.

england are there as they are always ranked high, get more wins, albeit against crap teams, nearly always get to major tournaments etc etc

dont forget,they won 9 in a row in qualifying last time.

ireland are 19th i think in europe, so need to rise to 16th to be 2nd seads for the WCC draw. 4 wins and a draw from out next 5 games should see that, its not that hard to rise and a few teams are in freefall.

Even if Ireland were ranked no1 in the world FIFA would change the rules to have us 3rd seeds. Blatter would prob decide to change the seedings to population size and have some sort of revenue co-efficient whereby income streams from handpicked teams of specified leagues would determine what seed an international team would be.

Is there any wonder that there is declining interest (particularly by footballers) in playing international football when its rigged so obviously in favour of nations that bring in the big bucks!

premierstone

Drumpot wrote: »

Even if Ireland were ranked no1 in the world FIFA would change the rules to have us 3rd seeds. Blatter would prob decide to change the seedings to population size and have some sort of revenue co-efficient whereby income streams from handpicked teams of specified leagues would determine what seed an international team would be.

Is there any wonder that there is declining interest (particularly by footballers) in playing international football when its rigged so obviously in favour of nations that bring in the big bucks!

So Montenegro are a major financial player in World football now are they??

Drumpot

premierstone wrote: »

So Montenegro are a major financial player in World football now are they??

Thanks for taking my post literally! ! !

Thers more then one way to make sure that the teams you want will get to the big tournaments.

v3ttel

Nice to see that the rankings are indicative of the entire FIFA organisation as a whole.

Fr Tod Umptious

I always love this thread about the FIFA rankings

When England go down in the rankings most people here are happy that they are a good reflection of the state of international football

When England go up it's another story though......

Drumpot

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I always love this thread about the FIFA rankings

When England go down in the rankings most people here are happy that they are a good reflection of the state of international football

When England go up it's another story though......

I think you are wrong.

Most people think that FIFA is a corrupt, out of touch organisation and that the rankings are always wrong.

Its just more annoying when England benefit from it!

Fr Tod Umptious

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I always love this thread about the FIFA rankings

When England go down in the rankings most people here are happy that they are a good reflection of the state of international football

When England go up it's another story though......

Well up or down 4th is nowhere near realistic as their recent tournament performances have shown so it could be England or the likes of Russia up so high it does not matter its just shows how flawed the rankings are .

Beefy78

Drumpot wrote: »

I think you are wrong.

Most people think that FIFA is a corrupt, out of touch organisation and that the rankings are always wrong.

Its just more annoying when England benefit from it!

How exactly are England "benefiting" from this?

Incidently, aside from Brazil could you make a convincing argument for any of the sides below them to be above them?

Even as an Englishman I consider that this England side is extremely mediocre. That said I think that the same can be said across the board at International level with the exception of a handful of teams. Whilst England are light-years behind Spain and Germany, are they light years behind Mexico, Italy or Croatia? All of whom have had mixed results in recent times yet make up the top ten.

There's a decent write-up on the Guardian's site about how the scores are calculated. I can't say that anything on there looks suspect. And as the Guardian points out, there's a difference between being a higher ranked team and being a better team.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/jun/29/england-fourth-fifa-world-rankings

England are under a microscope in England and, to be honest, here more than Portugal or Mexico are.

VW 1

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I always love this thread about the FIFA rankings

When England go down in the rankings most people here are happy that they are a good reflection of the state of international football

When England go up it's another story though......

Sure go on then, tell us the last time England got to the last 4 of a major tournament.

Augmerson

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I always love this thread about the FIFA rankings

When England go down in the rankings most people here are happy that they are a good reflection of the state of international football

When England go up it's another story though......

England were muck at the World Cup in SA, you can't deny it. It's hard to fathom how, based on performances like that in SA, England have climbed to 4th. Draw's against the US and Algeria and a win over Slovenia wasn't it?

If you notice on Boards that people light up when something like this happens with England, it's because most of us follow English football closely and it's under more scrutiny by us.

Drumpot

Beefy78 wrote: »

How exactly are England "benefiting" from this?

Incidently, aside from Brazil could you make a convincing argument for any of the sides below them to be above them?

Even as an Englishman I consider that this England side is extremely mediocre. That said I think that the same can be said across the board at International level with the exception of a handful of teams. Whilst England are light-years behind Spain and Germany, are they light years behind Mexico, Italy or Croatia? All of whom have had mixed results in recent times yet make up the top ten.

There's a decent write-up on the Guardian's site about how the scores are calculated. I can't say that anything on there looks suspect. And as the Guardian points out, there's a difference between being a higher ranked team and being a better team.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/jun/29/england-fourth-fifa-world-rankings

England are under a microscope in England and, to be honest, here more than Portugal or Mexico are.

This is where the concept of subjective perspective and objective consideration comes into play.

I would think its fair to say that a Top 4 team in the world would be a team that one would consider to be a team thats a good bet for a Semi Final of the world cup (or at least a Euro Championships).

The reason that actual world cup and European Chamionship tournament points (to teams that qualify) are more is because teams that progress in these tournaments deserve greater recognition for advancing as far as they do.

England seldom get past the Quarters (final 8) of any tournament, yet they seem to always hover in the top 8, sometimes further up for winning poor qualifying groups or stuttering out of poor groups actually in the tournaments. I dont really care how their "points add up", as the logic of them being in the top 4 is just downright stupid and unjustifiable in their current status.

I personally dont care much for the rankings as FIFA will always find a way to help any struggling superpowers, like changing the seeding system during the tournament etc, so with that in mind, they dont really count for much in the scheme of things.

When your team is a superpower its prob difficult, when you are looking down from such a height, to see the levels that the governing body wont stoop to keep your team safely on the path to another qualification to another tournament. They wouldnt want a repeat of 94 when there was no France or England, thats just unnaceptable.

Hannibal

With Brazil hosting the 2014 WC expect to see them about 10th by the time it comes around due to having no competitive matches.
Bear in mind that the Copa America is starting soon so expect to see the CONCACAF teams rise in the next ranking. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay have plummeted in this latest list

It's highly unlikely we'll get into the top 16 in UEFA for the WC qualifiers. Turkey are currently 16th and look too far ahead but we could easily catch Israel, Switz, Slovakia.

noodler

The Montenagro thing is just amazing.

I understand we probably have 2007 results hurting us at the moment but, like others have said, we were in the same group as them last year, finished well above them (without beating them), played a play-off against France etc etc and they are 16th based on half a decent campaign.

I assume once 2012 hits we will see a rather large jump once the 2007 results are quashed?

tolosenc

Dotsey wrote: »

Bear in mind that the Copa America is starting soon so expect to see the CONCACAF teams rise in the next ranking. Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and Paraguay have plummeted in this latest list

Can we get "seasonally adjusted" figures, like they do with the dole? :P

Dotsey wrote: »

It's highly unlikely we'll get into the top 16 in UEFA for the WC qualifiers. Turkey are currently 16th and look too far ahead but we could easily catch Israel, Switz, Slovakia.

There are no more matches involving European teams between now and the draw, so the pots are sealed, effectively. We are in Pot 3.

noodler wrote: »

The Montenegro thing is just amazing.

I understand we probably have 2007 results hurting us at the moment but, like others have said, we were in the same group as them last year, finished well above them (without beating them), played a play-off against France etc etc and they are 16th based on half a decent campaign.

They manage their ranking very well. Ranking points for a year are the total points divided by the number of games. If we didn't play so many meaningless friendlies, or FIFA weighted the number of games played like it weights the points gained (ie if a friendly only counts as half the points, it only counts as half a match) we would be a fair bit higher up.

noodler wrote: »

I assume once 2012 hits we will see a rather large jump once the 2007 results are quashed?

We are still suffering from the Stan years, but not to any great extent. In fact, I think all of his effect will be gone by the time the next rankings are published.

grenache

Laois_Man wrote: »

points of interest....

Spain 1st
England 4th
Brazil 5th
Russia 17th
Slovakia 21st
Ireland 31st
Scotland 61st
Norther Ireland 62nd
Armenia 70th
Macedonia 98th
Wales 114th
Andorra 203rd

I always raise a couple of eyebrows when this comes out.
Japan 13th, Ivory Coast 14th, Montenegro 16th etc

Looks a bit odd!

I'm sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. The inbuilt corruption aside, how do FIFA hope to be taken seriously when they come out with these absurd rankings? I've watched Slovakia on a few occasions, they are below average. As for England being 4th? :eek: And Scotland are much better than 61.

A joke. Like FIFA.

Fr Tod Umptious

VW 1 wrote: »

Sure go on then, tell us the last time England got to the last 4 of a major tournament.

The World Cup in 1990

Now you tell me when Ireland got beyond the last eight in any major competition ?

Because from Dec 1992 to Mar 1995 there ranking was more often that not in the top 10 and as high as 6th between Dec 1992 and Aug 1993.

I do not give a toss for these rankings but I bet that if Ireland keep doing well and moving up, based on the Stan years working their way out of the system as another poster has said, then people on this board will take note and will not be slow to say how good we are and what a good team we have.

Fr Tod Umptious

grenache wrote: »

I'm sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. The inbuilt corruption aside, how do FIFA hope to be taken seriously when they come out with these absurd rankings? I've watched Slovakia on a few occasions, they are below average. As for England being 4th? :eek: And Scotland are much better than 61.

A joke. Like FIFA.

As has been stated hundreds of times of these threads, it is mathematical.

No one in FIFA is going around giving points based on what they believe are deserved for individual teams performances.

It's not gymnastics.

grenache

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

As has been stated hundreds of times of these threads, it is mathematical.

No one in FIFA is going around giving points based on what they believe are deserved for individual teams performances.

It's not gymnastics.

I dont care if its mathematical, alphabetical or geographical. England are not the world's 4th best team, and Montenegro are certainly not the 16th best.

OPENROAD

grenache wrote: »

I dont care if its mathematical, alphabetical or geographical. England are not the world's 4th best team, and Montenegro are certainly not the 16th best.

Would agree, but then again Ireland should not be as high as 31 imo

ArmaniJeanss

Argentina/Brazil/Uruguay/Paraguay/Chile haven't played a competitive game since last summer in South Africa.
The other South American teams haven't played a competitive game since their last failed World Cup qualifiers in October 2009.
USA & Mexico played their first competitive games since the World Cup earlier this month.

These countries only play friendlies in the interim, and generally treat them seriously as they are their only games - European countries treat friendlies like a chore and want them marked lowly in the rankings.

Africa plays a continetal championship every two years with qualifiers and will have a championship in both 2012&2013, then World Cup qualifers (or maybe they'll combine the qualifiers again, who knows).

Asia.... I'm out of touch there, but its doubtless different to every other federation as well.

FIFA would need the wisdom of Solomon and the maths of Euclides to come up with a ranking system that catered completely for all these differing continental curiousities.
They make quite a decent stab at it imo.

ValJester

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings#All-time_highest_ratings

Bit baffling that they can come up with an objective measurement which dictates that Brazil 1962 were better than Brazil 1958/1970/1982 or even 2002. I'd argue the FIFA rankings are useless on the grounds that there isn't really a universal standard you can measure football teams by.

Guy:Incognito

premierstone wrote: »

So Montenegro are a major financial player in World football now are they??

Stop trying to rock the boat. Dont you know the whole world is against Ireland and just want to keep us down while constantly pushing the darling of world football, England, to the fore. Get with the program. It's all a conspiracy to help England.

noodler

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Stop trying to rock the boat. Dont you know the whole world is against Ireland and just want to keep us down while constantly pushing the darling of world football, England, to the fore. Get with the program. It's all a conspiracy to help England.

Yeah but like he said, Montenagro ...how?

Fr Tod Umptious

noodler wrote: »

Yeah but like he said, Montenagro ...how?

maths, as I said before

But there should be a min number of games played by a new team before they become eligible for a score.

Montenagro are the first new team to join FIFA for a good while so I guess they did not make allowance for new teams when they first came up with the formula.

People should really ignore Montenagro for the moment as it is currently a statistical anomaly

Beefy78

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

The World Cup in 1990

Euro 96 actually

Drumpot wrote: »

This is where the concept of subjective perspective and objective consideration comes into play.

I would think its fair to say that a Top 4 team in the world would be a team that one would consider to be a team thats a good bet for a Semi Final of the world cup (or at least a Euro Championships).

Should be, but I don't think it necessarily follows. Look at tennis... Andy Murray is 4th in the World but is miles behind the top three. Just because he's the 4th ranked player doesn't mean he ever has anything more than an outside chance of outlasting Federer, Nadal or Djokovic at a Grand Slam.

Spain, Germany and Holland are pretty far ahead of the rest in these rankings. Brazil probably should make up the top four but for a variety of reasons have temporarily dropped a few ranking points. Once they get them back then they will likely get their place in the top four back and you can rest easy.

This is a very poor England side, IMO, but we're in an era of a very poor Argentina, Portugal and Italy as well. Throw in Russia, Mexico and Uruguay and you have a number of teams which are pretty much interchangeable in terms of quality (or a lack of). Currently England are ranked slightly highest of those on the back of having just a single, unfortunate, qualfing defeat in almost four years. Any one of half a dozen teams could equally be there. I don't think it's anything to get carried away over though,

Montenegro are a very decent side, btw.

VW 1

Beefy78 wrote: »

Euro 96 actually



Should be, but I don't think it necessarily follows. Look at tennis... Andy Murray is 4th in the World but is miles behind the top three. Just because he's the 4th ranked player doesn't mean he ever has anything more than an outside chance of outlasting Federer, Nadal or Djokovic at a Grand Slam.

Spain, Germany and Holland are pretty far ahead of the rest in these rankings. Brazil probably should make up the top four but for a variety of reasons have temporarily dropped a few ranking points. Once they get them back then they will likely get their place in the top four back and you can rest easy.

This is a very poor England side, IMO, but we're in an era of a very poor Argentina, Portugal and Italy as well. Throw in Russia, Mexico and Uruguay and you have a number of teams which are pretty much interchangeable in terms of quality (or a lack of). Currently England are ranked slightly highest of those on the back of having just a single, unfortunate, qualfing defeat in almost four years. Any one of half a dozen teams could equally be there. I don't think it's anything to get carried away over though,

Montenegro are a very decent side, btw.

But the people ranked behind Murray in 5,6,7,8 arent regarded as being better than him, without a shadow of a doubt.


Argentina suffered from a bad manager at the WC and a lack of defensive tactics ie playing 4 CBs and no fullbacks. Look at their midfield and attacking options. They are second only to Spain in terms of the players they have in their squad.

Drumpot

Beefy78 wrote: »

Should be, but I don't think it necessarily follows. Look at tennis... Andy Murray is 4th in the World but is miles behind the top three. Just because he's the 4th ranked player doesn't mean he ever has anything more than an outside chance of outlasting Federer, Nadal or Djokovic at a Grand Slam.

Spain, Germany and Holland are pretty far ahead of the rest in these rankings. Brazil probably should make up the top four but for a variety of reasons have temporarily dropped a few ranking points. Once they get them back then they will likely get their place in the top four back and you can rest easy.

This is a very poor England side, IMO, but we're in an era of a very poor Argentina, Portugal and Italy as well. Throw in Russia, Mexico and Uruguay and you have a number of teams which are pretty much interchangeable in terms of quality (or a lack of). Currently England are ranked slightly highest of those on the back of having just a single, unfortunate, qualfing defeat in almost four years. Any one of half a dozen teams could equally be there. I don't think it's anything to get carried away over though,

Montenegro are a very decent side, btw.

Firstly, I wasnt having a go at England, I was merely stating a fact that in general (not all) many Irish will get pissed off if they think the English soccer team benefits from a sh*t seeding system made by a corrupt UEFA.

Secondly, does anybody really believe that the seeding system is designed to do anything other then help the top nations qualify ? Seriously, are there people that stupid that think FIFA is all about "fair play". Its not even a conspiracy, you need only look at how they sell the world cup bids to the highest backhander to see that MONEY decides on what is best for the sport, not fair play or hard work. If anything English fans should know this more then most after their superior but failed world cup bid. If a team that isnt that big is up in the rankings at any given time, this is a mistake and if it happened long enough (and big teams started dropping down the rankings) you can bet your ass that FIFA would fix it double time (bet they would start using teams that were in the world cup the most as seeding basis!).

I agree that the likes of Portugal, Russia, Italy and Argentina arent at their best, but I just dont see how England can be ahead of them considering the teams england has struggled against in the last 2 qualifying tournaments. I was looking at Englands results since 2007. I will include friendlies and will sive out the games against top opposition and poor results against poor opposition -

0v1 Spain - Lost
Israel 0v0 -Drew
1v1 Brazil - Drew
1v2 Germany - Lost
3v0 Russia -Won
Russia 2v1 - Lost
2v3 Croatia - Lost
France 1v0 - Lost
2v2 Czech- Drew
Germany 1v2 - Won
Spain 2v0 - Lost
2v1 Ukraine Won
Holland 2v2 Draw
5v1 Croatia win
Ukraine 1v0 Loss
Brazil 1v0 Loss
USA 0v0 Draw
Algeria 0v0 Draw
Germany 4-1 Loss
0v0 Montenegro Draw
1v2 France Loss

P21 W 3 D 7 L 11

Theyve lost to France twice in that period! They have won 3 decent games worth mentioning in 4 years. Ukraine, Russia (both beat them in return games!) and Germany in a friendly (whom thumped England in the World cup and beat England in another friendly!)

As for the rest of the results (have discounted poor teams) I wouldnt call that a particularly impressive record irrespective of whether or not they will get to the semis of a tournie or not!

SEPT 23 1989

Where did we rank after Italia 90?

Beefy78

But the point is that you're scrutinising England's results in a way that you're not scrutinising those of Portugal, Mexico or Argentina. If you were then you'd get a mixture of mediocre/poor results from them as well. The way that the teams are ranked isn't objective, isn't a mystery and isn't along idiological lines.

Read the article in the Guardian that I linked to yesterday and tell me which specific parts of the calculation you disagree with.

All the rankings are are the results of a mathematical equation. No one is seriously saying that England are now automatically going to win a tournament (or even finish top four) they just currently have better results than all but three other sides.

Fr Tod Umptious

VW 1 wrote: »

But the people ranked behind Murray in 5,6,7,8 arent regarded as being better than him, without a shadow of a doubt.


Argentina suffered from a bad manager at the WC and a lack of defensive tactics ie playing 4 CBs and no fullbacks. Look at their midfield and attacking options. They are second only to Spain in terms of the players they have in their squad.

But at the end of the day Argentina lost 6 and drew 4 of their 18 WC qualifying games, and were out of the WC at the QF stage.

England, as the other poster has said, only lost one qualifing game in almost 4 years

You could find many an organization or website that ranks teams based on other methods, but the FIFA ranking are based on mathematical formula and that is why Argentina and England are in their current spots.

So get over it.

Fr Tod Umptious

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Where did we rank after Italia 90?

They were only introduced in 1993 but I am sure if you tried you could do the sums and figure out what the number of point they would have the day after they lost on Italy in 1990.

Drumpot

Since 2007 Argentina - P 30 W 9 D 9 L 12 Beat Brazil a couple of times, portugal, spain, Germany , France, Holland

Source - http://soccernet.espn.go.com/team/fixtures/_/id/202/season/2008/argentina?cc=5739

So England have beaten Germany in a friendly and beaten Ukraine and Russia. And Argentina have beaten 5 of the top 7 ranked teams in the world over that period but are 6 places behind England.

Im not disputing that theres a mathmatecal formula to the points system I am simply saying that its not based on sound principles if above example is anything to go by. I read the Guardian piece by the way and they seemed just as flabbergasted as I am at how England find themself in 4th!

ArmaniJeanss

Drumpot wrote: »

0v1 Spain - Lost
Israel 0v0 -Drew
1v1 Brazil - Drew
1v2 Germany - Lost
3v0 Russia -Won
Russia 2v1 - Lost
2v3 Croatia - Lost
France 1v0 - Lost
2v2 Czech- Drew
Germany 1v2 - Won
Spain 2v0 - Lost
2v1 Ukraine Won
Holland 2v2 Draw
5v1 Croatia win
Ukraine 1v0 Loss
Brazil 1v0 Loss
USA 0v0 Draw
Algeria 0v0 Draw
Germany 4-1 Loss
0v0 Montenegro Draw
1v2 France Loss

P21 W 3 D 7 L 11

Thats hugely unscientific, embarassingly so.
You have basically ignored lots of England games (like competive away victories against a Top30 side) if it doesn't suit your point.

****

Then you seem to suggest that the bad results you identify should put them below Russia and Portugal.
Are Englands results that much worse than Russia 0, Slovakia 1 ; Armenia 0 Russia 0 ; Portugal 4 Cyprus 4 ; Norway 1 Portugal 0 from this campaign, or both sides failure to win their groups in the last campaign(both had to go into the playoffs after finishing second, Russia unluckily so in fairness, Portugal second by the skin of their teeth).

Drumpot

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Thats hugely unscientific, embarassingly so.
You have basically ignored lots of England games (like competive away victories against a Top30 side) if it doesn't suit your point.

****

Then you seem to suggest that the bad results you identify should put them below Russia and Portugal.
Are Englands results that much worse than Russia 0, Slovakia 1 ; Armenia 0 Russia 0 ; Portugal 4 Cyprus 4 ; Norway 1 Portugal 0 from this campaign, or both sides failure to win their groups in the last campaign(both had to go into the playoffs after finishing second, Russia unluckily so in fairness, Portugal second by the skin of their teeth).

Tell you what. You quote the "impressive" victories that I didnt quote and we can have a proper debate. I didnt include Englands embarrassing 2v1 home victory over Hungary or their home draw with Ghana (to name 2).

And I never suggested they should be below Portugal or russia (somebody else brought those teams into the equation), but beating these kind of teams is IMO a good scalp for a good team. I think its ridiculous that england are 6 places above Argentina!