The mancityfans.net football forum

http://www.teamtalk.com/news/2483/78676 ... d-Rankings

Must be true. Sepp Blatter said so.

They're not even 4th best in Europe never mind the world!

The US ranking is about right at 36...England probably a good shout for maybe 25-30 or so.

These rankings sometimes feel like the equivalent of badges in social software or video games. "Played an International Tournament Game and kept a Clean Sheet" +3.

Since there are no other football tournaments for the rest of world to compete in this summer like the ANC or Copa America you'd expect to see the European teams get an unnatural bounce or a dip just because of the nature of how this stuff gets calc'd, as the African teams presumably did in the spring from the ANC and the South American teams from the last Copa.

cheers

one of the comments "It would be a stretch to say England are in the top 4 in the UK." haha

....and Stewart Downing has been shortlisted for Fifa World Player of the year
(courtesy of Espn)

Much deserved.

Everyone knows they're bullshit.

As for you, NQDP, it's time to accept facts and move on - Lahm is in the number two team in the world.

LookMumImOnMCF.net wrote:Everyone knows they're bullshit.

As for you, NQDP, it's time to accept facts and move on - Lahm is in the number two team in the world.

Is he not the Captain?

LookMumImOnMCF.net wrote:Everyone knows they're bullshit.

As for you, NQDP, it's time to accept facts and move on - Lahm is in the number two team in the world.

Number two is pretty nice way to put it and I appreciate that you don't use rude words since we might have some young readers. Still, I would've just used more commonly known term "shit".

P.s. Our very own Roque Santa Cruz is in number two team as well.

LOL

Of courseee they aaareeeeeeeeeee.

The world rankings are based on a rolling 4 year period, which means two things are pertinent to these rankings:

1: Italy, Portugal and Holland played in the last Euros in 2008 and England didnt. As a result England had no ranking pounts for June 2008 dropping off the total, but they did. As a result they have dropped ranking points in comparison to England.

2: In the last 4 years England have

Won 32
Drawn 10
Lost 6

In any other reality, (eg a league format) that would be close to championship winning form, and over that 4 year period, it really is no surprise to see that Spain and Germany are the only sides who can better that. I cant for the life in me understand what the fuck Uruguay are doing in 3rd though with their record over the last 4 years.

Results since July 2008
Spain: 51-4-6
Germany: 38-9-8
Uruguay: 25-13-10
England: 32-10-6
Italy: 24-18-10
Brazil: 37-7-9

Points per game since July 2008
Spain: 2.57 (61 games)
Germany: 2.23 (55 games)
Uruguay: 1.77 (48 games)
England: 2.20 (48 games)
Italy: 1.73 (52 games)
Brazil: 2.22 (53 games)

If you wanted to put that into context, on points per game, a 38 game league season would look like this, showing the clear dominance of Spain, but actually that on results alone, England arent that far behind - just that we dont get the results when it counts, which is where Germany are significantly ahead of England, reaching semi finals rather than 2nd rounds in the last two tournaments.
Spain - 97.66pts
Germany - 84.74
Brazil - 83.36
England - 83.60
Uruguay - 67.29
Italy - 65.74

Brazil would have a false position based on points, as whilst they have a good record, they have, in the last 4 years played friendlies against Zimbabwe, Oman, Tanzania, Egypt, Canada, Gabon, Egypt (again), Bosnia, Iran, Australia, USA and Costa Rica and play their qualifying competitions against nations generally ranked lower than the standard of opposition European teams would play so these games are given a low weighting in the coefficient. Argentina are similar, in that they rarely test themselves in Friendlies and this is the reason that despite having an inferior points per game, England will continue to rank higher for the foreseeable future. Like I said above, i still dont know why Uruguay are 3rd.

Hope this is of some help, i was interested in how it all worked so spent half an hr getting my head round it by looking at the top 4 plus Italy and Brazil to put it into perspective.

Im_Spartacus wrote:The world rankings are based on a rolling 4 year period, which means two things are pertinent to these rankings:

1: Italy, Portugal and Holland played in the last Euros in 2008 and England didnt. As a result England had no ranking pounts for June 2008 dropping off the total, but they did. As a result they have dropped ranking points in comparison to England.

2: In the last 4 years England have

Won 32
Drawn 10
Lost 6

In any other reality, (eg a league format) that would be close to championship winning form, and over that 4 year period, it really is no surprise to see that Spain and Germany are the only sides who can better that. I cant for the life in me understand what the fuck Uruguay are doing in 3rd though with their record over the last 4 years.

Results since July 2008
Spain: 51-4-6
Germany: 38-9-8
Uruguay: 25-13-10
England: 32-10-6
Italy: 24-18-10
Brazil: 37-7-9

Points per game since July 2008
Spain: 2.57 (61 games)
Germany: 2.23 (55 games)
Uruguay: 1.77 (48 games)
England: 2.20 (48 games)
Italy: 1.73 (52 games)
Brazil: 2.22 (53 games)

If you wanted to put that into context, on points per game, a 38 game league season would look like this, showing the clear dominance of Spain, but actually that on results alone, England arent that far behind - just that we dont get the results when it counts, which is where Germany are significantly ahead of England, reaching semi finals rather than 2nd rounds in the last two tournaments.
Spain - 97.66pts
Germany - 84.74
Brazil - 83.36
England - 83.60
Uruguay - 67.29
Italy - 65.74

Brazil would have a false position based on points, as whilst they have a good record, they have, in the last 4 years played friendlies against Zimbabwe, Oman, Tanzania, Egypt, Canada, Gabon, Egypt (again), Bosnia, Iran, Australia, USA and Costa Rica and play their qualifying competitions against nations generally ranked lower than the standard of opposition European teams would play so these games are given a low weighting in the coefficient. Argentina are similar, in that they rarely test themselves in Friendlies and this is the reason that despite having an inferior points per game, England will continue to rank higher for the foreseeable future. Like I said above, i still dont know why Uruguay are 3rd.

Hope this is of some help, i was interested in how it all worked so spent half an hr getting my head round it by looking at the top 4 plus Italy and Brazil to put it into perspective.

and the rankings aren't a beauty contest. no points awarded for lovely football.

Im_Spartacus wrote:The world rankings are based on a rolling 4 year period, which means two things are pertinent to these rankings:

1: Italy, Portugal and Holland played in the last Euros in 2008 and England didnt. As a result England had no ranking pounts for June 2008 dropping off the total, but they did. As a result they have dropped ranking points in comparison to England.

2: In the last 4 years England have

Won 32
Drawn 10
Lost 6

In any other reality, (eg a league format) that would be close to championship winning form, and over that 4 year period, it really is no surprise to see that Spain and Germany are the only sides who can better that. I cant for the life in me understand what the fuck Uruguay are doing in 3rd though with their record over the last 4 years.

Results since July 2008
Spain: 51-4-6
Germany: 38-9-8
Uruguay: 25-13-10
England: 32-10-6
Italy: 24-18-10
Brazil: 37-7-9

Points per game since July 2008
Spain: 2.57 (61 games)
Germany: 2.23 (55 games)
Uruguay: 1.77 (48 games)
England: 2.20 (48 games)
Italy: 1.73 (52 games)
Brazil: 2.22 (53 games)

If you wanted to put that into context, on points per game, a 38 game league season would look like this, showing the clear dominance of Spain, but actually that on results alone, England arent that far behind - just that we dont get the results when it counts, which is where Germany are significantly ahead of England, reaching semi finals rather than 2nd rounds in the last two tournaments.
Spain - 97.66pts
Germany - 84.74
Brazil - 83.36
England - 83.60
Uruguay - 67.29
Italy - 65.74

Brazil would have a false position based on points, as whilst they have a good record, they have, in the last 4 years played friendlies against Zimbabwe, Oman, Tanzania, Egypt, Canada, Gabon, Egypt (again), Bosnia, Iran, Australia, USA and Costa Rica and play their qualifying competitions against nations generally ranked lower than the standard of opposition European teams would play so these games are given a low weighting in the coefficient. Argentina are similar, in that they rarely test themselves in Friendlies and this is the reason that despite having an inferior points per game, England will continue to rank higher for the foreseeable future. Like I said above, i still dont know why Uruguay are 3rd.

Hope this is of some help, i was interested in how it all worked so spent half an hr getting my head round it by looking at the top 4 plus Italy and Brazil to put it into perspective.

Nice work and all but this is NOTHING like league format where EVERYONE PLAY EACH OTHER. Those results are dependant on quality of opposition. In international football more than anywhere else. You go on to present England's record yet later say that "Brazil would be in false position" because they haven't met quality teams.

Getting those wins when it counts is all that matters. Not some crappy pointless international frendlies.

Im_Spartacus wrote:The world rankings are based on a rolling 4 year period, which means two things are pertinent to these rankings:

1: Italy, Portugal and Holland played in the last Euros in 2008 and England didnt. As a result England had no ranking pounts for June 2008 dropping off the total, but they did. As a result they have dropped ranking points in comparison to England.

2: In the last 4 years England have

Won 32
Drawn 10
Lost 6

In any other reality, (eg a league format) that would be close to championship winning form, and over that 4 year period, it really is no surprise to see that Spain and Germany are the only sides who can better that. I cant for the life in me understand what the fuck Uruguay are doing in 3rd though with their record over the last 4 years.

Results since July 2008
Spain: 51-4-6
Germany: 38-9-8
Uruguay: 25-13-10
England: 32-10-6
Italy: 24-18-10
Brazil: 37-7-9

Points per game since July 2008
Spain: 2.57 (61 games)
Germany: 2.23 (55 games)
Uruguay: 1.77 (48 games)
England: 2.20 (48 games)
Italy: 1.73 (52 games)
Brazil: 2.22 (53 games)

If you wanted to put that into context, on points per game, a 38 game league season would look like this, showing the clear dominance of Spain, but actually that on results alone, England arent that far behind - just that we dont get the results when it counts, which is where Germany are significantly ahead of England, reaching semi finals rather than 2nd rounds in the last two tournaments.
Spain - 97.66pts
Germany - 84.74
Brazil - 83.36
England - 83.60
Uruguay - 67.29
Italy - 65.74

Brazil would have a false position based on points, as whilst they have a good record, they have, in the last 4 years played friendlies against Zimbabwe, Oman, Tanzania, Egypt, Canada, Gabon, Egypt (again), Bosnia, Iran, Australia, USA and Costa Rica and play their qualifying competitions against nations generally ranked lower than the standard of opposition European teams would play so these games are given a low weighting in the coefficient. Argentina are similar, in that they rarely test themselves in Friendlies and this is the reason that despite having an inferior points per game, England will continue to rank higher for the foreseeable future. Like I said above, i still dont know why Uruguay are 3rd.

Hope this is of some help, i was interested in how it all worked so spent half an hr getting my head round it by looking at the top 4 plus Italy and Brazil to put it into perspective.

Uruguay won the Copa America in 2011. It is arguably the hardest tournament to win. Do you think Spain would have won 2 Copas sandwiching their WC? I do not.

Good work IS and as I said, our current 4th position ranking is well deserved. Nobody will listen though, they are either jealous fuckers from overseas or unpatriotic Englanders who only have eyes for their own club.

Read it & weep foreigners.

Even with Danny Wellbeck & Ashley Young, we're still 4th.

Imagine if we actually had a team ? Then you'd all be fucked.

LookMumImOnMCF.net wrote:Everyone knows they're bullshit.

As for you, NQDP, it's time to accept facts and move on - Lahm is in the number two team in the world.

Shrek is in the "4th best team in the world" and hes a fat useless cunt - your point is again ?

Niall Quinns Discopants wrote:
Nice work and all but this is NOTHING like league format where EVERYONE PLAY EACH OTHER. Those results are dependant on quality of opposition. In international football more than anywhere else. You go on to present England's record yet later say that "Brazil would be in false position" because they haven't met quality teams.

Getting those wins when it counts is all that matters. Not some crappy pointless international frendlies.

Sorry mate you have the wrong end of the stick here. The reason Brazil are in 11th is because they play overwhelmingly crappy meaningless fixtures, and struggled in their last two tournaments.

The reason i showed the points for game was to show that Brazil have a better winning record than England, but with regards the actual rankings, the games are weighted by ranking of the opposition and the quality of the competition being played. Therefore Brazils games vs Iran or whoever carry nowhere near the weight of the overwhelming majority of England's games which are usually against decent opposition which is why England are ranked significantly higher.

Whether this is a strategy of the FA to take on big friendlies to ensure future seedings given poor tournament showings I don't know, but its not beyond the realms of possibility.

Effectively Brazil and Argentina are teams for hire and will play anywhere they are offered a decent wad of cash, and their rank reflects this. Thankfully the English FA havent stooped to that level since Trinidad and Jack Warner.

The fact is that the rankings also take into account "getting wins when it matters" when weighting the games also, England won two of their fixtures and technically drew two (not sure how they treat penalties) in Euro 2012, against top 20 opposition (with exception of Ukraine). We have also played Spain, France, Germany and Holland in the last year or so, which again rank higher that Brazil vs USA etc.

Unfortunately they dont deduct points for style of football or bottling it in major finals, but The formula is on the fifa website and is pretty simple to be honest.

DoomMerchant wrote:
Uruguay won the Copa America in 2011. It is arguably the hardest tournament to win. Do you think Spain would have won 2 Copas sandwiching their WC? I do not.

Their fixtures were:

(15) Chile - 1.1
(32) Peru - 1-1
(19) Mexico - 1.0

(7) Argentina 1-1 (p)

(32) Peru - 2.0

(25) Paraguay - 3.0

Sorry mate, with those fixtures, I would even back England to win that lot, let alone Spain. That has to be one of the easiest tournament runs in international football history.

Fair enough the weighting of the Argentina game will have been high, then weighting will have increased for the semi and the final even though it was against shit opposition. But yes, absolutely Spain could and would have won that tournament, as could most of the European nations who are in the top 10

carl_feedthegoat wrote:

LookMumImOnMCF.net wrote:Everyone knows they're bullshit.

As for you, NQDP, it's time to accept facts and move on - Lahm is in the number two team in the world.

Shrek is in the "4th best team in the world" and hes a fat useless cunt - your point is again ?

If you look above your head and listen for the wooosh, you might find it.