Are the FIFA World Rankings any good?

[Revelian]

I've just had a look at the FIFA World Rankings, and England, who have not lost a match since a friendly defeat to Italy ages ago, have slipped two places to tenth in the world.

Countries like the USA have overtaken us, because they get to play in crappy little tournaments against crap opposition. They lose more then they win, and yet they are above us.

My question is this:

Are the FIFA World Rankings a load of bollocks, or do they reflect the absolute truth?

Revelian

[kckicker23]

Originally posted by Revelian
I've just had a look at the FIFA World Rankings, and England, who have not lost a match since a friendly defeat to Italy ages ago, have slipped two places to tenth in the world.

Countries like the USA have overtaken us, because they get to play in crappy little tournaments against crap opposition. They lose more then they win, and yet they are above us.

My question is this:

Are the FIFA World Rankings a load of bollocks, or do they reflect the absolute truth?

Revelian

They mean nothing.

[jhawkinva]

I agree with you that the rankings are flawed, but the US loses more than it wins? Give me a break.

[Revelian]

Look at the Confederations Cup.

If England organised a tournament where they played against minnows constantly, would this bring our ranking up at all? This is what Brazil and the USA are doing, and it just isn't fair. I'm fed up with England being treated like Holy (************) every time FIFA or UEFA work on something.

Revelian

[nicodemus]

Originally posted by jhawkinva
I agree with you that the rankings are flawed, but the US loses more than it wins? Give me a break. This year US has ten wins, four losses and two ties. The four losses were all to teams ranked higher than us so they don't hurt our rating very much because FIFA uses "quality of opposition" to factor how much a win improves your standing or how much a loss detracts your standing.

[Revelian]

The USA play more games than England, due to tournament invites and the like. Doesn't this seem a little unfair on countries with a better win record who play fewer games per season? Why don't other teams exploit this flaw by organising friendlies against countries they know they're going to beat? I know that there is a system that exists wherein the points you get are based on the quality of opposition, but if you play enough crap teams, surely you can do what the US have done. I'm not saying that the US have done this on purpose to up their ranking. What I'm saying is that it just isn't fair at all on countries like mine, who are just too busy and too disliked to be entered into mini tournaments.

Revelian

[nicodemus]

We've only had friendlies against a few minnows this year: Canada, New Zealand, Venezuela (which would've been Japan, but Japan was either afraid to come to the USA or were protesting.) Sure, we played El Salvador, Martinique and Cuba, but those were required matches in our confederation's championship. Other friendlies have included Wales, Argentina, Paraguay, Mexico, none of which are minnows.

[IASocFan]

Originally posted by Revelian
The USA play more games than England, due to tournament invites and the like. Doesn't this seem a little unfair on countries with a better win record who play fewer games per season? Why don't other teams exploit this flaw by organising friendlies against countries they know they're going to beat? I know that there is a system that exists wherein the points you get are based on the quality of opposition, but if you play enough crap teams, surely you can do what the US have done. I'm not saying that the US have done this on purpose to up their ranking. What I'm saying is that it just isn't fair at all on countries like mine, who are just too busy and too disliked to be entered into mini tournaments.

Revelian

I believe your country is involved in a tournament - or hopes to be - called Euro 04. Next year 16 Euro teams will greatly improve their ranking by playing and qualifying for this tournament. Mexico and US will probably drop as they play Aruba and Panama in their WC Qualifying, and Europe has their time. Since the international football calendar isn't balanced, there'll be spikes as different confederations asynchronously have their competitions.

[jhawkinva]

Also, if I understand correctly, only your best seven results each year count in order to prevent "weighting" your rank.

[miko]

I don't think there is much a point having World Rankings because they are over all time(from 1991 or 1993 I think)and not just at the moment. Because of this, exellent teams at the moment like Wales are in 51st.

[ECMoney]

The Fifa Rankings are a joke.
Lets look at Italy for example:
They are ranked #14, and they fell a few spots but they are on a roll and are unbeaten in their past 7 games (I beleive) but still manage to fall two spots. Look who jumps ahead of them, Cameroon and Denmark??? What is going on here!!!
HOW is Mexico #5, USA is way to high at #9, and the best of them all.....COSTA RICA at #17....is this a joke!

IF #17 COSTA RICA played #60 SCOTLAND in a 10 game series, who would you put your money on. 5 games in Scotland and 5 games in Costa Rica.....I am almost positive that Scotland would beat Costa Rica in a 10 game series and they are ranked #60....what a joke!

[nicodemus]

Originally posted by ECMoney

IF #17 COSTA RICA played #60 SCOTLAND in a 10 game series, who would you put your money on. 5 games in Scotland and 5 games in Costa Rica.....I am almost positive that Scotland would beat Costa Rica in a 10 game series and they are ranked #60....what a joke! I would unhesitangingly bet on Costa Rica.

[miko]

Originally posted by ECMoney
The Fifa Rankings are a joke.
Lets look at Italy for example:
They are ranked #14, and they fell a few spots but they are on a roll and are unbeaten in their past 7 games (I beleive) but still manage to fall two spots. Look who jumps ahead of them, Cameroon and Denmark??? What is going on here!!!
HOW is Mexico #5, USA is way to high at #9, and the best of them all.....COSTA RICA at #17....is this a joke!

IF #17 COSTA RICA played #60 SCOTLAND in a 10 game series, who would you put your money on. 5 games in Scotland and 5 games in Costa Rica.....I am almost positive that Scotland would beat Costa Rica in a 10 game series and they are ranked #60....what a joke! I think the rankings are pointless also, but my money would be on Costa Rica.

[ECMoney]

You guys are crazy! I would rank both Scotland and Costa Rica on the same levelling terms. They are both roughly the same, I would pick Scotland to win the series 4-3 with 3 ties. It would be close but I think the Scots would pull it off.

[El CHarro_NEgro....]

Originally posted by ECMoney

IF #17 COSTA RICA played #60 SCOTLAND in a 10 game series, who would you put your money on. 5 games in Scotland and 5 games in Costa Rica.....I am almost positive that Scotland would beat Costa Rica in a 10 game series and they are ranked #60....what a joke!

Costarica all the way! I don't think that Scotland can get a point at San José (Heat, humidity, rabid fans and a quality team), but Costarica sure can get at least a tie in 5 games away.

[jhawkinva]

Costa Rica tied Turkey in the WC in a game CR should have won. They beat a Chinese side they should of and lost to Brazil in a game where they should have ended up with more than two goals.

[junjunforever]

Originally posted by jhawkinva
Costa Rica tied Turkey in the WC in a game CR should have won. They beat a Chinese side they should of and lost to Brazil in a game where they should have ended up with more than two goals.


I think this post has a chance to be nominated for the next semi annual dumbest post ever.

then costa rica should have beat japan, then should have beat senegal then should have rematched brazil and should have went to the pk and then costa rica could have won the world cup right?

[pololo]

Originally posted by ECMoney
The Fifa Rankings are a joke.
Lets look at Italy for example:
They are ranked #14, and they fell a few spots but they are on a roll and are unbeaten in their past 7 games (I beleive) but still manage to fall two spots. Look who jumps ahead of them, Cameroon and Denmark??? What is going on here!!!
HOW is Mexico #5, USA is way to high at #9, and the best of them all.....COSTA RICA at #17....is this a joke!

IF #17 COSTA RICA played #60 SCOTLAND in a 10 game series, who would you put your money on. 5 games in Scotland and 5 games in Costa Rica.....I am almost positive that Scotland would beat Costa Rica in a 10 game series and they are ranked #60....what a joke!

Scotland sucks man

[jhawkinva]

Originally posted by junjunforever
I think this post has a chance to be nominated for the next semi annual dumbest post ever.

then costa rica should have beat japan, then should have beat senegal then should have rematched brazil and should have went to the pk and then costa rica could have won the world cup right?

Okay dipshit. They should have beaten Turkey. When did I ever say they would have beaten all those teams?

[Prenn]

Originally posted by Revelian
I've just had a look at the FIFA World Rankings, and England, who have not lost a match since a friendly defeat to Italy ages ago, have slipped two places to tenth in the world.


Now come on, I know the defeat to Australia was bad but to blank it completely...? ;)