USA up to 9th in FIFA standings [Archive] - Page 2

View Full Version : USA up to 9th in FIFA standings

Pages : 1 [2] 3 4 5

Alex_1

14 Aug 2002, 12:45 PM

What more could FIFA do? The rankings will never appease anyone and to be honest, some teams deserve to rank lower than others despite the cup.

However what I think would be best, is for the rankings to be valid for 4 year cycles... start at the WC. With a unified calendar, which I think is coming close to really happening, it may be more feasible to put in the confederation championships and find a more accurate way to measure competitions and friendlies.

nicodemus

14 Aug 2002, 12:46 PM

Is this the first time (besides Mexico) that a non-UEFA or non-CONMEBOL side has cracked the top 10? Just curious.

SoFla Metro

14 Aug 2002, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by paulocesar
so let me get this straight....the U.S. beats Portugal and Mexico, yet they are ranked higher...

....and South Korea and Turkey make it to the Semis of the World Cup, yet are ranked lower....

!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Each time that list comes out, I just have to laugh... And the U.S. beat England in 1950 and Germany in a friendly a few years back. Surely we should be ranked higher than those teams.

paulocesar

14 Aug 2002, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by SoFla Metro
And the U.S. beat England in 1950 and Germany in a friendly a few years back. Surely we should be ranked higher than those teams.

Man......does anyone know how to read????

Like I said before AGAIN...(well, genius, looks like you missed it)...I couldn't care less for friendlies...why you mention U.S. vs Germany is beyond me. You know what though...i gladly hope you enjoyed all the glory that came with that friendly....hmmm....which was ...NONE!!

And England vs U.S. in 1950??? Please, would you even know about that game if it wasn't for BS and Ty Keough drooling over it time after time.

Tell me how many wins England has in the World Cup vs the U.S. Then maybe you can get back to me...

As if you understood my point...the whole Fifa ranking system is just a crooked way for federations to pay Fifa into pushing them up the list. If you want a list more legitamate, use William Hill for your betting service...that is if your wallet is where your mouth is!!!! (and i can tell you that betting service ain't too legit either...but i'd use it a million times over than a Fifa ranking)

Pyro

14 Aug 2002, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by paulocesar

Plus, didn't Korea also beat the U.S. "on home soil too."?!?!? Ya know what, who cares!?!?! If you've read my posts before, friendlies are as useful as a Jeff Agoos on defense....give me important games if you want to analyse the 8 year progress of a team.

Since when is the Gold Cup (U.S. vs. S. Korea 1/02) a friendly? That is the match I'm referring to.

Originally posted by paulocesar

So there........man, that ranking really bothers me...can't believe there are people out there that actually like it (and worse...seem to believe it!?!?!?)

Lay off the tyranny brother.
God knows the system is inherantly flawed and nobody should take the rankings too seriously, but you could build a case for and against every teams ranking.

ramckay

14 Aug 2002, 01:44 PM

I stopped participating in these threads quite a while ago because so many feel the need to point out that the rankings don't reflect the actual state of football.

Thanks for pointing this out to us. Without you, our poor, ignorant pea brains wouldn't have been able to figure this out.

Thank you, oh illuminati, for brightening the path for all the rest, the unenlightened. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

You see, without you explaining how the rankings are flawed, that the rankings don't actually reflect in any way whether or not a team wins a real match, we would have gone on in ignorance. We would always believe that since Mexico is rated higher than Holland, Mexico would win every time. How fortunate we are to have you bring us into touch with the truth!

Suddenly we see the rankings for what they are: a waste of time, or worse, a contrivance put in place by FIFA to manipulate betting lines. They are a farce. And yet, they are something that we should all laugh at, make fun of, at which we ought to shake our heads in scornful disdain, and pity, for now we see past the facade. WE ARE FREE!

paulocesar

14 Aug 2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by Pyro

Since when is the Gold Cup (U.S. vs. S. Korea 1/02) a friendly? That is the match I'm referring to.

Lay off the tyranny brother.
God knows the system is inherantly flawed and nobody should take the rankings too seriously, but you could build a case for and against every teams ranking.

You're right about one thing....Nobody should take the rankings seriously...

And as far as having mistaken a Gold Cup match with a friendly (uhhh ...what's the difference...I'm sure the blood is already boiling) ...my bad...

Wait a sec...HAH...just had to look at that list again and laugh....

paulocesar

14 Aug 2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by ramckay
I stopped participating in these threads quite a while ago because so many feel the need to point out that the rankings don't reflect the actual state of football.

Thanks for pointing this out to us. Without you, our poor, ignorant pea brains wouldn't have been able to figure this out.

Thank you, oh illuminati, for brightening the path for all the rest, the unenlightened. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts.

You see, without you explaining how the rankings are flawed, that the rankings don't actually reflect in any way whether or not a team wins a real match, we would have gone on in ignorance. We would always believe that since Mexico is rated higher than Holland, Mexico would win every time. How fortunate we are to have you bring us into touch with the truth!

Suddenly we see the rankings for what they are: a waste of time, or worse, a contrivance put in place by FIFA to manipulate betting lines. They are a farce. And yet, they are something that we should all laugh at, make fun of, at which we ought to shake our heads in scornful disdain, and pity, for now we see past the facade. WE ARE FREE!

Praise the lord, my brother....praise the lord...lol

eldiablito

14 Aug 2002, 02:15 PM

Originally posted by paulocesar

And for future responders who say, "What would you do???", I'd say...scrap the whole system and do what most sensible people do...

Think of the Football world as a Three Tier system...you got your heavyweights...(Brazil, Argentina, Italy, etc.) your middleweights (I would say the U.S. has proved this for a while now), and your lightweights (St. Vincent and the Grenadines!?!?).

Sometimes you have a middleweight punching above its weight, but most of the time you don't. A lot of times we see countries like Bulgaria, Sweeden, Colombia, Denmark, Portugal, Nigeria, come with a great generation and cause upsets, but then they suck again until they get a new golden generation. Yeah, there's upsets...but when you have consistent performance in important competitions time after time after time, then I'd say your punching with the big boys.

I don't mean to boil your blood any more, but how is your three-tiered system any different than the current FIFA ranking, besides the fact that it's more detailed?

Your heavyweights are ranked #1, #2, and #9.

Your middleweight is currently punching above its weight class at #9; tied with one of the big boys, Italy, who has suffered from some questionable officiating (but then that's boxing, damn judges always taking the bribe ;))

Your lightweight is not in the top 100. It looks like you and FIFA's list agree, it's just that they've decided to tell you who's punching above/below their weight class.

benine

14 Aug 2002, 02:21 PM

I've never had the typical Mexico hate that US soccer fans have, but really, 6th?

mcontento

14 Aug 2002, 02:41 PM

Originally posted by benine
I've never had the typical Mexico hate that US soccer fans have, but really, 6th?

they did well in Copa America and the WC. Not to hard to figure that one out.

njb3358

14 Aug 2002, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by NASL Fan
Yeah, and the two teams we beat in WC2002 are 6th (Mex) and 9th (Port). The Netherlands is 14th. And Colombia is 15th, ahead of 18 other teams that played in the World Cup...

Copa America carries a lot of points, Colombia is 15th for that reason. Mexico is 6th for the same reason.

njb3358

14 Aug 2002, 02:54 PM

ramckay

14 Aug 2002, 02:59 PM

Originally posted by benine
I've never had the typical Mexico hate that US soccer fans have, but really, 6th? It's based on a points system.

flanoverseas

14 Aug 2002, 03:13 PM

Cool, we're the 9th best team in the world.

Worm Burner

14 Aug 2002, 03:21 PM

Who cares how "accurate" the rankings really are. This is great because it puts USA soccer in front of the media and general population again and helps us gain more respect in with the US media.

It is currently a top news link on espn.com

superdave

14 Aug 2002, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by VFish
The US breaking the top ten and New Zealand's dramatic move highlight the most glaring defect of FIFA's system... all Contential Championships are weighted equally.
You're wrong.

dcc134

14 Aug 2002, 04:24 PM

Mexico is one of a handful of teams to make the Quarters 3 WC in a row. They finished ahead of the US in Qualifying, etc. Depending on the lag time of these rankings (the US moved up from July despite not playing any games during that month), these August rankings may still include the 94 WC, although I'm just speculating.

A closer look at the rankings shows only a 19 point difference between the US/Italy in 9th and Mexico in 6th, while there is a 31 point difference between Mexico in 6th and Germany in 5th. So we aren't all that far behind them.

I actually think these ranking are pretty accurate this time around. But of course they mean nothing :)

superdave

14 Aug 2002, 04:26 PM

Originally posted by dcc134
Mexico is one of a handful of teams to make the Quarters 3 WC in a row
You mean knockout round. Mexico has only made the quarters the two times it hosted.

united16

14 Aug 2002, 04:35 PM

We should be ranked higher than Mexico...

These rankings are TOTALLY meaningless. For years they had the Czech republic #2 and then Colombia when both were failing to qualify for tournaments.

Continuing the trend...why the hell is Argentina ranked #2?

Overall good news for the US and a sign of respect.

But it still troubles me that stiffs like Chris Sutton are scoring in the Champions League while Landon Donovan and Clint Mathis are not...