IMO - A new ranking system is needed

still a garbage ranking... usa on 18th? they should be in top 30. italy? greece? mexico? what are those weaklings doing there? where's japan? what a load of crap

 

I think the only thing that needs to be changed is the rule that teams cannot get negative points. Brazil is still #1 because they got so many d*mn points from the last 2 World Cups that no one else can catch them. If they win or draw a match, they just add to that total but if they lose then they don't go down any. Like you said, Oceania just had qualifying and EVERY team moved up. That's because they all gained points for wins/draws and didn't lose any for games they lost. The only teams who didn't move up were American Samoa and Cook Islands... because they lost all of their games. FIFA just needs to make it so that teams lose points when they lose games and I think the rankings would be much better.

 

I can't believe you think that Czech can beat Brazil that's terrible. I might give it to France because they beat em in 98 but that was a long time ago things have changed. I don't like how you have Spain 4th I think Germany, a huge powerhouse in Europe, can rape Spain, Portugal, Sweden, Romania, and Ireland. You get the picture. Your rankings suck, just because a team has proven themselves at a small little tourny doesn't mean they should be ranked 1st, when was the last time the Czech even made the world cup. Yet alone advace threw. I also think the US should be ranked higher. Here are my rankings.

1. Brazil
2. France
3. Argentina
4. England
5. Italy
6. Turkey
7. Netherlands
8. Mexico
9. US
10. Sweden
11. Portugal
12. Czech
13. Denmark
14. Ireland
15. Greece
16. Belgium???
17. Croatia
18. South Korea
19. Russia
20. Poland

 

I know this is a petty point but Mexico clearly did NOT reach the quarterfinals in 2002.

 

I don't think anybody but Brazil should be first, but the Czechs at 12? They are porbably the second best team in the world right now, with France third.

Mcruic, the problem with yours is that recent results count too much. How are you going to have Greece as the 8th best team in the world, regardless of how well they do in Euro?

I do agree though that Turkey at 5 is garbage considering they haven't done much since WC02.

 

Japan is in 18th place but colombia beat japan so why isnt colombia on the top 20?

France was beat by greece so why isnt it in the top 20?


Colombia beat uruguay and peru teams brazil tied to why isnt colombia in the top 20?

 

Everytime I read these threads I laugh because it's really splitting hairs. I think when you see next months FIFA rankings--they are going to look suprisingly similar to what you have just posted (with a couple African or Asian teams taking the place of Romania and Belgium).

 

Complaining about the FIFA rankings over-rating a single World Cup performance, and then turning right around and massively over-rating a single European Cup performance is downright hilarious. Greece is clearly at least #8 and the Czechs are #1 if we go exclusively by the results of the last three weeks. But don't you want to consider the possibility that results over the last several years should matter? How can you complain about the World Cup champion being ranked #1? I would think that the World Cup champion should always be considered strongly for the #1 slot, just as the European champion should be considered pretty high up.

As for the Oceania anomalies - that doesn't seem like a huge problem. Any time you try to come up with an arbitrary system, there will be bizarre anomalies if every team does not play exactly the same schedule. Heavily weighting recent results of meaningful matches means teams will spike when they are most active.

ELO systems have major issues as well, particularly with respect to assigning far too much importance to single matches. You can try to justify the Czechs as #1 IF they win the Euro, but if they don't, how can you say they're clearly better than Portugal/Greece/Netherlands?

The ranking remains trivial to seeding. FIFA winds up using magic tricks to justify seeding for the World Cup, so the rankings remain just an indicator and a talking point. The only teams whose rankings are majorly off-kilter either a) have some excellent recent results that you're not giving much credit to (US and Mexico), or b) don't play many matches (Australia).

 

Because they can compete with and defeat any of the other top ten teams on any given day. What baffles me is how Mexico can be so far ahead of the US in the Fifa and your rankings, when, since 2000, the US has won 6, lost 1, and drawn 1 against Mexico.

 

what a load of crap. they both suck and should never be in top 20 even top 30.

 

and usa beat their concacaf fellow mexico to go to quarter final while they kept begging 24/7 when they almost got eliminated in the first round after losing to the weak poland 1-3. since then what have they done to get them in the top 20 spot? all i remember is their sick performance in the confede cup. their claim often makes me vomit

 

shut up idiot

 

.....................................................................................

Don't worry, One day your ..father,Fughorn-Leghorn,will
initiate you in the complicated and 'unbiased' world of
football and then you will see why US is rated higher than Japan and other countries!
Until then, keep you little chiken beak..closed!!

 

...................................................................................

Germany can rape Romania anytime they want??

Well,that shows how much you know about footbal and why nobody should take your list seriously!!
For you information, it was quite the ..reverse!! A second string romanian team 'violated'(rape is an ugly word) Germany so bad that they never recovered even at the Euros! 5-1!! si that the rape you're talking about??
Stop acting like you know something!!!

Czech rep. in 12 th??

You are a nincampoop!! Is not even what they do at the Euros, do you know what they've been doing for the past 2 years? jesus

 

I would rank the top 10 teams as:

1. Brazil
2. Czech Republic
3. France
4. Portugal
5. Italy
6. Argentina
7. England
8. Netherlands
9. Denmark
10. Spain

 

............................................................................

This is a more realistic top 10 with one exeption: Italy is still to high,they should be...71!

 

haha where's japan... what exactly has japan done to be ahead of the u.s. and mexico? if u go by the rankings, mexico beat brazil twice and won the gold cup(which sadly gave them many points, especiall since they beat brazil in the final) and the u.s. made it farther than japan did in the world cup. the same world cup that japan co-organized and had their fans there.. also, the u.s. lost 1-0 to eventual runner up germany. also , the rankings span over about ten years, in which japan has improved nicely, but has not done more than either mexico or the u.s.
but it is a shame that the rankings seem so arbitrary. mexico is definitely not the 4th best nation and will likely not be 4th best for a while.czech republic has been up there for the past years even though they failed to qualify to the last two world cups and the 2000 eurocup. right now they are no doubt one of the top nations, but they had been ranked second in september of 99 after failing to qualify for teh world cup in 98. the system just seems too random , too faulty.

 

Why do you have to HATE? Reach out and embrace your fellow Man.

 

Hey, I agree with you 100%. I'm assuming you meant to quote the original thread-starter (as opposed to me). Either way, no worries--this thread has devolved into something better suited for world rivalries (except usually that's funnier).

 

The day Hamatachi gets red, would be a sad day in bigsoccer history

Back on topic:
No. I don't think a new ranking system is needed at all. The FIFA list isn't supposed to be read as "who is better than", it's a list based on the results these countries have had, and only shows which countries has had the best results of all the teams.

You will NEVER get a list where it shows which team is positively better than the other, and where being in the top place means that you would defeat all the other squads beneath you....because.....because this is football dang nabbit!

Any team in the top, let's say, 20 could beat a team from the same top 20 on their good day...or God forbid draw with them. No two teams are the same: taking the CL as an example, and the all-believed rule that English clubs usually do better against Italians, Italians against Spanish, Spanish against English...so ¿who should be above who in such a list? ¿Did the chicken come first, or the egg? Sweet Nelly! My head is going to explode!

On your list as well: Greece is #9, but where is Russia? Didn't they beat Greece? Doesn't that mean they should be above Greece? Yet Spain drew with Greece so should be level with them....but...above Russia?

There will NEVER be a list you cannot bítch about, the one FIFA is using makes the most sense if only people would stop using the list to 'prove' your team is better than someone else's, when it only shows your team has had better results, but could still easily lose against the team below you on the list....because this is football dang nabbit!

 

u make a good point... except i didn't like your dang nabbits. but i like what you said.

 

yes, when the last time i got a red card many people tried to commit a suicide. i successfully detered all of them and came back here again with honor