Here they are, we are 6th now and 13th in Elo rankings. I am satisfied with the new rankings, 1 point behind France. http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,All-Feb-2006,00.html
What the hell does it matter. These rankings provide a completely misleading guideline as to a teams ability. To have the USA ranked above England is just ludicrous. I am a Scotland fan so don't think I have any sympathy towards the English either. The US may beat England on any given day. But if every team in the world played each other in a league format, the US would finish at least 10 places behind England in my opinion.
Ah, in your opinion? Well, FIFA for some reason doesn't care what your opinion is, and they too, wonder, What the hell does it matter? Take the rankings for what they're worth, but I don't understand this desire to dismiss the ranking system altogether because it doesn't match your (not you specifically, tino11) opinion. It's a formula, not some guy sitting in a dark room drawing names from a hat. The formula may need to be refined, but not everyone's going to be happy with the results no matter what. I think it's interesting, and good for US soccer, to see the team move up a spot in both the FIFA and ELO rankings.
How is it good for US soccer though when everyone knows it means nothing? I agree the formula is flawed because of the confederation system mainly. Do you agree with the world league idea I put forward, or do you think the US would finish above England in that theoratical scenario?
When March comes around, the USA will have probably had more February friendlies than most other top 10 teams. I'm anxious to see how they get tallied. If Ghana can tie Mexico and we beat Guatemala, I wonder if we could somehow break the deadlock at 6th place?
Why are you talking about its meaning? If it has no meaning it would go unnoticed but it doesn't. Why would people constantly bring up something that they believe has no basis in facts? Why do these rankings create so many posts and some press coverage?
It gets so many post deicated to it by supporters of teams it artificially inflates. I am not being anti-US here just pointing out the inadequacies in the system. How many times does a Brazilian or England supporter start a thread on the FIFA rankings? Can you answer my original question (above) or would that invalidate the ranking system, and shoot your argument down?
the ranking is garbage, but foreigners must understand that we've never had such a high meaningless ranking before... hence the bit of excitement beyond that, many US fans are relatively new to the sport, and i'm all for whatever gets them excited about the team
While I don't think it ludicrous to think we could rank above England, I agree in general that England could be considered a better team than the US. I DO find it ludicrous that you think we would finish 10 places behind England in a league format. Being kind, I would place England about 5th, assuming four of Brazil, Argentina, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Germany, Holland and Portugal would finish above England....exactly which other seven teams would fit in between the US and England? BTW...after this World Cup, I hope you find the teams that would place above the US in the list I gave above, smaller by at least two!! Which I don't think is really all that ludicrous to think.
I'm glad to see that these rankings are doing EXACTLY what FIFA wants them to do-- get all of us talking about Int'l (as opposed to club) soccer. Anyway, I think that England is a more talented squad than the US, but I think the US would do very well in a "world league". We play so few matches with our best players together b/c of the split continents on which they play. Also, the US team has always been more about teamwork and the whole being greater than the sum of its parts-- playing together consistently would benefit us more than many other teams. The scary thought, though, is how good Brazil would be if their A team played together on a consistent basis. Wow.
Why is it that the US is ranked so high ? not that i dissagree or un-happy but it's a little questionable, isn't it ? we are higher than england, portugal, Italy, Germany etc .....but, it feels great
Ah Fifa rankings, the "red tide" of big soccer. They come around every month and get most people in a crappy mood.
The thing that irks me is that the only possible advantage to these half-baked ratings is that they might have helped the US get seeded for the World Cup. They didn't. So I find them worse than ridiculous - even a little embarassing. Just my opinion...
Spain France Ukraine Switzerland Turkey Croatia Sweeden Possible Rep. Ireland Mexico I really only considered Europe an the Americas. I am not up on African and Asian football really.
I'm willing to concede Spain and France....but after that my opinion is that you're reaching. While the US team doesn't have superstars per se like C. Ronaldo, Henry, etc. They have been working in the same system with each other for pretty much 8 years in a row now. They know their strengths, weaknesses, and abilities and play within themselves. They can change up their style when needed and are always prepared and their depth has dramatically improved over the past 4 years. WC02 was just the begining.
The high ranking feels good, even if we (USMNT fans) know it counts for nothing once the opening whistle blows. And tino11, it is always refreshing for dissenting opinions, but I'm afraid you did get called out there on your ten places comment. Those teams you list do not make for a convincing argument. Both the US and Mexico would finish ahead of most of those teams.
i could very well quibble with some of your others choices... but friggin' switzerland? it is time to put down the nestle's and step away slowly
You have to give me some slack, I was set the task after goussoccer set England at 5th place, so I have to place the US at 15th. However I do think 6 of those teams would finish higher. The point being as has been argued so many times before that the standard and level of competition in Europe is the highest (fair or not) so even teams who did not get to the WC are of a superior standard to some top teams in the other Confederations. For example Re. Ireland are a better team than Austrailia. Most European teams consider wining the European Championships is harder than the World Cup. As the level of games you have to play from the start is higher. I am not being a "eurosnob" about this, and I believe it is unfair. However that is how it is.