It might be that I wasn't clear. I think that Germany achieves results in terms of advancing (which is, as you stated, important) however, they do not achieve results in terms of consistently playing well (which is what I look for in a top 5 team). Some examples for this in the three tournaments in question are: 2002 - Vs. Paraguay, USA 2006 - Vs. Poland, Argentina 2008 - Vs. Croatia, Austria Combine these with some less than great results in the qualifiers: 2002: Vs. England, Finland both home games. 2006: Vs. Cyprus (away), Czech Republic (home). Compare Germany to the Netherlands in Euro 2006. The Netherlands had three great performances (maybe two great and a good) followed by an average one. Germany at best were average vs. Poland and Austria, poor vs. Croatia, Good (but not great) vs. Portugal, above average vs Turkey and less than average vs. Spain. Looking at the games (not the fact that Germany lost the finals), would you say that Germany is better than Netherlands? Croatia just beat Germany in a competitive game on a natural field and clearly were the better team throughout the game. Why should I rate Germany ahead of them? Spain is clearly ahead of Germany anyway you look at it. Brazil and Argentina are not as easy to show. What we can say is that the last time these teams played Germany in a competitive game it was in Germany and Germany was not able to win (Tie vs. Argentina in the WC and a loss to Brazil in the CC). The rest is very subjective, IMO, both Brazil and Argentina (most of the times) play a better game than Germany. Please note that I never talk about how any of these teams look on paper. I'm talking about how they look on the field and the results they archived vs. each other.
for the first time in a bit, i'd say FIFA has the first few pretty well on point. and SAGY results matter more than anything else, because its the only way to be objective in judging the teams. We might watch the same game and have different opinions on how well a team played, we won't disagree on the final result though. This is especially true when you're talking about a team that consistently comes up big in big games, and comparing them to a team that consistently flops in big games.
I'm talking results. In the last three years or so in competitive matches, at home: Lost to Brazil (CC) Lost to Italy (WC) Lost to Czech Republic (ECQ) Tied with Argentina twice (CC & WC) On Natural ground: Lost to Croatia (EC) Lost to Spain (EC) Which potential top ten team have they beaten in competitive during the last 3 years: Portugal twice (WC & EC, if you count the 3rd place match as competitive) Czech Republic (ECQ) Note that both of these are marginal top 10 teams. Sorry, but Turkey is not in the top 10. Which other teams have they beaten: Poland twice (WC, EC) Costa Rica (WC) Ecuador (WC) Slovakia twice (ECQ) San Marino twice (ECQ) Ireland (ECQ at home, tied away) Cyprus (ECQ at home, tied away) Wales (ECQ away, tied at home) Austria (EC) Sorry, but these results don't look like a top 5 team resume. The best result they have to show against a top 5 contender is 2 home draws with Argentina. Please compare the above to the results of Spain, Italy, Netherlands, Croatia, Brazil and Argentina and please tell me how many of them lost 5 competitive games on Natural/Home field in the last 3 years? How many of them have a losing percentage against top 10 teams while playing only 1 away game? I believe that Germany is a good team, even a very good team. But right now, based on results, they are not a top 5 team.
Wow, nice argument. Germany always does really well in tournaments, but if you break it down like you did, their record isn't as good as it would seem. As far as top 5, definately I would say Brazil, Argentina, Spain, Holland are better at the moment.
Brazil in current Form is more top 10 than top 5. There is no rule that Argentina and Brazil have to be in the top 5 all the time, no matter how bad they play.
I'd actually agree. Although I expect as qualifying continues on things will change, Brazil simply hasn't played like a top 5 team in recent years. Based on current form and recent results: Spain Germany Italy Argentina Netherlands If the Dutch can sustain their form for a bit, I'd be more than happy to see them move up further...
Did they not win the copa america last year beating Argentina 3-0 in the process without their 2 best players. Tournament results are much more important than friendlies or even quallifiers. A lot of teams have wierd results in qualifiers, but come together when the tournament itself takes place, Brazil has always been like this. They are easily top 5. Which of the above teams you mention has beaten a team the calibre of Argentina 3-0 in a final. This is not even debatable.
Brazil ran very hot and cold through the Copa before they woke up and played the Argies off the field. But yes, they certainly earn credit for peaking at the right time. I disagree that WCQ results are somehow less important. Sure, the 18 game system in Conmebol allows for a few stray results, but Brazil has played poorly thusfar. Their FIFA and ELO ranking reflect that. One other factor that's hard to avoid is that Europe just had it's big tournament. As a result, people are going to rank those teams that performed well at the Euros higher in the short term. There's no reason to think that Brazil won't be back in the Top 3, let alone 5, in the next year...
Brazil haven't been good of late, there's no denying it , but their last tournament, just a year ago speaks for itself. And yes qualifying is not nearly as important as looking at tournaments here is why. Brazil has always lost to the likes of Paraguay and Uruguay in WCQ, but they always do well in tournaments where they most likely would not lose to these teams. How well do teams like Uruguay or Paraguay do in a WC ? Wasn't it the 2002 WC Brazil won where they almost failed to qualify for the WC, it could have been 1998 but they still made the final. Example in europe, many teams in europe do very well in WCQ or ECQ but do poorly in the tournament itself. You could look at a team like Poland who did better than Portugal in qualifying. What happened in the tournament itself, Poland were very poor, while Portugal played some sweet soccer at times, making the QF. Same can be said of Poland at the last WC. If teams can't perform in tournaments, who cares about their qualifying results, they often have no indication of a teams true quality. In CAF qualifying the top teams always have poor results on the road, teams like GHana , Morocco, Egypt losing to teams like Gabon, Rwanda, Malawi respectively. Does this mean they wouldn't do well in tournaments despite losing to statistically weak opposition, of course not. Qualifying is qualifying it is completley different than tourneys, and despite setbacks, poor form, strange results, the cream usually rises to the top, while many teams who looked good in qualifying may be found out once a tourney begins. Teams in qualifying often are not in their rythym, perhaps missing key players, do not take games as seriously (YES do not take qualifiers as seriously as tournaments), are often not focused and tired (due to club commitments) The stakes just aren't there sometimes. For example you may have a team like Portugal playing away to Latvia. The Portugese all playing for big clubs may underestimate the Latvians, they may be tired having to look to a champions league game up and comming, and just might not be that motivated against a side that may come out guns blazing in front of a hostile home crowd, the end result could very well be an upset. Point being tournaments are a far better judge of a teams strength than qualifying, you always get strange things happening in qualifying. Tournaments are more focused and indicative of true quality.
out of all the teams in the world, the one I fear the most when they come into my stadium is Argentina. Unlike Brazil or Spain or Holland or Italy they are a team that goes out and whips the crap out of you at home. They always have been. Playing Brazil at home or Italy or Spain is a challenge, but Argentina is at a different level. the best away team in the world
So what you are saying is that the other teams that are behind Germany in FIFA rankings are simply behind because their results are not as good as those of the German team because they....what? 1. have harder opposition in tournaments than Germany? 2. don't consistently get the results required to move up the FIFA rankings? Sounds like boo-hoo excuses to me. Your argument is well presented and makes some interesting points but remember, the number one ranked team is just that - the number one ranked team....it does not mean "best" team. So Germany is second in FIFA rankings...it would be naive to call them the second best team in the world however! But, I do believe that they can beat any team on a good day. I believe this because that is what makes it such a great sport - any team can do this! So, does Germany deserve their placement in the rankings? Their results say, "yes"!
3. Copa America took place more than a year ago D semi-joking). The real reason is is peculiarity (not saying right or wrong) of the FIFA ranking, consider the following: Code: [B]Team Jun Aug %Cng[/B] Germany 1274 1343 5% Italy 1424 1320 -7% Brazil 1513 1242 -18% Argentina 1559 1219 -22% To you really think that Brazil and Argentina today are 80% the quality they were two month ago? Italy hasn't played since June 22nd, yet between July 2nd and today they lost 84 points, Brazil without playing a game since June 18th lost 102 points, Argentina lost 79. BTW, Germany lost 21 points during this period without playing a game. For an extreme example, look at Mexico. Since July 2nd they lost 156 points (17%) without playing a game!!! Since June 4th they lost 270 (26%).How many games have they lost during these 2 months? One - a friendly to the number 1 ranked team at the time They won three other games (including two WCQ) without giving up a goal. I'm not saying the Mexico should have moved up based on these results (or even stayed the same). But there is no way these results justify the claim that Mexico today is less than 3/4 as good as Mexico 2 month ago. For comparison only, in ELO since June 4th: Argentina: down to 1999 from 2003 Brazil: down to 1987 from 2063 Italy: down to 1985 from 2005 Germany: up to 1945 from 1932 Mexico: down to 1871 from 1874 I'm not sure that the ELO methodology is the "right one". but these movements (percentage wise) seems to be more in line based on results than the ones we see in the FIFA ranking. But this is not the point I was attempting to make. My claim was that at this point in time (post Euro 2008, pre-WCQ) Germany is not one of the five best teams in the world. I don't have a problem with FIFA ranking them 2nd, all it means is that I disagree with the FIFA ranking - no more, no less. Thanks and total agreement. again, 100% agreement!!! Based on FIFA's ranking rules (algorithm) - Yes. Based on results - No! (This is were we have to agree to disagree).
Brazil play no friendly in August and some older results will be devaluated , they will probably lose more ranking points in September ranking ?
Doesn't work that way. The rankings are a weighted average of past results. So if the devalued results were bad results, then your ranking will increase.
If the devalued results were good results , the ranking points will go down. For Brazil it must be a mixture of good and bad results from previous years. Im sure that Edgar got it right
Yeah, Edgar always gets it right. I love his website because he's always on the money. I just spend a lot of time around these forums explaining to people how these rankings work, haha.