Don't pay too much attention to world rankings myself. I've got them on a par with the mindless "stats" that commentators prattle on about during a particularly boring passage of play. Why the feck we felt the need to import stuff like "assists" and the like from American sports is beyond me.
England are the fourth best team in the world....Officially!!! | Now 15th
- Thread starter MPTutd
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) was joined by comedian Ali Woods to look back at the best and worst moments of a rollercoaster season with the annual United Hour Awards.
Has Ten Hag been sacked yet? We're not sure and we hope not, but it's looking more likely as the days pass.
Who should replace him and why is it taking so long to make a decision?
The rankings are important because they determine seedings for the world cup next year (assuming we get there, of course).
Being outside the top 8 will guarantee England at least one tricky fixture. Slipping any more and they could be in danger of being 3rd seed
Asian and African teams have recently been playing more games so naturally they are moving more up or down in the rankings as of late.
Rankings are nothing more than grist for pub talk, but stats can be useful for gaining insights tha aren't obvious to the naked eye. Embrace them!
"Now 15th" 
Doesn't qualifying guarantee three tricky fixtures? lololol, nah I like England and want them to do well.
http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html
It's above in recent posts, but this makes it easier for people to see where we are. That table actually does look like a fair reflection on current nations' performances, we have truly been terrible and don't deserve to be anywhere near top 5 like we were last time, beating teams like San Marino for feck's sake.
On another note, how the feck are Colombia so high up at 3rd? They must have been bitchslapping teams recently to get up so high.
It's above in recent posts, but this makes it easier for people to see where we are. That table actually does look like a fair reflection on current nations' performances, we have truly been terrible and don't deserve to be anywhere near top 5 like we were last time, beating teams like San Marino for feck's sake.
On another note, how the feck are Colombia so high up at 3rd? They must have been bitchslapping teams recently to get up so high.
A win and a draw in the last month, but because they were qualifiers it got them a ton of points.
The FIFA World Cup rankings are dross
no serious rankings would have England anywhere near the top 10 - England are sh*te......
no serious rankings would have England anywhere near the top 10 - England are sh*te......
Far too big a deal made of this, England have only played one competitive game of note since October hence the ranking has dropped to reflect that, a couple of wins to end the qualifying (which is far from assured so far) with games against Montenegro, Ukraine, and Poland in September and October, and they'll be back somewhere in the top 10 again.
Of course the poor form and lack of wins earlier in qualifying are also shown. The world rankings get way too much criticism really, they're pretty fair, most peoples complaints are borne out of ignorance or judging on performances over results.
Of course the poor form and lack of wins earlier in qualifying are also shown. The world rankings get way too much criticism really, they're pretty fair, most peoples complaints are borne out of ignorance or judging on performances over results.
Ridiculously, the world cup doesn't work like that. In the world cup, the top 7+hosts, are seeded, and the rest are divided by country...
Except that might not be true. It was true in 2010, but Fifa are twats and haven't announced how it will work yet. It may not be possible for that to work anyway, last time there were 8 European teams outside the top7+ hosts. That night not be true this time.
Regardless. FIFA are twats. We don't know how seedlings will work.
They see me trolling.
The FIFA rankings have always been flaky - they depend to too great an extent on who has played the most competitive matches recently. That's why Brazil (and England) currently have such low rankings and Colombia are so high. (That's not to say that Colombia don't deserve to have advanced in the rankings - their rise is just exaggerated by the FIFA system.) The Elo ratings are much less volatile and, in my opinion at least, a better indicator of relative position. (www.eloratings.net)
True for Brazil. England are still probably punching above their weight at 15th, tbh.
15th is probably still too high. Rankings are a load of shit anyway.
Down two places i'm afraid.
1
There are only 1st seeds, rest of each group is determined by geographical location
These were the pots for 2010
1314: Pot Four: France, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Greece, Serbia, Denmark, Slovakia.
1313: Pot Three: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Cameroon, Nigeria, Algeria, Paraguay, Chile, Uruguay.
1312: Pot Two: Japan, South Korea, North Korea, Australia, New Zealand, United States, Mexico, Honduras.
1311: Pot One: South Africa, Brazil, Spain, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, Argentina, ENGLAND.
Only European seeded team can have another European in their group, other groups have 4 teams from 4 continents
*Probably, as thats what they did last time, but there is no official confirmation yet. FIFA love changing the rules half way through
Good point
So we're down to 17th now? At what point do we run the risk of not beeing seeded?
8th or lower!
Uh oh!
So we won't be seeded for the WC should we get there (providing those above us also get there)? I take it that will effect us for subsequent qualifier draws too? Damn...
Won't have any meaningful impact on the qualifiers for the euros. Anyway, there's 24 teams to that comp so will be no problem qualifying.
Does it matter? There's always an excuse or scapegoat for the media to vilify anyway.
We were close to not qualifying and now look like we could be seeded along with Brazil, Argentina and Colombia 
Thanks feck for the Confeds Cup.
How are the playoffs chosen for the WC groups? Which second place team faces the other second place team? How do they choose that?
Belgium are 6th, I can't quite believe it
Leekens can claim whatever he wants (there was a minor controversy in the media recently about the previous NT manager Georges Leekens who had put "Builder of probably the best Belgian A-National Team ever" on his resumé), but this is all down to Wilmots taking over. Can't remember any time in the past decade that we displayed such consistency in both our performances and results.
England will likely qualify and get out of their group, another R16/QF finish IMO.
@anto, do you think that Tabárez will stick with Forlán if you make it to Brazil or will he dare to make changes? And do you believe that Suárez could pull off a WC like Forlán did in South Africa?
Leekens can claim whatever he wants (there was a minor controversy in the media recently about the previous NT manager Georges Leekens who had put "Builder of probably the best Belgian A-National Team ever" on his resumé
), but this is all down to Wilmots taking over. Can't remember any time in the past decade that we displayed such consistency in both our performances and results.England will likely qualify and get out of their group, another R16/QF finish IMO.
@anto, do you think that Tabárez will stick with Forlán if you make it to Brazil or will he dare to make changes? And do you believe that Suárez could pull off a WC like Forlán did in South Africa?