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 and Imran @Annihilate Now! start with the good news by celebrating Manchester United Women's emphatic FA Cup win over Spurs at Wembley and the future of manager Marc Skinner.
Then it's the bad news and the ever worsening form of our Men with losses to Arsenal and Palace.
Finally the main debate - ETH Out now or keep him until the end of the season - if not longer. Are you Team Nik or Team Imran?
The ranking could be over the last 16 years, and still England wouldn't be a top 4 European or World team.
I don't care what an algorithm says, England are awful and have never made the semis / been a top 4 team in the last 16 years in any major tournament. So how can they be ranked a top 4 team, when they consistently go out in the quarters? By winning glorified friendlies? Beating Bulgaria means feck all if you can't string two passes together in extra time of a quarterfinal
Sadly, we would. When I say "we" I mean the English media. Honestly we would be.
I'm not sure what you mean by that, but the ranking is over 6 years.
A better methodology really needs to be looked at. Condorcet methods, used in some elections, could be a better gauge.
Yeah they would buyt they are the type of people who think Carroll had a good tournament.
I'm not sure what ranking you are talking about regarding 6 years. Are you talking club coefficients?
That's how they seed for groups. Last three competitions are averaged together. But they update the ranking every two years. Like some sort of biennial report. Not sure what the point of it is.
Yes. They look at each tournament separately, so its over 6 years because they look at Euro 2008 Qualifying and Finals (2 years), World Cup 2010 Qualifying and Finals (2 years), Euro 2012 Qualifying (1.5 years, round up to 2). 6 years.
For seeding the Euro 2016 tournament in France they will look at:
For seeding the Euro 2016 tournament in France they will look at:
For seeding the Euro 2016 qualification round they will look at:
How would that work?
Alright, so six years. What's the deal with the 2 year evaluation? I'd think this list would be constantly updating after every game. Don't see any reason why it shouldn't.
I don't know. The FIFA version is updated every month and "generates a lot of excitement" according to FIFA. UEFA only need there's three times every two years so maybe they don't bother with it unless they need it.
The Club Fair Play awards are updated every 3 months, I think the UEFA Club Ranking is updated every month.
Lots of bureaucracy at UEFA.
Wilshire, Cleverly and Carrick instantly make England much, much better.
England were dull and boring but were pretty well organized with a very good back 4 and an excellent young keeper that will get better.
And then you have Rooney up front with Welbeck.
I don't think they are too far away from Italy, Holland, or France at all.
England were dull and boring but were pretty well organized with a very good back 4 and an excellent young keeper that will get better.
And then you have Rooney up front with Welbeck.
I don't think they are too far away from Italy, Holland, or France at all.
Friendlies should be worth feck all points for these rankings.
Real matches are worth 2.5-4 times as much. Not too bad.
Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/...do-other-sports-decide-whos-best-7917625.html
The recently-published Fifa rankings drew much criticism
after England were heralded as the fourth-best football side in the world.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics perhaps, but how have Fifa’s notoriously complex rankings formula got it so wrong this time?
England haven’t reached the last four of a major competition for sixteen years, but according to the statistics they remain a better side than Portugal, Italy and Brazil.
Here’s a guide to see how the rankings are determined, and how other major sports calculate their lists and whether they are doing a better job....
FOOTBALL
Points are based on the results of all Fifa-recognised full international matches.
Points are awarded for the result and importance of the match, multiplied by the strength and confederation of the opposition (Result x Importance x Strength x Confederation). Rankings are based on a team's performance over the last four years. Therefore beating Spain in a World Cup match would gain the maximum 2400 points (3x4x200x1).
The current system has been in place since the 2006 World Cup, where the time frame was reduced from eight to four years.
TENNIS
Fifa’s rankings are based on the previous four-year period. Alternatively, the South African Airways ATP Rankings are formulated from the immediate past 52 weeks, except for the World Tour Finals which take place following the last regular-season ATP event of the year.
Weighted in favour of performances in the Grand Slams, Novak Djokovic is the current world number one, with the Serbian having come within one match of becoming the first man since Rod Laver to hold all four major titles at the same time.
Maria Sharapova is the current women’s number one following her French Open victory. The women’s rankings have drawn criticism in the past however, notably when Caroline Wosniacki spent 67 weeks as world number one without having won a single Grand Slam.
GOLF
The official golf rankings are computed on a rolling two-year basis.
Ranking points are ascribed to the six leading professional tours, weighted, as with tennis, towards the four major tournaments. The average ranking is found by dividing total points by tournaments played.
A logical, albeit complex system, has Luke Donald as current world number one having never won a major. The Englishman did become the first man to win the US and European money lists in one year in 2011 however.
RUGBY
Unlike the time-based lists of other sports, the IRB World Rankings are calculated using a 'Points Exchange' system, in which sides take points off each other based on the match result. Whatever one side gains, the other loses. The exchanges are based on the match result, the relative strength of each team, and the margin of victory, and there is an allowance for home advantage.
Points exchanges are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the unique importance of the event, but all other full international matches are treated the same.
World champions New Zealand top the current list.
SNOOKER
Like golf, snooker’s world ranking is based on performances over a two-year period. The point allocation is updated after every tournament and is dependent on the importance of each tournament, with the world championship receiving a greater distribution of points than the others.
2007 World Championships runner-up Mark Selby currently holds the top spot.
CRICKET
The ICC Test, ODI and T20 rankings are all calculated using an on-going points accumulation system where ranking points are on offer in each match and series. Each team's rating is equal to its total points scored divided by the total matches and series played.
England are the current Test and T20 world number one ranked side, with the Australian team regarded as the best one-day side. Had England beaten Australia 5-0 in the current one-day series, they would have become the first side to simultaneously hold the top ranking in all three disciplines of the game. That chance was scuppered by the rain at Edgbaston yesterday.
after England were heralded as the fourth-best football side in the world.
Lies, damn lies, and statistics perhaps, but how have Fifa’s notoriously complex rankings formula got it so wrong this time?
England haven’t reached the last four of a major competition for sixteen years, but according to the statistics they remain a better side than Portugal, Italy and Brazil.
Here’s a guide to see how the rankings are determined, and how other major sports calculate their lists and whether they are doing a better job....
FOOTBALL
Points are based on the results of all Fifa-recognised full international matches.
Points are awarded for the result and importance of the match, multiplied by the strength and confederation of the opposition (Result x Importance x Strength x Confederation). Rankings are based on a team's performance over the last four years. Therefore beating Spain in a World Cup match would gain the maximum 2400 points (3x4x200x1).
The current system has been in place since the 2006 World Cup, where the time frame was reduced from eight to four years.
TENNIS
Fifa’s rankings are based on the previous four-year period. Alternatively, the South African Airways ATP Rankings are formulated from the immediate past 52 weeks, except for the World Tour Finals which take place following the last regular-season ATP event of the year.
Weighted in favour of performances in the Grand Slams, Novak Djokovic is the current world number one, with the Serbian having come within one match of becoming the first man since Rod Laver to hold all four major titles at the same time.
Maria Sharapova is the current women’s number one following her French Open victory. The women’s rankings have drawn criticism in the past however, notably when Caroline Wosniacki spent 67 weeks as world number one without having won a single Grand Slam.
GOLF
The official golf rankings are computed on a rolling two-year basis.
Ranking points are ascribed to the six leading professional tours, weighted, as with tennis, towards the four major tournaments. The average ranking is found by dividing total points by tournaments played.
A logical, albeit complex system, has Luke Donald as current world number one having never won a major. The Englishman did become the first man to win the US and European money lists in one year in 2011 however.
RUGBY
Unlike the time-based lists of other sports, the IRB World Rankings are calculated using a 'Points Exchange' system, in which sides take points off each other based on the match result. Whatever one side gains, the other loses. The exchanges are based on the match result, the relative strength of each team, and the margin of victory, and there is an allowance for home advantage.
Points exchanges are doubled during the World Cup Finals to recognise the unique importance of the event, but all other full international matches are treated the same.
World champions New Zealand top the current list.
SNOOKER
Like golf, snooker’s world ranking is based on performances over a two-year period. The point allocation is updated after every tournament and is dependent on the importance of each tournament, with the world championship receiving a greater distribution of points than the others.
2007 World Championships runner-up Mark Selby currently holds the top spot.
CRICKET
The ICC Test, ODI and T20 rankings are all calculated using an on-going points accumulation system where ranking points are on offer in each match and series. Each team's rating is equal to its total points scored divided by the total matches and series played.
England are the current Test and T20 world number one ranked side, with the Australian team regarded as the best one-day side. Had England beaten Australia 5-0 in the current one-day series, they would have become the first side to simultaneously hold the top ranking in all three disciplines of the game. That chance was scuppered by the rain at Edgbaston yesterday.
Okay. If the World Cup was being held in two months (in Europe, say), would Uruguay be shorter odds than Brazil? Would Germany's odds be similar to Spain's?
How does "Cleverley" make England instantly better ? Talk about overrating our youngsters ..
The FIFA World Rankings have always been a bit of a joke. When you base it on a numbers system, you're always going to end up with flaws unfortunately.
The ELO ratings are far superior in accuracy, yet they're ignored because they're not official and don't really determine seedings or anything like that at all, like FIFA's rankings.
The ELO ratings are far superior in accuracy, yet they're ignored because they're not official and don't really determine seedings or anything like that at all, like FIFA's rankings.
With golf you've also got the prize money aspect to it. The bigger the tournament the bigger fatter the check at the end of it.
Looking at all these different methods it's clear that there's not one very good one that's been found. They're all different. Of course the sports are different but the principle is the same.
I like the snooker one the best.
Looking at all these different methods it's clear that there's not one very good one that's been found. They're all different. Of course the sports are different but the principle is the same.
I like the snooker one the best.
That has nothing to do with rankings. If Fulham where top of the Premier League after 19 games, their odds on winning will still be longer than United. But that doesn't mean they haven't won more games.
Because he is already more comfortable with the ball than Parker and most of the midfielder who went to the Euros.
It doesn't mean he'd be able to perform well for England though.A lot of crazy hype on a youngster who's proven next to nothing so far
Of course. But he is rightly highly rated because he can pass and move and generally use the ball well.
Players like Cleverly and Wilshire coming through is only a positive sign for England. No headless chickens, no physical beasts, but players who are technically good and comfortable with the ball.
It is only a positive as long as you have the coaches to exploit such a style of footballer.I'm drawing a comparison with the french team under Domenech and Blanc.
Domenech preferred to call stronger and more physical players and Blanc liked more technical players.
Blanc didn't do that much better than Domenech and chose the coward way to not extend his contract whereas he had good technical players at his disposal.
England always had good technical players but the lack of good coaches prevented them from expressing themselves to their fullest
Domenech preferred to call stronger and more physical players and Blanc liked more technical players.
Blanc didn't do that much better than Domenech and chose the coward way to not extend his contract whereas he had good technical players at his disposal.
England always had good technical players but the lack of good coaches prevented them from expressing themselves to their fullest
Not sure really, but some of the methods could be applied.
Condorcet methods are basically all about "who wins the most one-on-one fights".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method
Of course, a full Condorcet method wouldn't work as there are a lot of countries and two countries may rarely meet. Some form of balance will be required.
I tried to read on that, I've very interested in voting methods. But I can't really understand how it would apply to sports.
I have to say I think FIFA's ranking method is very good for what it does. A larger variation between the amount of points you get for beating a top or bottom country would be nice, as beating Spain is barely better than beating England or France.
However that might lead to an imbalance where there is little reason to try against the minnows, and you certainly wouldn't want to waste a Friendly against them.
I have to say I think FIFA's ranking method is very good for what it does. A larger variation between the amount of points you get for beating a top or bottom country would be nice, as beating Spain is barely better than beating England or France.
However that might lead to an imbalance where there is little reason to try against the minnows, and you certainly wouldn't want to waste a Friendly against them.
As a guess, beating the number 1 seed should give you 1.2 times as many points as the #2. Beating #2 should give you 1.2 times as many points as #4. Beating #4 should give you 1.2 times as many points as beating #8. And so on.
Spain are much much better than England, who in turn are much much better than Croatia, who in turn are much much better than Norway.
The rankings should reflect that. Only criticism.
Spain are much much better than England, who in turn are much much better than Croatia, who in turn are much much better than Norway.
The rankings should reflect that. Only criticism.
No it's not but I still think they should be worth 0. Also continental cups are worth 3 and qualifiers are worth 2.5. Make qualifiers 2, continentals 3, WC 4 and scrap friendlies and you're good to go
England guaranteed to be 3rd next month lol, can't wait for more uproar
Eh?
In he past 4 years, Croatia have finished top of their qualifying group; never. Been beaten by England twice with a combined score of 9-2. Finished behind Greece, England and Ukraine in qualifying and got to the knockouts of no tournaments.
In that time England have won every qualifying group they have been in, lost 1 qualifying game, got to the knockouts in both the Euro and the World Cup (despite playing crap football) and as mentioned beaten Croatia 9-2 on aggregate.
Croatia thrashed England 6 years ago, but since then England have been a much much better team.
Give it a rest?
Say wha...?kouroux said:
Fifa forced to defend 'not very logical' world rankings system
• Jérôme Valcke says rankings are 'still a good picture'
• England rose to fourth and Brazil fell to 11th in latest rankings
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2012/jul/06/fifa-defend-rankings-system?newsfeed=true
Boring. Just about brazil.
• Jérôme Valcke says rankings are 'still a good picture'
• England rose to fourth and Brazil fell to 11th in latest rankings
The Fifa secretary general, Jérôme Valcke, has defended the organisation's rankings that have placed England fourth in the world and Brazil 11th but has admitted the system can sometimes appear to be "not very logical".
England rose two places after their Euro 2012 campaign with only Spain, Germany and Uruguay ahead of them – and are expected to achieve a highest-ever ranking of third next month.
The beaten Euro 2012 finalists Italy, who defeated England in a quarter-final penalty shootout, are sixth while Brazil have dropped from fifth to 11th – as the 2014 World Cup hosts they do not play any competitive qualifiers so do not gain as many ranking points.
The rankings determine whether teams will be seeded in the draw for the next World Cup. "I know that these rankings are sometimes quite difficult to understand due to the level and numbers of criteria that are taken into account," Valcke told Press Association Sport.
"There are teams who are playing more friendly games than other teams and you can see a difference which is not very logical, but the ranking I would say is clearly still a good picture of the level of international football.
"Brazil are not playing official games, just friendly games as they are already qualified. There have been internal meetings and also with the football committee to discuss the ranking of the different nations. We want to be able to explain in an easier way how this ranking is based."
The Fifa rankings are based on an international side's results over the previous four years, with more points awarded from competitive matches than qualifiers, and weighted even more strongly towards matches in the final tournaments of World Cups and continental tournaments such as European Championship.
England have benefited from the fact that their failure to qualify for Euro 2008 no longer counts against them when the rankings are calculated.
The Republic of Ireland, who lost all three matches at Euro 2012, fell eight places to 26th in the latest rankings. By contrast, the Republic rose five places in the first Fifa rankings following the 2010 World Cup, despite failing to qualify for the tournament in South Africa.
England rose two places after their Euro 2012 campaign with only Spain, Germany and Uruguay ahead of them – and are expected to achieve a highest-ever ranking of third next month.
The beaten Euro 2012 finalists Italy, who defeated England in a quarter-final penalty shootout, are sixth while Brazil have dropped from fifth to 11th – as the 2014 World Cup hosts they do not play any competitive qualifiers so do not gain as many ranking points.
The rankings determine whether teams will be seeded in the draw for the next World Cup. "I know that these rankings are sometimes quite difficult to understand due to the level and numbers of criteria that are taken into account," Valcke told Press Association Sport.
"There are teams who are playing more friendly games than other teams and you can see a difference which is not very logical, but the ranking I would say is clearly still a good picture of the level of international football.
"Brazil are not playing official games, just friendly games as they are already qualified. There have been internal meetings and also with the football committee to discuss the ranking of the different nations. We want to be able to explain in an easier way how this ranking is based."
The Fifa rankings are based on an international side's results over the previous four years, with more points awarded from competitive matches than qualifiers, and weighted even more strongly towards matches in the final tournaments of World Cups and continental tournaments such as European Championship.
England have benefited from the fact that their failure to qualify for Euro 2008 no longer counts against them when the rankings are calculated.
The Republic of Ireland, who lost all three matches at Euro 2012, fell eight places to 26th in the latest rankings. By contrast, the Republic rose five places in the first Fifa rankings following the 2010 World Cup, despite failing to qualify for the tournament in South Africa.
Boring. Just about brazil.
Hodgson should be knighted.
Code:
1. Spain 16.1
2. Germany 14.7
3. England 12.9
4. Uruaguy 12.3
5. Portugal 12.1
6. Italy 11.9
7. Argentina 11.0
8. Netherlands 10.5
9. Croatia 10.5
10. Denmark 10.2
11. Russia 10.2
12. Greece 10.0The ranking system is piss poor
England at best should be around 8/9th
England at best should be around 8/9th
Brazil in 13th?
They aren't playing competitive games at the moment.