England ; World Ranking
![[Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/5b5b26298dac9328ebb2bc2f316c8cf2.svg)
[Deleted User]
Posts: 9,517 Forum Member
✭
I believe England are now ranked fifth in the world. I do consider this ranking to be too high.
Ten countries that could appear in the top ten above England.
Brazil , Argentina , Spain , Portugal , France , Holland Germany , Italy, Russia, Czech Republic
Ten countries that could appear in the top ten above England.
Brazil , Argentina , Spain , Portugal , France , Holland Germany , Italy, Russia, Czech Republic
0
Comments
On what basis are the Czech Republic better than England?
How about France? Died on their arse in the last 2 International tournaments.
England don't lose..hence our position being quite high and many have admitted we're not that good.
I dont really take much notice of the rankings, they mean nothing to me.
To just print a subjective list is entirely pointless. And undoubtedly England could beat any of those teams you mention on their day.
It is all well and having a go at them, that is easy, the harder part is finding something else to replace them.
Picking random teams out is not an option.
The FIFA rankings are a robust one, and I have no quarrell with them.
Any country could, if they amass more points in the clearly and repeatedly explained FIFA ranking system that is.
Jesus, every single month?
England are 5th in the rankings based on the method of analysing their and ever other countries results.
England are not the 5th best team in the world.
Bloody hell!
4 teams have currently amassed more points than England in the allotted time period and therefore England are ranked 5th.
Also, those teams the OP mentions that should be above England. Have a look at their record over the last 4 years - you'll be amazed at the games they've lost and the teams they've lost to. These all count against their current ranking.
If people would do sone easy research, then they would see the fallicy of their claims.
England are in the position that they are in for a reason, and that is because they have done better than the vast majority of other teams.
There are only four other teams better than us, and as I say unless you want to go by past reputations rather than current form, no-one can deny that.
If England are not the fifth best team, then who is?
Its impossible to say but there are more than 4 teams "better" than England if they were to play each other.
Play each in what type of match though? A friendly? A major tournement match? All of these things make a difference I feel to the outcome.
So while it may be hard to say, the rankings are there to show who is in the best of form, and who would more likely than win a match were teams to play each other.
Remember the last time England played Spain we beat them, so we are not that bad a team (I say we, not including you, as I know that you are a Scot, I was just using it in the broader sense of the term).
So, I actually agree with the rankings so far, and it would take something really different to improve on them, as they do include a lot of data to come to the actual positions.
It doesn't show who would beat each other at all, and its not meant to. By the very nature of qualifying campaigns the top teams don't play each other very often.
For arguments sake and hypothetically - If Brazil are number two in the rankings having beaten Bolivia, Columbia and the USA and England are number one in the rankings having beaten Ukraine, Bosnia, Denmark and N Ireland, that gives absolutely no indication that England would beat Brazil if the two teams met. I know I'm simplifying things greatly here but you get the idea of what i mean hopefully. The two nations are completely separate because they move in completely different circles, they amass ranking points in the same way but unless they were all playing the same countries it doesn't give a proper indication of who would be favourite if they met or which is the better side.
People are putting far too much emphasis on the meaning of these rankings IMO.
No, it shows who is where in the FIFA rankings list, and England are high up because they have a very consistent record over the 4 year counting period. It does not show who would more than likely win a match were teams to meet each other, and when and where would also be very relevant to such a metting.
I have no real major problem with the FIFA rankings in that you need an objective list. But I do think the methodology ranks England higher than I ( and I am sure many others ) would think is their "true" place in the world. I think they would be better with say more weight towards finals tournaments and indeed I might take friendlies out all together. The golf and tennis rankings don't include exhibitions !
That was a friendly though and Spain have a few iffy results in friendlies, but do it when it matters. In the last 10 years when have England beaten a top 10 nation in tournament finals. ?
As I said, more emphasis should be made on finals, and thus relatively less on friendlies ( or none at all ! ). Oh and the Confederation Cup finals count too much, being counted the same as the Euros and other continental tournament finals. Spain losing there posssibly also cost them their no 1 ranking for a time.
As Cantona says, folk read too much into these rankings. I'm not really that bothered with them, but since some folk do attach overmuch importance to them and also say that noone comes up with anything better, I have given a few ideas for adjusting the calculation method.
It crops up. Is roundly rubbished. Entirely forgotten. swim swim bob bob swim. It crops up. Is roundly rubbished. Entirely forgotten.....
Pretty good in that they've never made it past the quarter finals since 1996.
The same Holland that made the World Cup final two years ago and lost in extra time?
The rankings are what they are - a bit of a rubbish league table that's weighted to take account of the fact that everybody can't play everybody else on a regular basis. An informed subjective opinion would be far more accurate, but it wouldn't be fair to use that for seedings, so we're stuck with it.
Pretty much sums it up.
A subjective opinion says an England team that contunually fails to deliver at the very top level of tournament finals ( the level that really matters ) and also hasn't beaten a really top nation in a competitive match for many years, is not as good as its FIFA ranking reguarly suggests.
But those of us, who have bothered to look into it, understand the FIFA ranking ststem, the weightings and how it rewards consistency and while ideally maybe some of us would rejig it, it isn't a biggee if folk just didn't make big claims based on it..
It is what it is, and too much weight is placed on it. It is really just an objective method of ordering teams so you have a fair way of organising seedings and draws ( with a vague, but not much more than that, relationship to how most folk woud order teams ).
It's not as though any of the teams in the top 5 are light years ahead of them - on a good day, and with a bit (or a lot!) of luck, England could beat them all.
For England to reach the knockouts stages in tournaments they only have to be better than the third/fourth seeds in the group stafes, and in qualifying their biggest threat is a team like Ukraine, certaintly no Germany.
Nobody cares about the amount of points attained during qualifiers so long as they get to thr tournament.
We don't have any world ranking system at all, and we manage without one just like we did until Coca Cola needed to sponsor something for FIFA in 1993.
I don't think that we can or will try that method again, as there are too many events that are based on the rankings now.