|
||||||||
How far down the pecking order are England? |
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#26 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London
Posts: 4,710
|
Quote:
I think in the FIFA rankings England should be between the the lost city of Atlantis and Timbuktu.
England arent as good as they think they are, or as good as their FIFA ranking. http://www.theguardian.com/football/...s-group-stages |
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#27 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 12,251
|
Well clearly we are a little way off the top 10 but its not the team's fault if the FIFA ranking are misguided in the yes are many..
Remember we do generally qualify pretty well which no doubt boosts our coefficient but must admit we will be in danger of slipping down the seeding table when it comes to being placed in a World Cup/European Championships group. |
|
|
|
|
|
#28 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 5,258
|
Quote:
England are #24 at the moment (provisionally for July 2014) down from #10 pre World Cup.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...s-group-stages |
|
|
|
|
|
#29 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 8,639
|
Quote:
England are #24 at the moment (provisionally for July 2014) down from #10 pre World Cup.
http://www.theguardian.com/football/...s-group-stages |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,777
|
Quote:
Algeria are clearly not better than England. having said that though. trying to use the excuse of being in a tough group really isn't going to fly when Costa Rica managed to take maximum points off the same supposedly "top" teams England failed to take even a point off.
I could have taken the approach of some others and decided that the weaker sides having good World Cups are suddenly much better teams than England, but I'd rather look at results over a longer period. Like Algeria finishing bottom of our group in 2010 and failing to qualify for the 5 World Cups before that. Are they suddenly better than England because they beat South Korea and took a point off Russia to progress from their group? I'm not sure... |
|
|
|
|
|
#31 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: London
Posts: 4,710
|
Different people are using the FIFA methodology to forecast the beginning of July FIFA rankings. Here is another one.
http://www.football-rankings.info/20...eview-and.html This has England at #20 |
|
|
|
|
|
#32 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,619
|
Quote:
I was just being consistent. I already thought ours would be the toughest group beforehand, and I'd be surprised if anyone tried to argue that Costa Rica playing out of their skins made it somehow easier.
I could have taken the approach of some others and decided that the weaker sides having good World Cups are suddenly much better teams than England, but I'd rather look at results over a longer period. Like Algeria finishing bottom of our group in 2010 and failing to qualify for the 5 World Cups before that. Are they suddenly better than England because they beat South Korea and took a point off Russia to progress from their group? I'm not sure... Algeria isn't getting by on "luck" or being a mediocre team having a flukey world cup. The Algerians have improved their team dramatically since the last world cup (including by getting some players with dual French-Algerian nationality playing at a high level in Europe). The same could be said for many of the so-called "lesser" teams. They've taken deliberate steps to make their squads and tatics better, so they can go toe to toe with traditionally bigger footballing nations. They aren't "suddenly" better than England. They've put in the work to become better than England. England are just basically too arrogant to pay attention to the improvements being made by smaller nations. You can't keep living in the past and assume that because England were better 4 years ago, or 10 years ago, that they can't be overtaken by teams within a few years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#33 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,777
|
Quote:
4 years is a long time in football, or most sports for that matter. Which is what you don't seem to get. A lot of so-called "minnows" have spent the last few years simply getting better, while England have been happily coasting along on their reputation.
Algeria isn't getting by on "luck" or being a mediocre team having a flukey world cup. The Algerians have improved their team dramatically since the last world cup (including by getting some players with dual French-Algerian nationality playing at a high level in Europe). The same could be said for many of the so-called "lesser" teams. They've taken deliberate steps to make their squads and tatics better, so they can go toe to toe with traditionally bigger footballing nations. They aren't "suddenly" better than England. They've put in the work to become better than England. England are just basically too arrogant to pay attention to the improvements being made by smaller nations. You can't keep living in the past and assume that because England were better 4 years ago, or 10 years ago, that they can't be overtaken by teams within a few years. |
|
|
|
|
|
#34 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 6,179
|
At the moment you can't really make an argument that we are in the top 15-20 teams.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#35 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,053
|
Quote:
All three sides got either as far as or further in the competition than England, but failed to sustain that level afterwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#36 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,777
|
Quote:
Not that I totally disagree with your points (there will always be sides that peak now and then), but what level has England sustained over recent years? Expectation and history alone do not make a team a force. I think there is some justification with the argument that England arrogantly sits on its past and expects things to just fall into place for them. Sure, teams like Algeria in four years time might well not quality for the next World Cup, but even if England do (that's not guaranteed), with their current mentality they're bound to fall yet again at the first hurdle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#37 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
|
Quote:
. There are no easy games any more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#38 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,844
|
The first half of that sentence specifically references teams that qualify for the World Cup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#39 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
|
Quote:
The first half of that sentence specifically references teams that qualify for the World Cup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#40 |
|
Inactive Member
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,931
|
I'll go and move the goalposts at the other end.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#41 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Derby
Posts: 27,584
|
Quote:
With England it's usually a case of qualifying comfortably for the tournament and then reaching the last 16/quarter-finals before losing to a better team. I'd say we've generally sustained our status as one of the top 10-15 teams in the world over the past 12 years or so. Perhaps we thought ourselves better than that for a while but now I think reality has set in and people see we can't compete with the elite group of teams.
|
|
|
|
|
#42 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,844
|
Quote:
Yes but to qualify you play teams like San Marino
|
|
|
|
|
|
#43 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Up North
Posts: 58,791
|
Quote:
That really doesn't counter what he's saying, which was referring to teams at the finals.
You wouldn't get that in the finals. |
|
|
|
|
|
#44 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15,844
|
That's a hypothetical point that still involves a team at the finals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#45 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,752
|
Quote:
I was just being consistent. I already thought ours would be the toughest group beforehand, and I'd be surprised if anyone tried to argue that Costa Rica playing out of their skins made it somehow easier.
I could have taken the approach of some others and decided that the weaker sides having good World Cups are suddenly much better teams than England, but I'd rather look at results over a longer period. Like Algeria finishing bottom of our group in 2010 and failing to qualify for the 5 World Cups before that. Are they suddenly better than England because they beat South Korea and took a point off Russia to progress from their group? I'm not sure... No, they're not suddenly better, they've probably become better than England over a period of time. I think people simply have to accept that England are no longer anywhere as good as their perception of them may lead them to believe. Maybe we're around as good as teams like the USA or Costa Rica? In the FIFA rankings I'd say that #20 would look just about right. With so many football teams improving quite rapidly, other teams which we take for granted as being amongst the world elite due to their reputation can get left behind. |
|
|
|
|
|
#46 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,752
|
Quote:
Not that I totally disagree with your points (there will always be sides that peak now and then), but what level has England sustained over recent years? Expectation and history alone do not make a team a force. I think there is some justification with the argument that England arrogantly sits on its past and expects things to just fall into place for them. Sure, teams like Algeria in four years time might well not quality for the next World Cup, but even if England do (that's not guaranteed), with their current mentality they're bound to fall yet again at the first hurdle.
Your status as a team in the top tier isn't static. You still have to do the work to improve. You can't just see yourself an elite team and hope that all other teams will get worse, or will only be better than you temporarily. That would be just hoping that your status will return to 'normal' as you think it should do naturally and all by itself. There are several teams who are improving with some momentum. So even if say Algeria aren't as good in the next World Cup, there could be half a dozen other teams who are then better than England who we might not have expected to be. |
|
|
|
|
|
#47 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: 6,777
|
Quote:
You say that you're using a time period going back over 20 years, but then asking if Algeria are 'suddenly' better than England.
No, they're not suddenly better, they've probably become better than England over a period of time. I think people simply have to accept that England are no longer anywhere as good as their perception of them may lead them to believe. Maybe we're around as good as teams like the USA or Costa Rica? In the FIFA rankings I'd say that #20 would look just about right. With so many football teams improving quite rapidly, other teams which we take for granted as being amongst the world elite due to their reputation can get left behind. 1) What exactly have Algeria achieved that makes them better than England? 2) What leads you to believe that 20th in the rankings would "look just about right"? 3) What makes us "around as good as" the USA and Costa Rica? |
|
|
|
|
|
#48 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: The Nth East
Posts: 21,590
|
Algeria would hammer us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#49 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 4,983
|
Quote:
You say that you're using a time period going back over 20 years, but then asking if Algeria are 'suddenly' better than England.
No, they're not suddenly better, they've probably become better than England over a period of time. I think people simply have to accept that England are no longer anywhere as good as their perception of them may lead them to believe. Maybe we're around as good as teams like the USA or Costa Rica? In the FIFA rankings I'd say that #20 would look just about right. With so many football teams improving quite rapidly, other teams which we take for granted as being amongst the world elite due to their reputation can get left behind. The problem with international football is that we have these spectacular tournaments every two years, in which teams play a maximum of seven games. There is no way that World Cup performance alone can be used to assess which teams are good and which are bad. People criticise the FIFA rankings, and the methodology they use isn't perfect, but as a way of judging relative ability they are better than tournaments. |
|
|
|
|
|
#50 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 65,752
|
Quote:
But that nominal ranking of #20 wouldn't really explain why England have qualified top of their group for the last three major international tournaments. Algeria qualified thanks to an away goals win against Burkina Faso, who are ranked 60th in the world.
The problem with international football is that we have these spectacular tournaments every two years, in which teams play a maximum of seven games. There is no way that World Cup performance alone can be used to assess which teams are good and which are bad. People criticise the FIFA rankings, and the methodology they use isn't perfect, but as a way of judging relative ability they are better than tournaments. You could liken it to athletes who may do well at the smaller competition meetings but fail to deliver at the Olympics. It's those big competitions which are the benchmark because they're the ones where teams try to do their utmost best to win. So you've got a much higher chance of all teams putting out what they believe their best possible sides are. As in national football, some managers don't invest as much effort into the smaller cup competitions and focus more on the FA or European cup. You could win lots of friendly matches but if your opponents aren't treating it as seriously as you are then it's perhaps not always a true reflection of who the better team is when at their strongest. |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.




