I think people have short memories of how good England have been in qualifying and how other than this year we generally make the last 16 at least of major tournaments.

We came 26th if you compare performance across groups. Ghana were the only 'bottom of a group' team above us. But of course this doesn't allow for the relative difficulties of the groups. Italy, Uruguay and even England are heavyweight world cup nations historically in terms of progress to the later stages, so all being drawn together was arguably unfair.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Wo...and_statistics

Yes but world rankings aren't just based on one tournament are they? It's like saying Murray got knocked out early at Wimbledon so should be immediately 20th in the world.

True, but England have been poor over a long period of time. We didnt do much better in the last world cup either. Top 10 you have got to be kidding, 20th not far of.

The World Ranking are based on results and take no account of a teams performance or the actual scoreline in an individual match. They are not a matter of opinion. So 20th is the correct ranking based on England's results in the last 4 years, If England had scraped into the last 16 in Brazil England would still be in the Top 10, and deservedly so because they would then have achieved the results to justify that position.

Which is basically what I said, but in a less verbose manner.

I think as others have said before, England are probably in the lower end of the 9-16 rankings of footballing nations at the moment. That would suggest if they'd got an easier group, they would have made the round of 16.

True, and the points from friendlies from the start of 1994 would have counted for less (which means their current ranking is probably the worst ever)

And here are the actual FIFA rankings released today :

1. Germany
2. Argentina
3. Netherlands

20. England
27. Scotland
44. Wales
70. Republic of Ireland
89. Northern Ireland

Christ... we're almost as bad as Scotland.

You think you have problems : we (Ireland) are ranked nearly 50 places behind Scotland

Martin O'Neill and Roy Keane would want to get their act together this year and start winning a few matches as a matter of urgency.

I would never put us in the top ten. Our record against the world's top teams is pathetic.

Anywhere between 16th and 20th is probably more realistic, so our new ranking of 20th is about right given recent performances.

Only Slovenia (-12) has dropped more places in the rankings than England out of the current top 50.

No doubt the FA will do sweet FA, believing the only way is up - Roy, Wayne and a rocket to the moon!

This might work out better in the long run, this will make the FA realise that English football is not doing good enough right now and cause them to make changes. Also remember last time England went out at the group stage they went on to win it 8 years later, so I think there's hope for the future, people here are being too pessimistic.

I wouldn't say that at all. In our last 9 qualifying campaigns, only twice have we secured qualification prior to the final game.

I would define qualifying easily as securing our place with a couple of games to spare, as we did in the 2010 WC qualifiers.

It doesn't matter what your or my opinion is, a formula is used to determine the rankings and no doubt by the time of the next Euro's England will be back in the Top 10.

This is probably as good as it is going to get for England. The promise of young emerging talent has been used to the point where I simply don't believe it any more. As for setting a target to win the World Cup in Qatar, dream on. I seriously can not see England getting to the finals of any major competition in my life time.

Murray got knocked out in the QF and is down to 10 in the world.

Any formula that ranks England in the top ten is flawed.

Given how easy our euros qualifying group is, a top ten ranking off the back of that would be absurd.

FIFA use a complicated mathematical formula to calculate it. it may be flawed but i'd take it every day over some bloke saying 'we're rubbish'.

And on nearly every single occasion we have won the group, i'd say that's qualifying fairly easily.

I wouldn't say rubbish, but I am leaning towards average.

The formula takes into account the quality of the opposition, would you say its any worse them the USA or Mexico getting into the Top 10 based on their Gold Cup Performances?

Lets face it we are or not far of rubbish. You saying we arent, doesnt make it so.

When facing any of the top teams, we wont win. We are brilliant against the likes of Moldova, Azerbhijan and Kazakstan. The commentators start to use words like worldclass and world beater when describing our players. However up against a top 10 team, we fall to bits.

Gerrard and Rooney were shite again this world cup, as they were in the last world cup. However give it a few games into the premiership season and once again they will be described as world class. World Class my gluteus maximus.

^^Got to agree, it's easier to be classed as "world class" when playing with another 10 world class players. What sets a truely "world class" player part is how he performs with a average team.