FIFA World Rankings

What a joke!

http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html?intcmp=fifacom_hp_module_ranking

Uruguay 3rd.
England 4th.
Croatia and Denmark above Brazil.



Ridiculous.

It's based on results so I don't see how it can be a joke.

People overrate Brazil based on their reputation, they haven't been their usual world class selves since 2002. Perhaps the World Cup being in Brazil and the influx of talented youths will propel them back up.

oh id hate to be from the Turks and Caicos Islands

It is ridiculous but let's not forget that England were in a major tournament whereas the non-European teams weren't.

So you think England are the fourth best team in the world?

GG wrote:So you think England are the fourth best team in the world?

Well clearly in the way they calculate it, their results say they are.

They are not claiming that if England faced Brazil that they'd beat Brazil. They're just calculating based on results and doing a ranking of them.

Brazil's ranking is due to there lack of competitive games. As they are host, they will not play any competitive qualifying matches. This is where the ranking system is flawed. Especially England being 4th!!!!!!!!!

Crimey wrote:

GG wrote:So you think England are the fourth best team in the world?

Well clearly in the way they calculate it, their results say they are.

Which shows how flawed the rankings are. When was the last time England reached the semi finals of a major tournament?

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Brazil's ranking is due to there lack of competitive games. As they are host, they will not play any competitive qualifying matches. This is where the ranking system is flawed. Especially England being 4th!!!!!!!!!

Good point SoF. I'd assume that's why Ukraine are so far down, below Zambia, Gabon etc.

Seems legit to me, whats the problem?

GG wrote:

Crimey wrote:

GG wrote:So you think England are the fourth best team in the world?

Well clearly in the way they calculate it, their results say they are.

Which shows how flawed the rankings are. When was the last time England reached the semi finals of a major tournament?

What do you mean they are flawed? They are just basing it on results. FIFA are not saying that England would beat all those below them in the ranking. They are just saying that based on results England are the fourth best at the moment.

Crimey wrote:

GG wrote:

Crimey wrote:

GG wrote:So you think England are the fourth best team in the world?

Well clearly in the way they calculate it, their results say they are.

Which shows how flawed the rankings are. When was the last time England reached the semi finals of a major tournament?

What do you mean they are flawed? They are just basing it on results. FIFA are not saying that England would beat all those below them in the ranking. They are just saying that based on results England are the fourth best at the moment.

I'm guessing for England to be fourth, results in qualifying/friendlies must count quite a lot. It would be better if results in major tournaments counted more, as every football fan views these as more important, and other results are deemed much less important with the points system reflecting this.

GG wrote:

Crimey wrote:

GG wrote:

Crimey wrote:

GG wrote:So you think England are the fourth best team in the world?

Well clearly in the way they calculate it, their results say they are.

Which shows how flawed the rankings are. When was the last time England reached the semi finals of a major tournament?

What do you mean they are flawed? They are just basing it on results. FIFA are not saying that England would beat all those below them in the ranking. They are just saying that based on results England are the fourth best at the moment.

I'm guessing for England to be fourth, results in qualifying/friendlies must count quite a lot. It would be better if results in major tournaments counted more, as every football fan views these as more important, and other results are deemed much less important with the points system reflecting this.

England got to the quarter finals and didn't lose, while Italy will have started from a lower position.

England have 1 competitve defeat in what? 4 years. On paper they're probably not 4th, but they have been getting results.

Who cares about the FIFA ranking anyway? You don't win a trophy for being the No.1 ranked team.
Its about as accurate as Boxrec's boxing rankings and shouldnt be taken too seriously.
The Europeon teams have obviously benefitted from the recent tournament and therefore have had a ratings boost.
Uruguay justify their 3rd postion. Reached the semi final of the World Cup in 2010 and won the Copa America the following year. Brazil bombed in the same competition and havent played a competitive match since.
Also, I believe England have only lost 2 competitive matches since their loss to Croatia back in 2007.

England's results at the Euro's were in terms of how the Rankings calculate them 2 wins and 2 draws (against high ranked teams as well), so although a lot of the football was poor and uninspiring in pure terms the results (along with two friendly wins) were decent.

All ranking systems have some anomalies - the problem for football is that the teams from the different regions (Europe / Africa / Americas) don't play each other in competition for 3 years in 4, and don't always take friendlies seriously, especially when these are staged mid league season and hosted at neutral grounds.

Clearly there's a bit of an issue with weighting the importance of qualifying results and tournament final results - England went unbeaten through their quali tournament (in a not especially difficult group) but have a mediocre record in finals , whereas (for example) Italy and Portugal struggled to get through qualifying but played better at the finals. Clearly, we aren't currently the 4th best side in the World (or indeed in Europe - all 4 semi finalists were clearly better and France about at our level), but the rankings show we have performed consistently over the period covered by the rankings.

http://www.thefa.com/England/News/match-centre/2011/England-v-Spain/report-121111?p=mr&mid=191180

I hope all the England haters take note of this.

England can't beat alot of the top 10 there. How the hell are they fourth. I don't care what any of you guys say, England are not the fourth best team in the world.

drsambo1928 wrote:England can't beat alot of the top 10 there. How the hell are they fourth. I don't care what any of you guys say, England are not the fourth best team in the world.

Because the rankings aren't saying that they can beat the teams below them. It's based completely on results and over the past few months England have had excellent results.

England have lost only 2 games at major tournaments in the last 10 years.

Duty281 wrote:England have lost only 2 games at major tournaments in the last 10 years.

Correct me if I'm wrong but since 1986 England have only lost inside 120 minutes once in the knockout stages of a tournament, Brazil 2002?

Germany 2010 I think.

Oh yeah, how on earth did I forget that!

England are celarly the 4th best team in the world if it weren't for the "lottery" of penalties they would be the best.

Thomond wrote:England are celarly the 4th best team in the world if it weren't for the "lottery" of penalties they would be the best.

Nobody is saying that. It's just people don't understand what the FIFA World Rankings actually show.

They are all about results really, England really aren't the fourth best team in the world and anyone who thinks so is an idiot. They tend to get easy qualifying groups so it's a bit skewed. They have done well in friendlies to be fair but I think the rankings shouldn't take account for friendlies, I mean half the countries don't take them seriously and experiement. Ireland should be
lower than they are too.

Thomond wrote:They are all about results really, England really aren't the fourth best team in the world and anyone who thinks so is an idiot. They tend to get easy qualifying groups so it's a bit skewed. They have done well in friendlies to be fair but I think the rankings shouldn't take account for friendlies, I mean half the countries don't take them seriously and experiement. Ireland should be
lower than they are too.

The friendlies don't count as much as competitive matches. So the amount of points you get depends on the severity of the match, the quality of opposition. England's results have been pretty good so the rankings reflect that.

I think most people's problem is that it's a bit of a farce that England are 4th even though we know they aren't that good. England win a lot of matches but when they get easy groups I suppose it's not hard.

Thomond wrote:I think most people's problem is that it's a bit of a farce that England are 4th even though we know they aren't that good. England win a lot of matches but when they get easy groups I suppose it's not hard.

Yeah if they do have an easy group they will get less points. Results-wise recently, not many have been better than England. We relish qualification and then do alright in the actual tournament.

According to the bbc, red button/football/headlines, Japan are world cup winners!

There's no obvious nor any indication what-so-ever that Japan are WC winners in football.

The beeb fail again.

The title of the article is "Japan, France and usa reach semi's".

Just can't trust the beeb.

You guys do know that Japan won the last woman's world cup right?

England are up to third in the World Rankings. It's not a joke, honest!

Very odd.

They should have a look at how they do the rankings really.................this is not a cheap shot at England but in reality, there are 15+ better teams than them in the world.........................

GG wrote:

Soldier_Of_Fortune wrote:Brazil's ranking is due to there lack of competitive games. As they are host, they will not play any competitive qualifying matches. This is where the ranking system is flawed. Especially England being 4th!!!!!!!!!

Good point SoF. I'd assume that's why Ukraine are so far down, below Zambia, Gabon etc.

Yep good point.

John Cregan wrote:

They should have a look at how they do the rankings really.................this is not a cheap shot at England but in reality, there are 15+ better teams than them in the world.........................

I agree.

I suppose if you look at the results, we did only go out on pens to Italy, but they way we played against Italy suggests there is a wide birth in quality.

To say we are third is a joke!

How can England be in the top 8 of anything considering they haven't got passed a QF of anything for nearly 20 years?

The points you gain from friendlies and qualification against tinpot teams outght to be looked at as this is obviously where England get their points from.
England are barely even in the top 8 in Europe let alone the world.

Its done by results, not performance and England didn't lose a game/Italy and Portugal miles behind us to start

Well, that's the wrong way to do it. Under what criteria are England the third best team in the world. Absolute horse crap.

They barely lose.

They rankings are always crap, dont know why we get worked up everytime.

They lose every time it matters. i.e knockout or QF of a tournament.

Even then they lost on pens which counts as a draw.

Again, these rankings are always crap, dont know why we get worked up everytime.

True, I don't think there is a single person in the world that believes England are in reality even a top 8 team.

Nobody with sense anyway

John Cregan wrote:

They should have a look at how they do the rankings really.................this is not a cheap shot at England but in reality, there are 15+ better teams than them in the world.........................

Id be interested to hear these 15 better teams than England. And btw Im not from England just think this is a bit of an over exaggeration.

I'd rank England around 7-9 in the World. To say we're third is laughable. I'm looking at the rankings now, you won't believe this one. Greece are ranked 12th, Brazil are ranked 13th!

I would like to point out our u23 team with some welshmen beat a pretty strong Uruguay team

You'd have to say that Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Germany, Holland, Italy, Spain and Portugal would have England for breakfast, whereas teams like Holland, France, Sweden, Russia, Croatia, Denmark and Greece are at least a similar standard.

That is 15 teams that England would struggle against. So top 3 in the world rankings really isn't representative of their actual ability or standing in world football.
Probably 8th at best in EUrope would be their level, and about 12th in the world.