FIFA rankings

[fire on my lips]

I don't mean to clutter the board with a bunch of soccer threads, however, prior to and during the World Cup there was a lot of talk about how high the US is ranked. FIFA has now released their newest set of rankings. I figured it couldn't hurt to show all of you how messed up the rankings are.

http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,118178,00.html?articleid=118 178
the US is ranked 16th and ahead of Mexico (18). Somehow Denmark is between the two

This is a post from football365.com:
http://www.football365.com/news/story_188573.shtml

They had some complaints.
* England's points rating climbing despite their dismal WC performances.

* Sweden slipping six places to 22nd. Paraguay, whom the Swedes knocked out en route to the group stages, duly move in the opposite direction, climbing fourteen places to 19th.

* Serbia and Montenegro rising eight places despite losing all three of their matches and returning home with a minus-eight goal difference.

* Saudi Arabia being demoted a whopping 47 places to 82nd in the world. Tunisia, with whom the Saudis drew at the World Cup, and whose final goal difference was superior by just one score, fall just eight places to 31st. Clearly, it was a significant goal.

* Portugal falling to eighth in the rankings despite beating England on the way to the WC semi-finals.

* Mexico falling fourteen places as punishment for the unforgivebale crime of being beaten in extra-time by third-ranked Argentina in the WC's best game.

* WC-absentees Uruguay climbing eight places to a lofty 14th and being ranked above Mexico.

* Guinea, a country which F365 wasn’t entirely aware played football, being ranked 24th in the world. Greece, reigning champions of a continent which produced six of the quarter-finalists and all four of the semi-finalists, are a distant 32nd.

* South Korea being demoted 27 places. Togo, who lost all three of their matches, including a defeat to the Koreans, rise fourteen places to be ranked ahead of the Koreans.

[DaveHallow]

They are an absolute joke.

[DaveHallow]

Can somebody explain Ukraine's 30 place rise? They played so shit. Schevjenko especially. POO!

[mikearduini9]

Italy - take a dive you bunch of pricks


Totti owns Australia.

[Scott Weber]

England was "dismal" in the WC? Uh...

[DaveHallow]

Totti owns Australia.

For making a spot kick? Totti was nowhere for 91 minutes and then they get him to take a penalty off the worst call in world cup history.

[DaveHallow]

England was "dismal" in the WC? Uh...

They played so crap. They never looked like winning any game they played.

[LeftWideOpen]

so basically FIFA doesnt even watch soccer. interesting.

[Scott Weber]

They played so crap. They never looked like winning any game they played.

[/QUOTE]
That's retarded. England played mediocre for how talented they are. To say "dismal" is ridiculous. If they played "dismal" they wouldn't have even made it out of group play.

[histrionics22]

That's retarded. England played mediocre for how talented they are. To say "dismal" is ridiculous. If they played "dismal" they wouldn't have even made it out of group play.[/QUOTE]
They played like crap and were lucky to get put in the group they were in.

[Scott Weber]

Everyone holds England to this absolutely ridiculous standard. Did they play well? No. Were they DISMAL? That's absurd.

[oldy]

England played really badly. Too see a squad that on paper looked possibly the best in the competition and a first eleven of such undeniable talent play such average football was pretty much heart-breaking.

Ugh.


Not really on topic I suppose. I'm just feeling depressed (refer to signature :()

[fire on my lips]

Totti owns Australia.
where did that quote come from???

And Totti came on in like the 75 or something. He didn't start. He barely touched the ball until the spot kick that was given on a dive.

Scott, if a team plays like poorly compared to how talented they are should their ranking go up or down when equally talented teams played much better than them?

[Scott Weber]

where did that quote come from???

And Totti came on in like the 75 or something. He didn't start. He barely touched the ball until the spot kick that was given on a dive.

Scott, if a team plays like poorly compared to how talented they are should their ranking go up or down when equally talented teams played much better than them?
Rankings are determined by wins/losses on the biggest stages. Though England did not play to its potential, the team still won until they got knocked out in PKs. Talk about underachieving all you want, not a lot of people expected England to go much further than they did...they found a way to win. That's all that counts.

[DaveHallow]

That's retarded. England played mediocre for how talented they are. To say "dismal" is ridiculous. If they played "dismal" they wouldn't have even made it out of group play.

They have a team that should make i out of group stage and that is expected. I expected it and rightfully so. For a team of such talented footballers they really did disappoint and every match i watched i was bored to death with their performance. They really did not look like a team that would threaten anybody and quite frankly if Australia played England, i think they would have done them.

[DaveHallow]

Everyone holds England to this absolutely ridiculous standard. Did they play well? No. Were they DISMAL? That's absurd.

England said they had a team that could realistically threaten to win the cup for the first time since 1966. I didn't put those words in England's mouth, they said it themselves. I thought they played like shit and if you watch the games again, i think you'll agree. It was painful football to watch from a side that should be looking to actually win the whole thing.

[bigmike]

England said they had a team that could realistically threaten to win the cup for the first time since 1966. I didn't put those words in England's mouth, they said it themselves. I thought they played like shit and if you watch the games again, i think you'll agree. It was painful football to watch from a side that should be looking to actually win the whole thing.
...were they supposed to say "no, we actually have fielded a really shitty team so we're just going to go, suck a whole lot, and come home"?

[Scott Weber]

They have a team that should make i out of group stage and that is expected. I expected it and rightfully so. For a team of such talented footballers they really did disappoint and every match i watched i was bored to death with their performance. They really did not look like a team that would threaten anybody and quite frankly if Australia played England, i think they would have done them.
Wow. I'm done talking to you. Australia is not good.

[fire on my lips]

Rankings are determined by wins/losses on the biggest stages. Though England did not play to its potential, the team still won until they got knocked out in PKs. Talk about underachieving all you want, not a lot of people expected England to go much further than they did...they found a way to win. That's all that counts.
Rankings aren't decided by wins/losses on the biggest stages. They are supposed decided by all your wins, all of your draws and all of your loses. It also depends on how well you play obviously because beating Brazil 5-0 is way different from beating Thailand 5-0. There is no logical explaination to justify why Portugal moved down in the rankings, were voted the most attractive team to watch in the World Cup, and finished fourth, while England, who played "like shit" in the eyes of every single person I've talked to and whose articles I have read (except for those on this site), moved ahead of Portugal in the rankings.
The general consensus from the predictions I read before the World Cup was for of the following would make it to the semifinals: Italy, Germany, Brazil, Argentina, England, and France. Some had england in the final, it is worthwhile to note that most of those were english writers.

England did find a way to win four games and draw two. But they lost to a Portuguese team that was decimated after playing 120 minutes AND had every single player on a yellow card. England got unlucky with the Owen injury, unlike with the Beckham injury, and extremely unlucky since Rooney still can't control his temper. The best teams overcome all of their problems and play (in the came of italy, somewhat) attractive football. England had trouble stringing passes together the entire tournament and just scraped enough goals to barely win their games.
England never impressed, plain and simple. To be considered one of the top ten teams in the world you have to impress on the biggest stage.

NOTE: The first paragraph is the only one about the rankings.

Wow. I'm done talking to you. Australia is not good.
They should have beaten Italy (Italy played very very very well with ten men). Australia's current team was on talent a notch below England. Australia played well and convincingly in their games, England didn't. I personally don't think they would beat England, but it probably would have been a good game, if they had met. Australia's team is better than the US's.

[DaveHallow]

Wow. I'm done talking to you. Australia is not good.

I seriously doubt you even watched England play.

[Scott Weber]

I seriously doubt you even watched England play.
I watched every single game of England's in the world cup. You live in Australia. End of story.

The entire point of me even coming in here was to point out how absurd it is to say they played DISMAL when they got as far as they did - sure, they performed under their capabilities, but if they truly played dismaly then they wouldn't have even gotten close to where they did, and they certainly wouldn't have ended up in PKs with Portugal.

[DaveHallow]

I watched every single game of England's in the world cup. You live in Australia. End of story.

The entire point of me even coming in here was to point out how absurd it is to say they played DISMAL when they got as far as they did - sure, they performed under their capabilities, but if they truly played dismaly then they wouldn't have even gotten close to where they did, and they certainly wouldn't have ended up in PKs with Portugal.

I fail to see how me living in Australia has anything to do with it.

Obviously you still think calling their performance dismal was wrong whilst I definitely think their performance was dismal. I understand they made quarters but everyone knows that groups are picked based on rankings so inherently there will always be 2 nations that should pass group stage with relative ease. England was one of these sides and obviously did pass group stage (in my opinion with a lot of luck and undeservingly) beating out Paraguay, Trinidad & tobago and Sweden. Not really teams that have international clout as i am sure you would agree.

A 1:0 win against paraguay was lack luster to say the least, 2:0 against Trinidad where any other side of similar capabilities would have notched up twice the goals and most likely performed well unlike the haphazard result that ensued. These matches lead me to a 2:2 draw with a team whose in fighting grabs headlines and who i never pegged to get through group. Paraguay was my special but alas i was wrong.

So as we can see, England waltzed through group as they should have but with results that were less than becoming of a team with such firepower. The round of 16 match against Ecuador literally bored me shitless. Where was the playing power of England? It took the best dead ball kicker in the world to squeeze them past Ecuador with 1 goal. After watching that match i wouldn't have been surprised if Ecuador had gone through which would have blasted your "at least they made it to PK's" theory out of the water. Yes they made quarters, yes they passed group but the fashion they did it in was so poor that arguments could rage on for years about how deserving they were of the victories they had.

These are my reasons why they did peform dismally and I am sure you'd have yours for why they were bad but not dismal. England has become the erectional disfunction of World Cup Football and i'll only watch them next cup if Pele has been working with them, if you catch my drift.....

[believethehyph]

They played so crap. They never looked like winning any game they played.
I disagree.

[justinevans]

I fail to see how me living in Australia has anything to do with it.

Obviously you still think calling their performance dismal was wrong whilst I definitely think their performance was dismal. I understand they made quarters but everyone knows that groups are picked based on rankings so inherently there will always be 2 nations that should pass group stage with relative ease. England was one of these sides and obviously did pass group stage (in my opinion with a lot of luck and undeservingly) beating out Paraguay, Trinidad & tobago and Sweden. Not really teams that have international clout as i am sure you would agree.

A 1:0 win against paraguay was lack luster to say the least, 2:0 against Trinidad where any other side of similar capabilities would have notched up twice the goals and most likely performed well unlike the haphazard result that ensued. These matches lead me to a 2:2 draw with a team whose in fighting grabs headlines and who i never pegged to get through group. Paraguay was my special but alas i was wrong.

So as we can see, England waltzed through group as they should have but with results that were less than becoming of a team with such firepower. The round of 16 match against Ecuador literally bored me shitless. Where was the playing power of England? It took the best dead ball kicker in the world to squeeze them past Ecuador with 1 goal. After watching that match i wouldn't have been surprised if Ecuador had gone through which would have blasted your "at least they made it to PK's" theory out of the water. Yes they made quarters, yes they passed group but the fashion they did it in was so poor that arguments could rage on for years about how deserving they were of the victories they had.

These are my reasons why they did peform dismally and I am sure you'd have yours for why they were bad but not dismal. England has become the erectional disfunction of World Cup Football and i'll only watch them next cup if Pele has been working with them, if you catch my drift.....


All that nonsense and you still think Australia was robbed of the World Cup? That guy should have never been on the ground in the box. All the Italy player had to do was run right into his leg and they were going to call the penalty. Thats like saying the one in the final should not have been a pk too.

[DaveHallow]

All that nonsense and you still think Australia was robbed of the World Cup? That guy should have never been on the ground in the box. All the Italy player had to do was run right into his leg and they were going to call the penalty. Thats like saying the one in the final should not have been a pk too.

That guy was Lucas Neil. Plays for Blackburn and being hunted by Barcelona but we'll call him that guy if you want. That was no where near a penalty kick and there should have been a card issued for diving in the box. All what nonsense? I think i make perfect sense. I think we were robbed of a spot in the quarters and would have done italy in extra time especially since Aloisi had taken the park 10 minutes before the final whistle. We would have beat the Ukraine as well so that would've meant a semi finals berth.

[justinevans]

That guy was Lucas Neil. Plays for Blackburn and being hunted by Barcelona but we'll call him that guy if you want. That was no where near a penalty kick and there should have been a card issued for diving in the box. All what nonsense? I think i make perfect sense. I think we were robbed of a spot in the quarters and would have done italy in extra time especially since Aloisi had taken the park 10 minutes before the final whistle. We would have beat the Ukraine as well so that would've meant a semi finals berth.

I forgot you could predict the future. I'm sorry I didn't know the guys name. I am sure you don't know the left back for USA. Get over yourself. Australia lost, whether it was a dive or not, the guy had no reason to be down and Lucas Neil admitted that it was a dumb mistake.

[DaveHallow]

I forgot you could predict the future. I'm sorry I didn't know the guys name. I am sure you don't know the left back for USA. Get over yourself. Australia lost, whether it was a dive or not, the guy had no reason to be down and Lucas Neil admitted that it was a dumb mistake.

Its a pretty awesome talent i have. It's all over now and i get less angry about it each day. I think i'm finally letting go.....

[Zeran]

the rankings are, and always have been, and always will be, shit. italy wins the world cup and brazil sucks balls and yet italy is only 2 and brazil is still number 1. i suppose that makes sense if you look at their records over the past 4 years, considering italy hasn't lost in 2 years. but in any case, the pk in the italy-australia game was hard to make a call on. for one thing, the defender was lying on the ground, clearly in the way of the italian attacker. yes, he dove over him when he could have easily have dribbled around him and more likely than not have put the ball in the net then. there was also a bad red card on italy earlier in the match, hampering them for the rest of the game. while australia controlled a lot of the game, they didn't do too much with the ball and didn't really threaten italy's goal. if you're the referee, you're screwed either way because if you make one call the other teams' fans are gonna kill you, and vice versa. tough match but i'd say lucky more for italy than australia, who had a great cup and i think deserved much better.