FIFA Rankings ?????

[maltaseagull]

How on earth do they work?

"Wales will hold on to their best position of ninth, while England are set to drop to 10th. "

In the qualifying groups they have won 4 drawn 2 GD +6 England won 6 GD +15

Has Blatter got Welsh relations?

 

[Arthur]

Gareth Bale once had a good half against Inter Milan and instantly became the best player in the world EVER. That's got to be worth some Fifa ranking points surely.

Ryan Giggs played for them.......on the odd occasion.........when Fergie let him.

Charlotte Church, voice on an angel!

 

[Pintos]

Depends on who you play. Our rating effectively drops from beating San Marino. Switzerland managed to play the system so that they were #1 seeds at the World Cup.

 

[Pintos]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25134584

 

[drew]

It's just a gauge as to how well teams are doing compared to others. Based on who you beat and in what competition.

Exactly how did Switzerland 'play' the system?

 

[Pork Knuckle Pete]

How on earth do they work?

"Wales will hold on to their best position of ninth, while England are set to drop to 10th. "

In the qualifying groups they have won 4 drawn 2 GD +6 England won 6 GD +15

Has Blatter got Welsh relations?

Crazy isn't it. England, tenth best in the world? Bonkers.

 

[studio150]

Exactly how did Switzerland 'play' the system?

They were very selective on the friendly matches that they played. They played fewer matches that others, and ensured that they picked countries that they had a good chance of beating, but without reducing their co-efficient. So they avoided the likes of Germany, Brazil, San Marino, Luxembourg and played middle ranking countries.

 

[One hot tub one ambition]

They were very selective on the friendly matches that they played. They played fewer matches that others, and ensured that they picked countries that they had a good chance of beating, but without reducing their co-efficient. So they avoided the likes of Germany, Brazil, San Marino, Luxembourg and played middle ranking countries.

Sure Blatter didn't have anything to do with it?
I see your point though, England do like to pick the easiest and hardest friendly matches.

 

[JetsetJimbo]

I thought the FIFA rankings only counted competitive matches, hence why sides hosting a tournament where the hosts qualify automatically tend to slide down the rankings. At least, that was the case when we hosted Euro 96, but I realise that's a long time ago so it may have changed. When did it change?

 

[Kuipers Supporters Club]

How are Romania that high?! For Germany to be below Belgium is utterly ridiculous.

 

[LlcoolJ]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25134584

Good article that. Shows why the rankings are total nonsense!

 

[drew]

Good article that. Shows why the rankings are total nonsense!

They are only nonsense if people take them to be the definitive answer as to whom is better. As a guide to relative rank there isn't much wrong with them. What alternative would you have to try and compare Mexico with Sweden or New Zealand with Costa Rica? Not quite sure why so many get so hung up about them.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

However it's calculated, fixed or straight, it's still rather embarassing to be below bloomin' Welsh, however you look at it.

 

[Gritt23]

Not quite sure why so many get so hung up about them.

Probably because they are used for seedings when we come to draws. So, I understand why people get hung up by it, however, quite why anyone is ever surprised that they are ludicrous is slightly more puzzling. They have ALWAYS been gubbins, as is most of what FIFA does.

Just gets another tired shrug from me.

 

[drew]

Probably because they are used for seedings when we come to draws. So, I understand why people get hung up by it, however, quite why anyone is ever surprised that they are ludicrous is slightly more puzzling. They have ALWAYS been gubbins, as is most of what FIFA does.

Just gets another tired shrug from me.

Appreciate that they are used for seedings but what is the alternative? Do you get a load of so called experts in a room to discuss each teams merits? With Fifa's reputation of taking a bribe I doubt those so called experts wouldn't be immune. It is not the ideal system but it is better than nothing.

 

[spring hall convert]

It demonstrates just how poorly thought of the other teams in England's group are. Wales on the other hand have taken 4 points off Belgium.

The draw away to Ireland wouldn't have helped us either.

 

[Gritt23]

Appreciate that they are used for seedings but what is the alternative? Do you get a load of so called experts in a room to discuss each teams merits? With Fifa's reputation of taking a bribe I doubt those so called experts wouldn't be immune. It is not the ideal system but it is better than nothing.

As with any system that any of us have in whatever job we do. If it needs improving, you look at how you improve it. But FIFA seem to have just blindly carried on with a ranking system that is patently wrong.

I think you should have rankings, but clearly how they allocate points and weight the results is wrong. I'm not saying it's easy, but when the results have been so bad for so long, and nothing seems to be improving then it is just another failing. Honestly what do FIFA do all day. If I was left alone in a room for a week armed with all the international results, and a blank spreadsheet, I bet I could come back with a better way of calculating a ranking. But truth is, they simply don't do it.

 

[Hamilton]

It's just a gauge as to how well teams are doing compared to others. Based on who you beat and in what competition.

Exactly how did Switzerland 'play' the system?

I think they beat the teams put in front of them, which seems like a pretty good way to 'play the system'. If we could convince our first 11 to 'play the system' that would be great!

 

[drew]

As with any system that any of us have in whatever job we do. If it needs improving, you look at how you improve it. But FIFA seem to have just blindly carried on with a ranking system that is patently wrong.

I think you should have rankings, but clearly how they allocate points and weight the results is wrong. I'm not saying it's easy, but when the results have been so bad for so long, and nothing seems to be improving then it is just another failing. Honestly what do FIFA do all day. If I was left alone in a room for a week armed with all the international results, and a blank spreadsheet, I bet I could come back with a better way of calculating a ranking. But truth is, they simply don't do it.

As I said, we know it isn't perfect but nobody is really suggesting an alternative way!

 

[warmleyseagull]

As I said, we know it isn't perfect but nobody is really suggesting an alternative way!

This, but there are a couple of things that could be done: firstly, make some allowance for the number of games played. S American teams always rank high because of the large number of World Cup qualifiers (18 I think) they play in their single group and many of these are against other highly ranked teams. Wales are high because they beat Belgium (ranked 2) in a competitive match; the SA teams get the opportunity to play other highly ranked teams competitively regularly whereas the top Euro teams don't. Secondly, they used to make allowance for the margin of victory; reintroducing that would mean that at least a 10-0 vs San Marino counts more than 5-0.