Fifa's new ranking

Greece above Brazil

Ouch..

Brazil deserves better than that.

England in 3rd

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:England in 3rd

Consistency means something even if it means nothing.

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:England in 3rd

Consistency means something even if it means nothing.

Well its not as if they've consistently been 3rd best or anything.

Doesn't really matter, I don't think anyone takes these ranking seriously.

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:England in 3rd

Consistency means something even if it means nothing.

Well its not as if they've consistently been 3rd best or anything.

Doesn't really matter, I don't think anyone takes these ranking seriously.

Have you ever wondered why Arsenal FC is in Pot1 in CL??

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:England in 3rd

Consistency means something even if it means nothing.

Well its not as if they've consistently been 3rd best or anything.

Doesn't really matter, I don't think anyone takes these ranking seriously.

Have you ever wondered why Arsenal FC is in Pot1 in CL??

No

EC00 11.
WC02 6.
EC04 5.
WC06 7.
EC08 x
WC10 13.
EC12 5.

England has to be best country to ever be third best.

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:England in 3rd

Consistency means something even if it means nothing.

Well its not as if they've consistently been 3rd best or anything.

Doesn't really matter, I don't think anyone takes these ranking seriously.

Have you ever wondered why Arsenal FC is in Pot1 in CL??

No

I get your intentions with your first post.

Its alright to bash sometimes .

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:

highburied wrote:

Irish_Catalan_Scouser wrote:England in 3rd

Consistency means something even if it means nothing.

Well its not as if they've consistently been 3rd best or anything.

Doesn't really matter, I don't think anyone takes these ranking seriously.

Have you ever wondered why Arsenal FC is in Pot1 in CL??

No

I get your intentions with your first post.

Its alright to bash sometimes .

My intention is to bash the rankings. Like Greece being raked above Brazil, England is 3rd is laughable.

I'm kinda confused, are you agreeing the ranking are bullshit or do you actually think England are the 3rd best in the world?

haters gonna hate

greece> brazil u mad?

Pretty accurate rankings.

jiopsi wrote:EC00 11.
WC02 6.
EC04 5.
WC06 7.
EC08 x
WC10 13.
EC12 5.

England has to be best country to ever be third best.

You mad your bumboy has an even worse record for his country despite having superior talent?


Can't believe people still complain about FIFA rankings. Embarrassing.

Why embarrassing?

out of their last 15 games the english won 10 and drew 4. Since 2011 their record is 12 5 1. :notbad:

Brazil hasn't played any competitive match in months. They can't earn points if they don't play...

Greece just came from a pretty decent tournament by their standards and prior to that their qualification round to the Euros was pretty good as well. It was bound to happen.

Why embarrassing?

Because every time new rankings come out, there's always someone that expresses incredulity that nation A is higher than nation B, despite the fact that the reason why that is has been stated repeatedly.

It's just a glorified league table.

Gil wrote:

jiopsi wrote:EC00 11.
WC02 6.
EC04 5.
WC06 7.
EC08 x
WC10 13.
EC12 5.

England has to be best country to ever be third best.

You mad your bumboy has an even worse record for his country despite having superior talent?


Can't believe people still complain about FIFA rankings. Embarrassing.

Well one of us is obviously mad, guess who? Messi has worse record than England?

WC06 6.
CA07 2.
WC10 5.
CA11 7.

Greece.

Ya but the reason people point out Team A vs Team B etc. is to point out the failures of the ranking.

The idea of ranking is one thing but the system is flawed in my opinion.

Same thing with club ranking. They are not an accurate reflection in my eyes. For example Man City in 28th Villareal in 19th.....

Juve 43rd.

It depends what context you think of it in. If you think of the rankings as a representation of a team's quality, inevitably you're going to spot flaws.

However, if you think of the rankings as a representation of results achieved over a period of time, then they immediately make more sense.

Besides, at the end of the day, the team that wins the World Cup or European Championships or Champions League is the one remembered and revered, not the team that was one above Brazil in the rankings for a couple of months.

GoonerJay29 wrote:It depends what context you think of it in. If you think of the rankings as a representation of a team's quality, inevitably you're going to spot flaws.

However, if you think of the rankings as a representation of results achieved over a period of time, then they immediately make more sense.

Besides, at the end of the day, the team that wins the World Cup or European Championships or Champions League is the one remembered and revered, not the team that was one above Brazil in the rankings for a couple of months.

Well in my view ranking by their nature should be a representation of relative strength. The problem with the ranking is they look at results over too long a period.

After all, the time period was halved from 8 years to 4 years for this reason, and I still think this is too long.

it's a ranking based on statistics, so it's bound to be flawed. a "perfect" ranking is impossible.

ELO wrote:it's a ranking based on statistics, so it's bound to be flawed. a "perfect" ranking is impossible.

I def agree with this.

its pretty accurate though