by cmonurz »
07 Sep 2011 14:41
Royal Rother I have no idea how it's done but mere words cannot convey the level of contempt I have for a system that could place England as 4th best team in the world.
The discussion has been had before, we win most games that we play, and we win a shed load more than a lot of the teams below us. Until major championships, we are really pretty good.
It just so happens that the three teams above us happen to be those I've mentioned on a thread somewhere are on massive winning streaks, in qualifying games at least, and the points they have amassed (table at
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranki ... nking.html) reflects that.
The calculation already carries a weighting for the strength of opposition team played, too, as well as another for the strength of the confederation as a whole (eliminates the effect of some teams playing relative better/poorer sides more often based on where they are in the world). It also accounts for the importance of the match (four times the points for a World Cup game compared to a friendly, for example).
It's difficult to see how the rankings could, or should, be improved. Whether England could beat Brazil in a one-off game isn't relevant to the fact that the sum of England's results over the last four years is better than Brazil's.
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafac ... points.pdfPerhaps all that could be done would be to reduce that four year period - but that would be a disadvantage to teams that had accumulated lots of points in major championships, not a disadvantage to England. And anyway, I assume four years is used as it is a full World Cup cycle and incorporates all Confederation championships.