England Vs Wales

[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.pdf

Perhaps 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.

Thanks for that.

Thing is I doubt there is a football fan with a brain in this country, let alone anywhere else in the world, who would seriously expect England to get to the Semi Finals of a World Cup if played now (and that will have been the case for the last 12+ years) so there is obviously SOMETHING wrong with the current system.

[cmonurz]

That's a pretty simplistic approach to it, we are only a handful of points ahead of Uruguay and Brazil, so are we only a draw with Montenegro away from being 'expected to reach the QFs'.

Given the relatively tiny number of games played at tournament finals like the World Cup, compared to qualifying or friendly games, the only way to get the rankings to do what you want them to, would be to assign a ridiculous weighting, say 10x, to performances at major championships.

Otherwise, my previous post stands. Yes, we are shit at major tournaments, but teams like Argentina win relatively few games outside of those tournaments.

[PieEater]

Also don't forget where and when we play major tournaments, it's at the end of our long season and fooking hot.

[Royal Rother]

Too much weight placed on championship qualifiers by the looks of it.

Friendly = 1
Qualifier = 2.5
Euros = 3
World Cup = 4

[cmonurz]

Presumably that's so as not to disproportionately penalise those who don't qualify for the major tournaments, which can sometimes be by tiny margins). The South American qualifying is notoriously a close run thing, for example.

[Hoop Blah]

As much as the rankings feel a bit wrong they actually seem to be a decent asessment if you ask me.

Yes we're higher than we'd think as England fans who are consistently disappointed in our performances, but even Spain have had some shockers in recent years.

They lost to Portugal 4-0 last year didn't they? They also got hammered by Argentina not long after the World Cup. They even struggled to narrowly beat Scotland for christ sake!

If you look at any of the top 10 they have some bad performances and bad results. We're no different but that doesn't mean we're not a decent side who deserve to be in and around the top half a dozen teams in the World when judged on results.

[Ian Royal]

As much as the rankings feel a bit wrong they actually seem to be a decent asessment if you ask me.

Yes we're higher than we'd think as England fans who are consistently disappointed in our performances, but even Spain have had some shockers in recent years.

They lost to Portugal 4-0 last year didn't they? They also got hammered by Argentina not long after the World Cup. They even struggled to narrowly beat Scotland for christ sake!

If you look at any of the top 10 they have some bad performances and bad results. We're no different but that doesn't mean we're not a decent side who deserve to be in and around the top half a dozen teams in the World when judged on results.

I think the major difference is that we're well known chokers, who don't play particularly good football. We tend to make quite hard work of games that ought to be relatively straight forward, like the Welsh one. And we virtually never beat one the genuine contenders when it matters to both teams. But we do grind out the results in qualifying and against lesser teams, on the whole.

[Hoop Blah]

The bit about us making hard work of it against the so called minnows is just England fans only looking at our own results though.

Look at the records of France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Spain. They all struggle to beat teams you'd expect them to roll over with ease quite regularly. We just notice ours more because we have more of an interest in them and have to put up with watching the performances.

If we're chockers, then what are the Dutch and Spanish?

[Ian Royal]

The bit about us making hard work of it against the so called minnows is just England fans only looking at our own results though.

Look at the records of France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Spain. They all struggle to beat teams you'd expect them to roll over with ease quite regularly. We just notice ours more because we have more of an interest in them and have to put up with watching the performances.

If we're chockers, then what are the Dutch and Spanish?

Well the Spanish have won a tournament or two in the last 20 years. And I covered that with the good football bit.

France have been shocking since their big tournament success, so I don't think they are a good example. Italy have been poor for years, despite winning the world cup (utterly without justification). You have a point to an extent, but all of those teams have stepped up to the plate and beat a major challenger when it matters over recent years.

All of them have progressed further than we have in major tournaments in recent years.

[Hoop Blah]

The bit about us making hard work of it against the so called minnows is just England fans only looking at our own results though.

Look at the records of France, Germany, Italy, Holland and Spain. They all struggle to beat teams you'd expect them to roll over with ease quite regularly. We just notice ours more because we have more of an interest in them and have to put up with watching the performances.

If we're chockers, then what are the Dutch and Spanish?

Well the Spanish have won a tournament or two in the last 20 years. And I covered that with the good football bit.

France have been shocking since their big tournament success, so I don't think they are a good example. Italy have been poor for years, despite winning the world cup (utterly without justification). You have a point to an extent, but all of those teams have stepped up to the plate and beat a major challenger when it matters over recent years.

All of them have progressed further than we have in major tournaments in recent years.

We've been poor at times admittedly, I've not said we haven't been. We've also beaten the Germans, Argentinians, Dutch and Spanish in tournament football in the last 20 years pretty much as often as we've lost to them. If it weren't for an inability to win penalty shootouts we'd probably have a better record though. I don't think that's choking as such, but it does show that it usually takes quite a lot for even the top sides in the world to knock us out of a tournament (the Germans in 2010 apart that is).

Fact is we're pretty consistent in results and progress at the major tournaments.

[PEARCEY]

^ Even Germany 2010 could have been a very different story. Lampard's "goal" and a game at 2-2 may well have led to an entirely different outcome particularly as England would not have had to push forward so much and end up getting caught on the break.

[who are ya?]

We would have won that game if the perfectly good goal had been allowed

Then again, if my auntie had gonads she'd be my uncle..

[PEARCEY]

We would have won that game if the perfectly good goal had been allowed

Then again, if my auntie had gonads she'd be my uncle..

Who knows. At 2-2 England would not have been caught on the break like they were in the second-half.

[Ian Royal]

I think the Germans would have just turned it on again. They were all over us and breaking through at will.

[who are ya?]

I think the Germans would have just turned it on again.

You would think that, wouldn't you!

[PEARCEY]

I think the Germans would have just turned it on again. They were all over us and breaking through at will.

Different mind-set though. 2-0 and cruising. Suddenly its 2-2. We will never know of course but I'm pleading Lampard's "goal" in mitigation for the defence.

[Big Foot]

Recent form for whom? Club and/or country? Over what timescale?

For who? Either really, whichever you think is most appropriate. As for timescales, again, that's kind of up to you. I was just trying to negate the need to take into account someone like Wilshire or Gerrard being out injured and getting back to fitness but not opening it up to say I'd pick Scholes from his 2002 form etc etc.

Take Gerrard for example, he'd be in my squad (and team) on the basis that when (if) he gets fit again he'll get back to the form he's showed for the last couple of years even though that hasn't been his best form ever.

Hart, Foster

Smalling, A Cole, Terry, Cahill, Jones, Jagielka, Baines, G Johnson

Parker, Lampard, Hargreaves, Gerrard, Young, A Johnson, Barry, Walcott, Wilshere

Rooney, Bent, Crouch, Welbeck

Starting XI of

Hart

Smalling
Cahill
Terry
A Cole

Parker
Hargreaves

Young
Wilshere
A Johnson

Rooney

[TheMaraudingDog]

Hart
Smalling Jones Rio Cole
Walcott Cleverley Wiltshire Young
Rooney Bent

[cmonurz]

Hart
Smalling Jones Rio Cole
Walcott Cleverley Wiltshire Young
Rooney Bent

This, but Cahill for Jones, and Gerrard for Cleverley.

[TheMaraudingDog]

Jones pretty much = Cahill at the mo. Cahill more experience though so I'll give you that.

Gerrard is a gonna.