FIFA rankings

New rankings show Spain top, Germany 2nd, England 3rd - ????? Brazil have fallen to 13th!

Can anybody explain why England, who have consistently failed to make the semi-finals of any competition since 1996, can be 3rd in the rankings?

itza joke im nevr buyin there games agen

The Tonker wrote:New rankings show Spain top, Germany 2nd, England 3rd - ????? Brazil have fallen to 13th!

Can anybody explain why England, who have consistently failed to make the semi-finals of any competition since 1996, can be 3rd in the rankings?

Roy has friends in high places?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19177783

It just makes no sense. England have been proven, time after time, to be a lesser team than the Fifa rankings suggest. Just how is it possible that they are moving UP in the rankings and not down?

Even AS an England fan, I think they'd be lucky to be considered one of the top eight in the world.

Brazil, Portugal, Germany, Uruguay, Spain, Netherlands, Argentina, Italy. Just off the top of my head, all easily superior to England.

Portugal (5th) and even more so Italy (6th) should be above them, I just don't understand how they can justify this.

Using Fifa rankings to determine team strength FTL

England don't lose many games in q'fying. In a group of 14 games, they will probably win about 10 of them against the likes of Macedonia, Ukraine, etc.

*** G L O V E S *** wrote:England don't lose many games in q'fying. In a group of 14 games, they will probably win about 10 of them against the likes of Macedonia, Ukraine, etc.

That's the problem, it's a flawed system. Beating Macedonia should be irrelevant when deciding whether England are better than Brazil.

Gary Lineker tweeted that FIFA must have looked at the Olympic medal table and seen how many medals GB had and got confused

Apparently Brazil are ranked so low because as hosts of the next World Cup they are only playing friendlies.

These rankings are another reason why Sepp Blatter is a kent.

The way the rankings are worked out is really hard work to understand,it calculated on the last 3 years games or something then as old results "expire" teams can suddenly move up quite a few places even though they may be playing crap!!.......i think

I did some digging for you guys and also my own understanding -

The rankings work just like a league table, but nonstop over 4 years with the oldest year erased to make way for the new.If you win a match 3 points, draw 1, lose 0. Only difference there is if you win via penalties you only get 2 points, and a loss via penalties earns you a point.

It then incorporates the idea you earn a multiplier for matches played in world cup and European qualifiers, continental competitions and world cup finals, increasingly in that order.

The final stipulation is the opponent strength. The equation to work this out is pretty simple, you take the opponents world ranking away from 200 (the total ranks), then divide it by 100. Whatever points you earn are then multiplied by this answer to determine your total tally from that match.

So yeah basically, highly flawed. It takes into account opponent strength but fails to acknowledge your own teams strength - Cameroon would earn just as many points for beating Germany as Spain would, which isn't very fair. It also doesn't do anything to tackle the problem that many teams get more games and many others less.

Wales moved up to 37th woop woop
One step at a time

Absolute joke of a system. We should play rubbish teams in friendlies until we are 1st