Englands Group in the World Cup

[reds4ever]

i think it's very rough on the poorer european and south american teams, the rankings littered with examples Wales' rankings for one, they get battered in Europe so they get a low rank (1??), but they'd beat lot of the Asian teams in the 30-50 mark (..and no i'm not welsh)

[Dauphin]

Flubber, those rankings are awful. They are the same as th FIFA rankings, but they are truly misleading.

Columbia 4th in the world. No way.

Plus they have the USA ranked on a par with England and Germany at ~10th. The USA are nowhere near good enough to be called that mediocre.

The problem is the rankings include results from the past several years.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Flubber, those rankings are awful. They are the same as th FIFA rankings, but they are truly misleading.

My source stated they WERE the FIFA rankings as at April17th. I would never claim they are perfect but as I understand them, they are an objective measure.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin


The problem is the rankings include results from the past several years.

Most ranking systems do take a while to reflect present preformance as opposed to the past record. If the world chess #1 suffered major brain damage that rendered him inept at chess, it would take a couple of losses to fall to number 2 and several more to fall to position 3 and dozens of losses to fall back to "average".

But this feature of ranking sysyems would be an argument in favor of teams such as Senegal which have moved up 22 places in a matter of months. It would also mean that strong teams from "emerging" soccer nations might be stronger than their ranking would indicate.

There are always teams that will appear misplace in the rankings but as long as it is objectively done according to a known system, there should be little complaint.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by reds4ever
good post Flubber, but the rankings must be taken with a pinch of salt, as the way FIFA ranks countries depends on how well you do against the teams you meet.

ie if you are the best team in Asia or Africa and only play teams from your own continent you get an artifically high ranking, thats why if you look at the rankings of the poorer European nations they are very low because they have tougher games (and loose more often) than the mediocre Asian teams (who win easier games)

While no ranking system is perfect, your comments as to the Wales team situation just does not hold water upon reading the actual procedures. A team playing a high ranked team can earn points even in defeat . A team beating up on weak Asian teams would gain little since the formula does not reward this very much. There is even a conference weighting factor based on results between the different regions that is used to discount gains in the "weaker areas".

Arguably, the system works against the Asian and African teams playing teams on their own continent since it is so much harder to make significant gains while playing low-ranked teams. In Europe, a 3-1 loss to France could gain points for the team.

[reds4ever]

did you compile the rankings, you seem to be taking any criticism slightly to heart?

have you got a link to the actual rankings?

until then just a quickie,

Honduras = weak region, totally crap team, rank 26
Norway = strong region, reasonable team, rank 31

now i'm not expecting to defend every FIFA ranking, but i'm still of the opinion that mediocre and weak nations in strong regions don't get a fair crack of the whip, and i think that those two examples show that.

[Juggernaut]

redsforever,

The ranking list is produced by a computer program which assigns a team points for every match, according to clearly defined criteria. The factors taken into consideration are:

Winning, drawing and losing
Number of goals
Home or away match
Importance of the match (multiplication factor)
Strenght of the opponent
Regional strength (multiplication factor)

Okey?

[reds4ever]

i've just skimmed over the prodecure and the most obvious flaw seems to be that while the regions are weighted so you get more points for playing in strong region, the status of the games is also weighted so you get more points for a continental championship game or a world cup qualifier than a friendly, given that the vast majority of these type of games are played against teams from your own region, this more than negates the regional weighting.

In World Cup qualifiers 3-1 to France may get you points but, if it gets you less than a 2-2 with China, then the European team is losing ground to the Asian one.
China

[reds4ever]

look at the examples, points wise it's lot better to draw with a similar standard team than to lose to a much better team

[Juggernaut]

It isn't like you automatically receive more points merely by playing in a stronger region, the purpose behind it is basically that a mediocre performance against an awesome team should get as many points as an awesome performance against a mediocre team.

If the Asian and African teams are as good as you claim, they should quite easily trash their worse regional teams, consequently receiving as many points as their equivalent European and South American ones.

It isn't like you're stuck with bad ranking just because you play in a worse region, it's all about your performance.

Regarding the Importance Of Match factor, I think the main reason they implemented that was because most friendlies are substantially test games, they swap half the team in half time, etc.

[reds4ever]

Originally posted by Juggernaut

If the Asian and African teams are as good as you claim, they should quite easily trash their worse regional teams, subsequently receiving as many points as their equivalent European and South American ones.

.

I was saying the Asian, African and Oceanic teams are rated artifically high at the expense of the European teams by this system.

I understand the reasoning in weighting the importance of the games, but it negates the regional weighting given that the Asian and Oceanic(sp?) teams play a lot more qualifiers than the euro's

[Juggernaut]

Ok, I thought you meant the other way around.

I understand the reasoning in weighting the importance of the games, but it negates the regional weighting given that the Asian and Oceanic(sp?) teams play a lot more qualifiers than the euro's

At the end of the year, only the seven best performances by the country are counted. That quite effectively stops teams who play more games/more important games from automatically getting more points, IMO.

[reds4ever]

i think we'll have to agree to disagree!

you'll understand if i don't wish all the best for the world cup? I think it's England or Sweden going through, not both?

youv'e already started the dirty tricks sending Agent Jonnson over to infiltrate the England management team!

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Kropotkin
No freaking way Ljungberg will score a single goal in the WC. A lot of non-swedes seems to think that he will be a real threat. The truth is that he's quite harmless in the national side. He has a role where he has to take a lot of more defensive responsibility (Sweden plays with 10 defensive players most of the time, when Zlatan isn't involved for 15 minutes or so), he seldom get a chance to make those dashes into the center while he at the same time don't get the same kind of assistance and passes as in Arsenal.

Take away the gunners from Ljungberg and he's a pretty average midfielder.

Difficult to say. Ljungberg has not played with the national side since coming onto the fantastic form he is in now. Granted, the majority of the goals he scores for Arsenal are from darting runs to the post, and the Swedish side seems to require him to play far more withdrawn, not having that same freedom - but the goal he scored in the F.A. Cup against Chelsea this weekend was more or less self made. He started his run in Arsenal's half, shrugged off a rugby tackling defender at the top of the box and took the shot. It would be that kind of goal, coming more from the position he plays for Sweden, that should worry his group opponents.

[Kropotkin]

It's pretty much like this; the swedish coaches want to have the cake and eat it. They say that they want Ljungberg to play a lot like in Arsenal and that other players should take part in the offensive (like the wingbacks) but not at the expense of any of their defensive responsibilites. its an impossible equation and fredrik and most players don't have the time, the opportunity or the stamina to do both. The two that can do that are Johan Mjällby (Celtic) and Håkan Mild (Wimbledon) but these two are about as creative as swedish meatballs, thus Fredrik don't get the creative passes he should get.

[Dr. Nick]

Argentina v Wales tied, but a worse Argentine team beat Germany.

And, DIE BECKHAM DIE!

Hang on, he already ain't playing.