Fifa World Rankings

[Lowensda]

http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/rankingtable/index.html

 

Does anyone take note of the rankings? I'm really suprised that Uruguay are soo high up and that Germany are third.

 

Australia being above the US as well, doesn't seem right.

 

Portugal drop 5 places since the last updated....ouch.

Edited June 6, 2012 by tenaciousj

[Louis]

They are only important for cup draws, although other nations use them as a gauge to see where they stand in the regional stakes. It's a source of pride for many countries.

[Dalziel Kane]

The rankings are a load of bullshit, always have been, always will be. A team does well in a specific game or over a duration of a few weeks, such as a tournament, and they go into first or second place, next time you look, then said team is about ten places below, these damn things go up and down like a kangaroo on a fucking trampoline, even the United States were placed about 6th in the world after the 2002 world cup, and even I knew that simply wasn't the case. When Greece won Euro 04 the silly fucks at FIFA Probably put them in the top three, even though that simply would be inaccurate, people should never take these rank listings too seriously.

[Zoo]

My Dad showed me them yesterday and I too was surprised.

 

I fail to see how Uraguay are the second best team in the world when I could rattle off about five or six teams who would comfortably stick a few goals past them. I also fail to see why Italy are so low, I believe that they are even lower than the likes of Chile when based on todays performance they look rather promising (not to mention that they won the World Cup in 2006).

 

Shocking.

[Guest Nikica]

My Dad showed me them yesterday and I too was surprised.

 

I fail to see how Uraguay are the second best team in the world when I could rattle off about five or six teams who would comfortably stick a few goals past them. I also fail to see why Italy are so low, I believe that they are even lower than the likes of Chile when based on todays performance they look rather promising (not to mention that they won the World Cup in 2006).

 

Shocking.

 

Comments like this are unbelievable and indicate that people don't actually follow international football. It's because of disparaging comments like this that Tim Vickery and Sid Lowe write articles about how underrated South American teams are, outside of the big two.

 

Let's leave aside the subjective evaluating (personally I think Uruguay are a better team than Italy, they beat them in Italy in a friendly last season but that's another matter and by far the least important evidence of why they're better).

 

First of all, Uruguay reached the semi-finals of the World Cup, and last year won the Copa America. Given that the world rankings are heavily favoured to team who win competitive matches, and especially matches in big tournaments, it becomes perfectly clear how Uruguay have managed to accumulate enough points to be ranked so highly.

 

Italy played well against Spain but Chile gave them just as good a game in South Africa. And that Spain team was better than this, as they had Puyol and Villa. Chile could have won that game if not for Bravo's mistake leading to Villa's equaliser. They also reached the second round of the World Cup. The fact that Italy have finally played well in a competitive game against Spain isn't going to help the current rankings is it? Their draw against Spain will only help future rankings, obviously

 

Now let's compare Uruguay (and to a lesser extent Chile's) performances to Italy shall we? Italy were chucked out in the QF v Spain in Euro 2008 (they were pumped 3-0 by Holland in the first round, which won't have helped their rankings much), and finished bottom of a group containing Paraguay, Slovakia and fucking New Zealand in 2010, without winning a game. And all this as defending champions. They were also an abomination at the 2009 Confederations Cup (which, whilst not an important tournament per se, is still a good way of improving or decreasing your ranking). They have played well against Spain and Croatia, but people are surprised because they've been so rotten for ages.

 

All of this should make it abundantly clear why Uruguay are ranked so highly and Italy are ranked much lower. The fact that you might think Italy are better than Uruguay (which is subjective and highly debatable) means nothing because the rankings deal with the facts or how many games teams have won, and by quantifying these it becomes quite obvious that Uruguay should be ranked well above Italy due to comparative performances in the last two years. In statistical data, there's no room for subjective or 'qualitative' analysis.

 

I'm not a great fan of the world rankings either, but Uruguay are a very good team, are the champions of South America, and the slagging they're taking on this thread goes against their achievements over the last two years. Is it just because Suarez plays for them and is one of their best players?

 

I'd also really love to hear this list of five or six teams who would 'comfortably' hammer Uruguay. I assume it contains Brazil and Argentina, both of whom haven't. Oh, and possibly Germany and Holland as well, who both beat Uruguay by one goal in the last World Cup. Two of Europe's best teams, beating Uruguay in tight games. Doesn't quite suit your hypothesis that Uruguay are the big teams' whipping boys.

 

As for 2006, it was six years ago now, and performances from the past carry less weighting as time goes on. They do still help to a degree though, hence why Greece keep getting easier qualification groups due to Euro 2004.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Nikica

[Guest Nikica]

Actually, I appear to have misinterpreted your comment in my bewilderment at the denigrating comments on Uruguay. You aren't saying Italy should be ranked above Uruguay (well, not explicitly anyway), but you are surprised Uruguay are so high and Italy so 'low' compared to their standards.

 

I would argue that Uruguay aren't the second-best team in the world, but you can see how they've become ranked that highly based on points accumulation.

 

I do think though that based on performances over the last few years, ten places between Uruguay and Italy is more than fair. In fact, Italy have been so shite recently that they're lucky to be 12th and are probably still living off the 2006 points.

 

Hence, I apologise for misinterpreting your comment in terms of Uruguay v Italy, but I don't apologise for defending Uruguay's achievements in light of you being so harsh on them. I also think Chile being above Italy is fair and correct, as I think Chile would have a very good chance of beating Italy. Chile are about on par with Croatia, so it's not unreasonable to suggest they're at Italy's level or a bit above, as the rankings suggest.

 

Perhaps the biggest reason for all of this though is that South America had a competitive tournament last summer and Europe didn't, allowing them to leapfrog Euro teams. After the Euros, the balance shall be redressed and some Euro teams will move up.

Edited June 16, 2012 by Nikica

[marcus jones]

38th? How the hell did Wales get that high?!!! See you lot in Brazil 2014, yeah oh yeah

[Mogsy]

38th? How the hell did Wales get that high?!!! See you lot in Brazil 2014, yeah oh yeah

 

Um, I think the FAW must have bribed someone!

[MikeO]

38th? How the hell did Wales get that high?!!!

 

Did they recall Nev?

 

He could just lie down in front of the goal and nobody could score .

[Romey 1878]

Then Wales would have a whale in goal!

[marcopaulo]

they could have that tumble-weed that passed through an all

[marcus jones]

Did they recall Nev?

 

He could just lie down in front of the goal and nobody could score .

Is he bigger than Jan Molby though?

[Dalziel Kane]

I think he is indeed bigger than Jan Moby the last I saw of him, if we were to do a FIFA world ranking of obese or overweight soccer players, past, present and future, I would estimate Southall about #15 and Molby about #18. I think that's a fair and accurate representation.

[Peter H]

Dont forget Tomas Brolin. Hes not slim

 

http://www.google.se/search?q=tomas+brolin+2012&hl=sv&client=safari&tbo=d&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=1MLgT8WABojh4QSn6pzZDQ&ved=0CD0Q_AUoAQ&biw=768&bih=928#biv=i|1;d|KHx-eZPZd32zoM:

Edited June 19, 2012 by Peter H

[Dalziel Kane]

I remember when Leeds United bought him about 1996, he was noticeably larger and more incapable than the player of Euro 1992 that did so well and was quite a plausible danger, by the time he arrived, and left, Elland Road, the player was a pale imitation of the man I remembered.

 

Incidentally, are the English the #1 soccer nation on earth now

 

I wouldn't be surprised if they shot up about 30 places the last week or so if the silly fucks did another poll or ranking event etc.

[rubecula]

These sorts of rankings are based on opinions anyway I think. (Yes there are points that are used for the rankings) but it was someones opinion that this would be a good method of ranking teams.

 

I suppose that if you want to rank teams this is as good a way as any to do it.

 

Being "best" team is purely subjective anyway and it doesn't do you too many favours carrying that around with you.

[Dalziel Kane]

It will be interesting to see how they will list it in a week or two when the damn tournament is over, all teams remaining have an opportunity to be winners, anything can happen as we've seen before, but will the eventual winners be worthy of a #1 world ranking though?, of course not, it's just some bored fucks at FIFA playing around with numbers and trying to keep things interesting. I thought the #1 ranked side in the world (Netherlands) have already gone out this summer, so where are they now on the basis of an early exit? #5? #12? etc. Suppose Spain are #2 as we speak and they lose to France next week, then they go back to #10 etc?, it's all a lot of fucking nonsense, these damn rankings get changed so frequently and appear so inaccurate, they just might as well be done with them and don't have such a thing. We should just judge sides on how we find them and FIFA can fuck off with their silly lists and all, this is how I see it, regardless of recent days -

 

#1 The Netherlands

#2 Germany

#3 Spain

#4 Portugal

#5 France

[Lowensda]

Update Yo'!

 

[daib0]

I don’t claim to know the inner workings, but I suspect it’s weighted too heavily on recent performances. Netherlands for example finished bottom of their group at this year’s Euros (albeit a tough one) and therefore scored badly in the FIFA offices coming in at 8th(!) despite being world cup sub-champions and going through the Euros qualifiers unbeaten, while we topped our group ahead of France, so we're definitely a good side according to them ...

But this throws up even stranger cases:

Brazil can ‘only’ make 13th place, yet Croatia are 9th, Denmark 10th and Greece 12th. Think I’d know where my money would go for any of these in a match v Brazil!

[Dalziel Kane]

^{_{The United States are ranked 36th last I read, don't know if they updated it, and can't be bothered to look at what the FIFA Idiots have put together beyond top ten places. I should find some amusement with these things, but can't, only irritation.}}

[daib0]

I've seen a lovely post on the West Ham 'Cockney Boys' forum:

 

" I was under the mistaken impression that it involved a dartboard and a blindfolded typist at FIFA headquarters.

Or possibly fat brown envelopes?"

 

! !

[Bailey]

The only team they have right on that list is Spain...

[Dalziel Kane]

Germany 2nd and Italy 6th could well be about accurate enough, the rest seems a lot of chicken litter. It will all change again on Thursday after the international friendlies of course. The silly cunts at FIFA will maybe have The Faroe Islands or a volcano off Japan in first place, and It wouldn't be a surprise.... What a confused and poorly run organization I feel sometimes.