Ireland have not won against a higher ranked team since...

darkman2

...2001. Can you believe it? We have not defeated a team ranked higher than us by FIFA since 2001 (Holland)


It's depressing really. I actually think our decline started in 2001. Does anyone agree? Shoddy world cup then finishing 3rd and 4th in qualifying - than getting Estonia (a midget) to qualify for this and to be embarrassed. The thing that frustrates me is that we are better than what we showed in Euro 2012 and before.

But at the end of the day we have not achieved anything since 2001 in a competitive game. We actually have not. I just wonder why?

Do you blame the players or the FAI or who do you blame for it? It's been 11 years since we beat a team ranked higher than us by FIFA. Who do you blame for that?

(Bare in mind we were down in the 50's in the rankings and STILL we did not beat a higher ranked team)

J. Marston

darkman2 wrote: »

...2001. Can you believe it? We have not defeated a team ranked higher than us by FIFA since 2001 (Holland)


It's depressing really. I actually think our decline started in 2001. Does anyone agree? Shoddy world cup then finishing 3rd and 4th in qualifying - than getting Estonia (a midget) to qualify for this and to be embarrassed. The thing that frustrates me is that we are better than what we showed in Euro 2012 and before.

But at the end of the day we have not achieved anything since 2001 in a competitive game. We actually have not. I just wonder why?

Do you blame the players or the FAI or who do you blame for it? It's been 11 years since we beat a team ranked higher than us by FIFA. Who do you blame for that?

(Bare in mind we were down in the 50's in the rankings and STILL we did not beat a higher ranked team)

Well, yeah.

darkman2

But we were 59th in the world and still did not beat a higher ranked team. How is that possible!? Even at their worst surely this team could have taken Cyprus or Latvia!?

8-10

darkman2 wrote: »

But we were 59th in the world and still did not beat a higher ranked team.

But that's how rankings work. We were that low because we didn't win. The lower down doesn't mean it's easier to beat higher up teams. I don't get the point, you imply that the lower a team is ranked the more likely to beat someone higher because there's more teams ranked higher.

jayteecork

Still bit of a joke we're ranked the 18th best team IN THE WORLD by FIFA.

Our ELO ranking of 32th is more accurate, maybe even a little high.

TerryTibbs!

jayteecork wrote: »

Still bit of a joke we're ranked the 18th best team IN THE WORLD by FIFA.

Our ELO ranking of 32th is more accurate, maybe even a little high.

32nd is ridic accurate.

NIMAN

I honestly don't think we are better than we showed in the Euro's.

Qualifying these days gets you loads of victories, as there are so many bad teams out there. But when you get to the tournament, esp the Euros which has little or no poor teams like the WC, you are quickly found out.

To be fair to us, we did play 3 very good sides, who were simply too good for us. When you are a team that struggles to pass the ball to each other and retain possession, technical teams can make you look very very limited.

I don't think we will qualify for the next WC tbh.

Father Damo

darkman2 wrote: »

...2001. Can you believe it? We have not defeated a team ranked higher than us by FIFA since 2001 (Holland)

We have done Italy once. Friendly mind.

homerjay2005

So does the friendly v italy 2-0 in belgium not count or the fact that we went to france and won 1-0 in a 90 minute game?

The_Kew_Tour

We beat France in Paris in 2009?

If include friendlies would Holland, Denmark and Italy I guess.

SantryRed

France goes down as a 1-1 draw. Doesn't go down as a victory.

The_Kew_Tour

SantryRed wrote: »

France goes down as a 1-1 draw. Doesn't go down as a victory.

90 minutes we won 1-0. Unless I was at a different Match to what you were watching.

SantryRed

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

90 minutes we won 1-0. Unless I was at a different Match to what you were watching.

Still didn't win. The history books show 1-1 AET which is the official result.

The_Kew_Tour

SantryRed wrote: »

Still didn't win. The history books show 1-1 AET which is the official result.

Oh so the history have changed and we actually did win match(Romania) in Italia 1990 too so ya?

Soups123

Stats can be told in any way to look poor or impressive, flip it over and teams ranked higher than us have failed to beat us in about 80% of the games since 2001.

In saying that you'd think we'd have a couple of win scalps in there

There's a few friendly wins

NinjaK

we're sh**e, so yes I believe it:(

SantryRed

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Oh so the history have changed and we actually did win match(Romania) in Italia 1990 too so ya?

What?

Eh no, that was a 0-0 draw and is still in the history books as a 0-0 draw. Just like France is in the history books as a 1-1 draw. I don't get your problem with it

gosplan

Silly stat.

Reflects very little. What's the comparable for Scotland and Wales?

Paparazzo

Soups123 wrote: »

Stats can be told in any way to look poor or impressive, flip it over and teams ranked higher than us have failed to beat us in about 80% of the games since 2001.

In saying that you'd think we'd have a couple of win scalps in there

There's a few friendly wins

Exactly. The stat that we're 18th out of over 200 teams for instance.

Renn

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Oh so the history have changed and we actually did win match(Romania) in Italia 1990 too so ya?

What?

Rekop dog

It's not as many games as it may seem, only the 1 or two teams ranked higher in each qualifying campaigns against whom we got some good draws like the two against Italy. Euros was obviously the only major championship in that time. You could also say we haven't lost a single competitive game during Traps reign against a team ranked lower than us which is a bigger sample size than the one against teams ranked higher!

noodler

Yay, we had a bad euros and now we are back being judged as complete sh1t by some of our fans!



EDIT: It never ceases to amaze me that this stat (Holland 2001) can be brought up every couple of months on this board alone and people are still amazed.

The_Kew_Tour

SantryRed wrote: »

Still didn't win. The history books show 1-1 AET which is the official result.

SantryRed wrote: »

What?

Eh no, that was a 0-0 draw and is still in the history books as a 0-0 draw. Just like France is in the history books as a 1-1 draw. I don't get your problem with it

Looking at websites I noticed the result goes down as 1-1 in all them.

So your right and I am wrong.

But I dont get then that games like Italy v England and Spain v Portugal goes down as draw.

Even games like South Korea v Italy in 2002 WC go down as draw.

Why the difference in Ireland game does anyone know?

keith16

SantryRed wrote: »

Still didn't win. The history books show 1-1 AET which is the official result.

The game only went to extra time because we beat them. What is so hard to understand about that?

SantryRed

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Looking at websites I noticed the result goes down as 1-1 in all them.

So your right and I am wrong.

But I dont get then that games like Italy v England and Spain v Portugal goes down as draw.

Even games like South Korea v Italy in 2002 WC go down as draw.

Why the difference in Ireland game does anyone know?

Any games that go to penalties is just to determine who goes through to the next round of competition. The game actually goes down as a draw afaik.

SantryRed

keith16 wrote: »

The game only went to extra time because we beat them. What is so hard to understand about that?

No, it was a continuation of the same game which then finished 1-1. So officially we did not beat them.

The_Kew_Tour

SantryRed wrote: »

Any games that go to penalties is just to determine who goes through to the next round of competition. The game actually goes down as a draw afaik.

Im not talking about penalties im talking a winner in extra time.

If say Italy had beaten England in extra time the game would have officially been declared a draw anyway.

Xavi6

It's pretty desperate to resort trying to claim a draw as a win

fullstop

SantryRed wrote: »

Still didn't win. The history books show 1-1 AET which is the official result.

You're talking ****e. If you bet on a draw for that match you'd have lost the bet because Ireland won the match in 90 minutes. The extra time was for the aggregate of two matches.

Ireland won the match.

bullpost

The English are finally beginning to realise that they have been left behind by the advances in the game on the continent.
We are largely of the same mindset as the English in how we play the game.

Holding on to pssession and going beyond 442 are still things we are not comfortable with. We need a radical overhaul of the game here from underage levels up and that wont happen overnight.
Given the new expanded size of the Euros we will find it easier to qualify but unless we change we will never get past the group stages .

ArmaniJeanss

fullstop wrote: »

You're talking ****e. If you bet on a draw for that match you'd have lost the bet because Ireland won the match in 90 minutes. The extra time was for the aggregate of two matches.

Ireland won the match.

Are you really reduced to using the way the bookies settle matches to attempt to prove the point?

The game was a 1-1 draw for the football record books, and for UEFA co-efficient and FIFA World Ranking purposes.

fullstop

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Are you really reduced to using the way the bookies settle matches to attempt to prove the point?

The game was a 1-1 draw for the football record books, and for UEFA co-efficient and FIFA World Ranking purposes.

A football match is 90 minutes. Ireland won 1-0 after 90 minutes. The extra time was as a result of losing the first leg.

Renn

A football match is usually 90mins. Unfortunately, for you, this one went on for 120mins.

osarusan

fullstop wrote: »

A football match is 90 minutes. Ireland won 1-0 after 90 minutes. The extra time was as a result of losing the first leg.

The other poster who thought the same as you has looked at the records and admitted he was wrong. What you personally feel to be the criteria on which a result should be determined obviously isn't shared by the footballing authorities.

How hard is it to understand?

fullstop

osarusan wrote: »

The other poster who thought the same as you has looked at the records and admitted he was wrong. What you personally feel to be the criteria on which a result should be determined obviously isn't shared by the footballing authorities.

How hard is it to understand?

I know the records, I was at the ****ing game. Ireland won the match 1-0. They lost the tie.

Chucky the tree

fullstop wrote: »

I know the records, I was at the ****ing game. Ireland won the match 1-0. They lost the tie.

lol. Stop digging lad.

The_Kew_Tour

osarusan wrote: »

The other poster who thought the same as you has looked at the records and admitted he was wrong. What you personally feel to be the criteria on which a result should be determined obviously isn't shared by the footballing authorities.

How hard is it to understand?

Just genuine question.

Why do games in major tournaments that go to ET be considered draws then?

Here is one just off top my head. England v Scotland from Euro 2000 Playoff.

England win first leg 2-0 at Hampden. Scotland beat England 1-0 at Wembley.

England go through, but Scotland claim the victory at Wembley(and down in records)

So by UEFA reckoning had Scotland scored a seond goal, won 2-0, but got beat in extra time it would have went down as a draw?

Makes no sense!

dreamers75

jayteecork wrote: »

Still bit of a joke we're ranked the 18th best team IN THE WORLD by FIFA.

Our ELO ranking of 32th is more accurate, maybe even a little high.

LOI is 34 in Europe, said a few years ago we would even out and soon enough we will.

Shame the league is going up while the national team drops

Chucky the tree

dreamers75 wrote: »

LOI is 34 in Europe, said a few years ago we would even out and soon enough we will.

Shame the league is going up while the national team drops

No it's not.

fullstop

Chucky the tree wrote: »

lol. Stop digging lad.

lol :rolleyes:

aindriu80

well you have to walk before you can run. We don't have the players to beat better footballing countries. Maybe we did in the past but were too badly organised.

I think until the league of Ireland is getting results in Europe there is no way Ireland can break through our current ceiling of group stages Euros and last 16 World Cup. That's when we really put in the performance and make it to a major tournament. It means playing from a very early age, something never totally accepted here at home.

dreamers75

Chucky the tree wrote: »

No it's not.

Yes it is?


http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2013.html

ArmaniJeanss

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Just genuine question.

Why do games in major tournaments that go to ET be considered draws then?

Here is one just off top my head. England v Scotland from Euro 2000 Playoff.

England win first leg 2-0 at Hampden. Scotland beat England 1-0 at Wembley.

England go through, but Scotland claim the victory at Wembley(and down in records)

So by UEFA reckoning had Scotland scored a seond goal, won 2-0, but got beat in extra time it would have went down as a draw?

Makes no sense!

Eh? If Scotland had won 2-0 in 90 minutes and took it to extra time, and then England scored, Scotland would still have been credited with a 2-1 win.

(And if England scored twice , it would have gone down as a 2-2 draw, because that would have been the result)

The_Kew_Tour

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Eh? If Scotland had won 2-0 in 90 minutes and took it to extra time, and then England scored, Scotland would still have been credited with a 2-1 win.

(And if England scored twice , it would have gone down as a 2-2 draw, because that would have been the result)

Yes thats all well and good but still makes no sense in theory.

Ireland were still punished for getting closer to France then Scotland did against England!!:rolleyes:

full_irish

dreamers75 wrote: »

Yes it is?


http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2013.html

I think he means the national team dropping. Which it isn't... has been a steady increase since Trap took over. May go down at the next classification due to euro performance

ArmaniJeanss

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Yes thats all well and good but still makes no sense in theory.

Ireland were still punished for getting closer to France then Scotland did against England!!:rolleyes:

I'd actually agree with you that its not completely fair, and leads to curious anomalies, as in your example if Ireland had lost 2-0 at home it would have ultimately been better for our WR and co-eff as we'd have been credited with a victory in Paris.

But I didn't think the fairness or not of it was being discussed - merely the surely indisputable fact that the second leg in Paris went into the football record books as 1-1.

Chucky the tree

dreamers75 wrote: »

Yes it is?


http://kassiesa.home.xs4all.nl/bert/uefa/data/method4/crank2013.html

I mean I'm not sure how you can say the National team is dropping.

Renn

Maybe the Soccer Access Requests forum needs to update the question to include whether you think 1-1 is a win or a draw.

The_Kew_Tour

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'd actually agree with you that its not completely fair, and leads to curious anomalies, as in your example if Ireland had lost 2-0 at home it would have ultimately been better for our WR and co-eff as we'd have been credited with a victory in Paris.

But I didn't think the fairness or not of it was being discussed - merely the surely indisputable fact that the second leg in Paris went into the football record books as 1-1.

Well thats fair enough then.

Thanks for clearing it up.

I just honesly thought it was considered a victory until today:o

Going back to topic our record is poor against Top sides.

Just taking Scotland, Wales and NI and the teams they have beaten in qualifying over past 10 years off top my head. France(twice), Italy(twice), Spain, Sweden, Denmark, England, Switzerland, Slovakia(away), Bulgaria.

Teams highlighted are teams we have faced in qualifying over that period which we have failed beat any of them. Now fair enough they have been different periods, but does show we really should be at least able to produce 1-2 better performances over last few years.

In saying that though it was Ireland who got to major finals over the other 3 and I guess thats name of game.

keith16

SantryRed wrote: »

No, it was a continuation of the same game which then finished 1-1. So officially we did not beat them.

Have to disagree with this. ET was only played because the tie was level after two games.

It's a different story for tournament games where the result AET is the official result.

Anyway, as xavi said, fairly embarrassing to be getting into semantics. We are just not good enough to be competing at the top table of international football. We are a very limited side.

EDIT: I see now that it is officially a draw; still wrong IMO....e.g. why should France get the benefit of ET which we weren't afforded in croker just because it was the first leg....oh well

noodler

On the France game, as far as I am concerned:

A play-off consists of:

LEG 1: which the French won

LEG 2: Which we won

Extra-Time is required if LEGS 1/2 do not provide a winner.

Its just semantics that the decider took place in Paris directly after that 90 mins imo.