New Fifa rankings are out (Ireland 59th)

Glico Man

Northern Ireland went up 23 places to 86th despite losing to 127th placed Luxembourg, who hadn't won a WC home qualifier since 1972.

ArmaniJeanss

aaronh007 wrote: »

Northern Ireland went up 23 places to 86th despite losing to 127th placed Luxembourg, who hadn't won a WC home qualifier since 1972.

Beating highranked Russia may have had something to do with it also!

ricero

I see switzerland are in the top 15 are they any use these days ?

homerjay2005

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Losing should get you more points than winning?

a team ranked low should not be "punished" for losing to one of the top teams in the world. likewise, theres several teams near the top of the ranking who beat nobodies time and time again. look at England - constantly playing against poor teams as they are always top seeds - constantly at the top of the rankings. its a very flawed system and not universal. Ireland for example playing games in the last 15 months against 6 top 9 ranked teams...no many countries in our current position can say the same, yet teams below us have been able to jump ahead us by beating the likes of Wales, Scotland, Belarus etc etc.

now tell me, you not see a difference between what i said and what you have said?

djPSB

Funny how people are now using the rankings as a stick to beat Trap with.

Yet they were 'irrelevant' when we were up near the top 20.

gnfnrhead

homerjay2005 wrote: »

a team ranked low should not be "punished" for losing to one of the top teams in the world. likewise, theres several teams near the top of the ranking who beat nobodies time and time again. look at England - constantly playing against poor teams as they are always top seeds - constantly at the top of the rankings. its a very flawed system and not universal. Ireland for example playing 5 games in the last 15 months against 6 top 9 ranked teams...no many players in our current position can say the same, yet teams below us have been able to jump ahead us by beating the likes of Wales, Scotland, Belarus etc etc.

now tell me, you not see a difference between what i said and what you have said?

You said:

a one goal defeat to sweden should get more points than a low ranked team beating an even lower ranked team.

Basically, you get more points for losing than winning just because of the opposition.

Losing should not be rewarded regardless of the opposition.

Losing any game shouldn't result in more points being awarded than for winning any game.

A bizarre and frankly ridiculous suggestion.

ArmaniJeanss

They used to award points for margin of defeat and you'd get some points for a small defeat against a much higher ranked opposition.
People derided that format as a crap system and utter madness you'd get anything for a defeat.
So FIFA went to Zero points for a defeat and graded points for draws/wins and now it gets called a 'farce of a system'. Can't win really.

Interstingly no-one is espousing the fabled ELO rankings this month as England are still Top6 on that.

**********
By the way if you click the link in the OP, and then click on a team in the rankings, go down to ranking Prognosis, you can enter future results and see what affect they'd have on that teams overall points/rankings.
Its a neat little addition and whilst its clearly not a perfect system at least it can no longer be accused of being untransparent.

Panthro

NiallSparky wrote: »

On the bright side, we're only 15 places behind Cape Verde Islands...

Panthro wrote: »

Good God but I detest those pesky Verdey Islanders..with their Capes and whatnot..
Who the hell they think they are eh? I think we should declare war on them. (We'd probably lose.. )

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/news/football-cape-verde-lose-world-cup-spot-132841640--sow.html
Ya couldn't make it up!:pac:
Justice for Verde!:mad:

Smithwicks Man

The rankings are in no way a solid guide for determining how good a team is imo.

I'd agree with the top 10 teams more or less being the 10 best in the world but some of the rankings are way off imo (I know it's based on previous campaigns and you cannot look at it and say the rankings are stupid, X should be ahead of Y etc.)

But imo, Argentina definitely shouldn't be 2nd, just not good enough. Brazil are better than 8th. France are definitely better than 25th. Greece are too high at 12th. Japan and Serbia are much too low at 42nd and 43rd and Poland are better than 65th.

Basically, when it comes down to it, the rankings mean sweet f*** all in terms of using them to compare which 2 teams are better.

Seaneh

So their match was voided, they were awarded a 3-0 win but the yellow card given in the game still stood?

That's a bit ****ing stupid.

Liam O

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

The rankings are in no way a solid guide for determining how good a team is imo.

I'd agree with the top 10 teams more or less being the 10 best in the world but some of the rankings are way off imo (I know it's based on previous campaigns and you cannot look at it and say the rankings are stupid, X should be ahead of Y etc.)

But imo, Argentina definitely shouldn't be 2nd, just not good enough. Brazil are better than 8th. France are definitely better than 25th. Greece are too high at 12th. Japan and Serbia are much too low at 42nd and 43rd and Poland are better than 65th.

Basically, when it comes down to it, the rankings mean sweet f*** all in terms of using them to compare which 2 teams are better.

They mean the opposite of SFA because they are used for seeding for qualification...

GTR63

Liam O wrote: »

They mean the opposite of SFA because they are used for seeding for qualification...

Don't they usually jumble everyone around just before drawing Playoffs/Groups anyway.

noodler

The fcuk?


RE: SEEDING

I know that for the Euros draw, seeding will finally bae based on the last three campaigns (and so we can stop counting Stan's era) but seriously? We could be second seeds?

Is there no chnace we could be 4th?

Has someone seen a likely analysis on this bar the on posted above?

Whats the cut-off point for the Euros draw?


http://greenscene.me/2013/09/euro-2016-qualifying-seeding-predictions/

I assume Greenscene are correct here but wow. I really thought we were fecked. Second seeds for Euro 2016 qualfiiers when there will be 24 teams qualifiying? Surely that would make us a seriously attractive prospect for a manager.

Slovakia:
Vs Greece
Vs Latvia

Norway:
Vs Slovenia
Vs Iceland

Turkey
Vs Holland
Vs Estonia

So, apparently, All we need is for Slovakia to drop points, Norway to drop points and Turkey to drop points?

That looks very likely to me.

Smithwicks Man

Smithwicks Man wrote: »

The rankings are in no way a solid guide for determining how good a team is imo.

I'd agree with the top 10 teams more or less being the 10 best in the world but some of the rankings are way off imo (I know it's based on previous campaigns and you cannot look at it and say the rankings are stupid, X should be ahead of Y etc.)

But imo, Argentina definitely shouldn't be 2nd, just not good enough. Brazil are better than 8th. France are definitely better than 25th. Greece are too high at 12th. Japan and Serbia are much too low at 42nd and 43rd and Poland are better than 65th.

Basically, when it comes down to it, the rankings mean sweet f*** all in terms of using them to compare which 2 teams are better.

Liam O wrote: »

They mean the opposite of SFA because they are used for seeding for qualification...

Way to totally disregard what I'm saying by only quoting half of a sentence :rolleyes:

Very childish.

Guy:Incognito

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Interstingly no-one is espousing the fabled ELO rankings this month as England are still Top6 on that
.

Was wondering why that list has been so ignored lately.

764dak

ELO ratings have a recent error. Argentina 5-2 Paraguay says "World Cup qualifier in Argentina" when it was actually in Paraguay.