Ireland drop 3 places

uberwolf

http://www.teamtalk.com/teamtalk/News/Story_Page/0,7760,2483_419740,00.html

and England move up 2 places.

stupid really how reactive the placings are. I know it's a big complex calculation, but all the same. England are suddenly upto 5th for beating NI, and Azerbijan? and Ireland drop 3 for conceding a last minute equaliser?

mike65

Why be surpised? England win 2 Ireland draw 1, what were you expecting? Ireland to climb and England drop?

Mike.

uberwolf

mike65 wrote:

Why be surpised? England win 2 Ireland draw 1, what were you expecting? Ireland to climb and England drop?

Mike.

exactly :rolleyes:

It's not the response that surprises me. I understand the system. I'm saying that the scale of the response seems large.

RuggieBear

still can't be too suprised as we failed to put away a team ranked 40ish places below us

EDIT: Having said that.... england went up two places for Beating NI and Azerbajan...WTF?

RE*AC*TOR

its a conspiracy !!!!!11!

the queen in conjunction with the reverse vampires are trying to reduce the price of guinness.

RuggieBear

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

its a conspiracy !!!!!11!

the queen in conjunction with the reverse vampires are trying to reduce the price of guinness.

lol

but come on... they move up two places (within the top 10) for beating 2 piece of **** teams!!?

RE*AC*TOR

RuggieBear wrote:

lol

but come on... they move up two places (within the top 10) for beating 2 piece of **** teams!!?

I hear ya, but I've go to say the rather obvious - who cares what ranking we/they have? Its all so very arbitrary.

~Rebel~

It doesn't really make sense that england rise in the top ten for achieveing pretty much nothing at all, while france only drop to 3rd after some seriously dodgy displays all the way back to the european championships..seems too much on one side and not enough on the other. how exactly do they work it out?

RuggieBear

~Rebel~ wrote:

It doesn't really make sense that england rise in the top ten for achieveing pretty much nothing at all, while france only drop to 3rd after some seriously dodgy displays all the way back to the european championships..seems too much on one side and not enough on the other. how exactly do they work it out?

voodo....

mike65

Its all to do with coefficents or something.... I think it depends as much on what the teams around you do as much as anything. England jumped over Spain and Mexico were they playing and what were thier results like? France being 3rd is a mystery given the results but maybe when they play and loose to other top ranked teams they'll fall.

Mike.

por

OK lets do this.
The next time Ireland beat 2 S**t teams and we move up 2 places (or more) lets all agree that we are not worth the new position and that the system has it's flaws.

England up to 5th, so what !!!!!

eirebhoy

How many years does the FIFA rankings take into account? AFAIK its 4 years. If so, we gained 21 points in April 2001 (that is an enormous amount of points to gain). I don't know how the weighting system is worked out but we lose those anyway.

RuggieBear

The system is completely flawed. I'm not having a go at england....i just thought it would be more difficult for the top teams to bounce up and down like yoyos by beating much much lower ranked teams. Mind you, Scotland went up a few places due to results in asia, despite losing to Italia Madness, i tells you...

thejollyrodger

rankings are a load of rubbish anyway. The only rankings that count are after the world cup. Besides, we should win 4 out of our next 5 games, (by right 5 out of 5 if we were any other team). After that we should move up to 12 or possibly tenth. I would take the rankings with a pinch of salt. There is no way Ingerland is that good :D:D:D

BaZmO*

thejollyrodger wrote:

rankings are a load of rubbish anyway.

I agree totally. Sure they count friendlies, which in all fairness is pointless.

At the end of the day everybody knows who the best teams are so regardless if a team is 1st or 10th you're still gonna have a tough game against them.

B.

jonny68

RuggieBear wrote:

still can't be too suprised as we failed to put away a team ranked 40ish places below us

EDIT: Having said that.... england went up two places for Beating NI and Azerbajan...WTF?

good points there mate........

Guy:Incognito

uberwolf wrote:

stupid really how reactive the placings are. I know it's a big complex calculation, but all the same. England are suddenly upto 5th for beating NI, and Azerbijan? and Ireland drop 3 for conceding a last minute equaliser?

They work on the same rules as us. If it was the other way around would you say we didnt deserve it. Everyome gives england abuse for thinking they are better than they are and hanging onto past glories etc, but tbh we're a lot worse., we begrudge evreryone everything.

por

Stekelly wrote:

They work on the same rules as us. If it was the other way around would you say we didnt deserve it. Everyome gives england abuse for thinking they are better than they are and hanging onto past glories etc, but tbh we're a lot worse., we begrudge evreryone everything.

TBH, I don't even think that the English (media, public etc.) think they are better than they are or go on about past glories, it's just that we in Ireland perseve that they do, cos we watch and read so much British media. They are coasting the the WC and have a right to be confident about their chances, would we not be the same way if we were in their shoes.

Lets say Ireland had a population of 40m, had qualified for all but 2 major tournaments in the past 27 years, had got to the semi's in 2 of them, and had presiously won a WC do you think we would be saying 'oh, I think we will go out and do our best and enjoy it...ole, ole, ole, ole, ole'....hardly.

uberwolf

Stekelly wrote:

They work on the same rules as us. If it was the other way around would you say we didnt deserve it. Everyome gives england abuse for thinking they are better than they are and hanging onto past glories etc, but tbh we're a lot worse., we begrudge evreryone everything.

My post wasn't an excuse to bash england.

I'm just surprised that beating 2 poor/weak teams (at home?) can see you move up two place within the top 10. I believe it highlights inadequatecies within the ranking system. But I Don't care that much.

redspider

The FIFA rankings are based on a points system which is available to the public and can be calculated by all - its an open transparent system.

However, this has been discussed several times on the boards before, it
is not necessarly a fair system. For example, it depends on what
continent you are from as to certain points weightings, etc. European
based countries are biased against. One way to look a the rankings
therefore is to view it on a per-continent basis:

2 Czech Republic 783
4 France 777
5 Netherlands 763
6 England 757
7 Spain 755
9 Portugal 741
10 Italy 735
12 Greece 726
13 Sweden 723
14 Turkey 719
15 Ireland 710

Its quite close really, as according to FIFA's system CZ are
only considered 10% better than Ireland.

Rankings can never be exact in any sport, especially team sports
as there are just too many variables to say that A is better than B.
Just ask Greece (winners Euro 2004).

Redspider

Ponster

2 months out-of-date I know but the Elephant Rankings tend to be more accurate IMHO as they take into account the team that play against. So losing against Brazil 1-0 would not result in ireland dropping hardly any points while losing against Cambodia would be considered 'bad' by the rankings



http://www.elerankings.com/

RuggieBear

redspider wrote:

The FIFA rankings are based on a points system which is available to the public and can be calculated by all - its an open transparent system.

However, this has been discussed several times on the boards before, it
is not necessarly a fair system. For example, it depends on what
continent you are from as to certain points weightings, etc. European
based countries are biased against. One way to look a the rankings
therefore is to view it on a per-continent basis:

2 Czech Republic 783
4 France 777
5 Netherlands 763
6 England 757
7 Spain 755
9 Portugal 741
10 Italy 735
12 Greece 726
13 Sweden 723
14 Turkey 719
15 Ireland 710

Its quite close really, as according to FIFA's system CZ are
only considered 10% better than Ireland.

Rankings can never be exact in any sport, especially team sports
as there are just too many variables to say that A is better than B.
Just ask Greece (winners Euro 2004).

Redspider

That makes sense

Where's Germany? They lower than us?

Guy:Incognito

uberwolf wrote:

My post wasn't an excuse to bash england.

I'm just surprised that beating 2 poor/weak teams (at home?) can see you move up two place within the top 10. I believe it highlights inadequatecies within the ranking system. But I Don't care that much.

It could just mean that it's very close, points wise, (which it obviously does in this case) and that any result is likely to influence the positions.

MrJoeSoap

Its like the stuff we learned in the seminary last year, you're not meant to take it seriously.

Wales behind Zambia?

redspider

Ponster wrote:

2 months out-of-date I know but the Elephant Rankings tend to be more accurate ... http://www.elerankings.com/

Thanks for that site. I think these Elephant rankings (shame about
the name) are more reflective of team strength, as they score points
only for competitive matches, the ones that count and where tactics
aren't awol. The only catch is that some of the data seems out of date,
some of the website (results, history) only seem to be updated to
2004, and that there is no knowing of their accuracy and they
lack official sanction. Now if only we could persuade FIFA to
use their system.

Ireland are at 21. Germany surprising at 10. (20th in FIFA's).
Overall, its not too dissimmilar from FIFA's.

1 Brazil 82.00
2 Argentina 80.40
3 England 79.90
4 Czech Republic 79.60
5 Mexico 79.34
6 France 77.94
7 Netherlands 77.62
8 Portugal 77.46
9 Spain 77.45
10 Germany 76.38
11 Greece 76.03
12 Italy 75.69
13 Croatia 74.71
14 Sweden 73.94
15 Ukraine 73.74
16 Japan 73.49
17 USA 73.12
18 Colombia 72.47
19 Denmark 72.07
20 Uruguay 72.05
21 Ireland 71.43
22 Serbia & Mont 71.42
23 Nigeria 71.27
24 Paraguay 71.18
25 Turkey 71.07

Loco

RE*AC*TOR wrote:

its a conspiracy !!!!!11!

the queen in conjunction with the reverse vampires are trying to reduce the price of guinness.

rofl

yeah ireland deserve to drop though, sucky late goal

mike65

The Elephant list is interesting and proves that Sven should stop messing about with freindlies.

Mike.

astrofool

to be fair to england though, they're already pretty much through from their group, whereas Ireland have an awful lot still to do.

Also, France had a very very good qualifying run for Euro 2004, and also got through their group to be knocked out by the eventual champions.