World Ranking

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

19/07/2007, 10:17 AM
youngirish

Quote:

Originally Posted by gustavo

Northern Ireland are there because they have beaten teams that were a lot higher up than them in the last 2 years so it makes sense that a rise in the rankings was in order for them

They have also lost to the likes of Wales, Austria and Iceland (both very heavily) who are way down in the rankings in the same time period so why are they so high? The rankings are a nonsense.

Why are Brazil and Argentina higher than France and Italy? Both far better teams if the World Cup is anything to go by though to be honest I can now see the logic in giving the same weighting to games in the Copa America against pretty laclustre teams than quarter final results in the World Cup.
19/07/2007, 10:23 AM
RogerMilla

the rankings are exactly what they are , an indicator of how a team is doing relative to other teams, just because you arent happy where your team or another team is doesnt make them a nonsense. There are no prizes for being first which is how it should be.
19/07/2007, 10:27 AM
Dodge

Jesus, its simple maths. Don't call it nonsense just because you're too thick to undertand it
19/07/2007, 10:28 AM
youngirish

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

the rankings are exactly what they are , an indicator of how a team is doing relative to other teams, just because you arent happy where your team or another team is doesnt make them a nonsense. There are no prizes for being first which is how it should be.

Doesn't bother me in the slightest where Ireland are. I didn't care when we were 12th a few years ago under Kerr (again for no reason) and I don't care now. They are sh*te and they don't properly take into account where teams are relative to other teams around them for the exact reasons I mentioned above which was my initial point.

Just because EalingGreen soils his pants with excitement everytime they come out and NI are above the ROI team (though remains very quiet when the reverse is true) this doesn't make them any more valid.

As for Dodge I'd say I understand it far more than you can comprehend considering I did my degree in maths when you probably haven't grasped basic arithmetic yet. Taking this into account I'll take my interpretation of the rankings over yours then thank you very much if you don't have a problem with that. To try to state that it's just a matter of simple maths when weights of 40% are taken into account for friendlies shows you don't really understand either simple maths or the rankings. Where did they get that magic 40% from? Do teams try only 40% as hard in friendlies? Do all teams then only try that 40%? Should it be the same calculation if you beat France and win the World Cup final as if you beat them 1-0 at home on a rainy night in a Euro qualifier if they've already qualified for said finals. Stay off the glue.
19/07/2007, 10:39 AM
RogerMilla

If you dont like EG's discussions of them then you can opt out rather than calling for him to be banned like you did before you edited your post. I for one am confident that we will rise in the rankings and even more confident that NI will slide and will be delighted to discuss that with EG when the time comes.
19/07/2007, 10:43 AM
youngirish

Quote:

Originally Posted by RogerMilla

the rankings are exactly what they are , an indicator of how a team is doing relative to other teams, just because you arent happy where your team or another team is doesnt make them a nonsense. There are no prizes for being first which is how it should be.

Thinking about it I don't want him banned I get a laugh at the sh*te he spouts about David Healy and NI.
19/07/2007, 10:57 AM
eirebhoy

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

Why are Brazil and Argentina higher than France and Italy? Both far better teams if the World Cup is anything to go by though to be honest I can now see the logic in giving the same weighting to games in the Copa America against pretty laclustre teams than quarter final results in the World Cup.

Maybe you're missing the fact that you don't get many points for beating poor teams.
19/07/2007, 1:55 PM
Steve Bruce

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

Thinking about it I don't want him banned I get a laugh at the sh*te he spouts about David Healy and NI.

Would you like so salt and vinegar for that massive chip:confused::rolleyes:
19/07/2007, 2:09 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

3. Teams that have a couple of good wins are boosted to ridiculous rankings irrespective of how bad they have been beforehand or are likely to be again.

So you think part of the ranking criteria should be a guess on how a team are likely to do in the future?
19/07/2007, 3:10 PM
youngirish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steve Bruce

Would you like so salt and vinegar for that massive chip:confused::rolleyes:

Yes thats right, I've a chip on my shoulder because I think David Healy, a NI footballer, is crap. You didn't really think that one through now did you? Admit it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

So you think part of the ranking criteria should be a guess on how a team are likely to do in the future?

Where did I make this extraordinary claim? I simply stated teams jump up and down in the rankings far too quickly based on only a small set of results. The rankings are pure drivel. If you think otherwise great, seek some help.
19/07/2007, 3:19 PM
osarusan

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

Where did I make this extraordinary claim? I simply stated teams jump up and down in the rankings far too quickly based on only a small set of results.

Here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

3. Teams that have a couple of good wins are boosted to ridiculous rankings irrespective of how bad they have been beforehand or are likely to be again.

Teams jump up and down too quickly based on only their very recent results, not taking into account poor results in the farther past, and also without taking into account how crap they're likely to be in the future.

To me that reads like you think we should consider a teams' potential future crapness when deciding a ranking.
19/07/2007, 3:25 PM
youngirish

Quote:

Originally Posted by osarusan

Here.

Teams jump up and down too quickly based on only their very recent results, not taking into account poor results in the farther past, and also without taking into account how crap they're likely to be in the future.

To me that reads like you think we should consider a teams' potential future crapness when deciding a ranking.

To me it reads that the rankings are too reactive and teams gain too many positions based on a small set of results and that's what it was meant to mean when written.

Answer me this why are NI higher than us when we have had a consistently better record in qualifiers for years (including by far in the last set of qualifiers)? Why because they beat Spain and a poor Swedish team at home (that we thrashed 3-0 before the World Cup if I remember). Two results that hardly should catapult them into the top 30 when you take into account the other results I've mentioned in recent years (losses to Austria, Poland, Wales and Iceland all average to poor teams). The rankings should only be updated annually at most though bi-anually would be preferrable. As anyone who knows anything about football would agree any rubbish team can string a couple of good results together (it happens all the time in club football) but over the course of a dozen or so games teams usually find their level. To be shifting teams up and down dozens of places based on a single good or bad result is absolute nonsense.

Take the rankings for what they are and stop falling into the trap. Typical media headline grabbing nonsense from FIFA. It just makes some good business sense to spurt out some nice new stats every now and then. Keeps the Yanks happy (another team consistently placed unrealistically high).
19/07/2007, 6:14 PM
cavan_fan

I'm a bit confused by this. From what I can see or a win in a qualifier against a team ranked 40th this year you get
3 points (for a win)
*2.5 (cos it's a qualifier)
* 100 (they multiply everything by 100)
* 1(cos we're European)
* 200-40/100 = 1.6

Now I make this over 1100+ points for one game but Brazil have only 1500 points in total. What am I missing
19/07/2007, 9:40 PM
eirebhoy

It's averaged over 4 years. So:

Points from matches in last 12 months
+
Points from matches 12-24 months ago x 0.5
+
Points from matches 24-36 months ago x 0.3
+
Points from matches 36-48 months ago x 0.2

Divided by the number of games played.

I think...
21/07/2007, 4:28 PM
Lionel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

EalingGreen is a WUM anyway and is only concerned with polluting our boards with pro Northern Ireland Unionist dribble. Or am I too thick to see that also?

Is anyone moderating this bullsh1t?:rolleyes:
23/07/2007, 9:14 AM
youngirish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

Is anyone moderating this bullsh1t?:rolleyes:

You again? Don't you ever have an opinion on anything or do you just hang around the forums scanning for anything that's said that isn't PC enough for you? Who are you Mary Whitehouse? You know about as much about football.
23/07/2007, 9:56 AM
Lionel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

You again? Don't you ever have an opinion on anything or do you just hang around the forums scannign for anything that's said that isn't PC enough for you? Who are you Mary Whitehouse? You know about as much about football.

:D Take all the rope you need YI.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

Friendlies are included which is a nonsense even if they only were weighted at 4% nevermind 40%.

...so you don't value friendlies -that's fair enough. But then when talking about our results relative to NIs you say...

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

...because they beat Spain and a poor Swedish team at home (that we thrashed 3-0 before the World Cup if I remember).

I'm sure I don't need to point out to anyone, scarcely even yourself, that we beat Sweden in one of those friendlies you don't value much -except when you'd like our friendly wins to trump NIs competetive wins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

As for Dodge I'd say I understand it far more than you can comprehend considering I did my degree in maths when you probably haven't grasped basic arithmetic yet.

Christ is that what they're calling the Drumcondra test these days?
23/07/2007, 10:25 AM
youngirish

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

...so you don't value friendlies -that's fair enough. But then when talking about our results relative to NIs you say...

I'm sure I don't need to point out to anyone, scarcely even yourself, that we beat Sweden in one of those friendlies you don't value much -except when you'd like our friendly wins to trump NIs competetive wins.

I don't think they should be included in the rankings as I stated earlier but getting hammered 3-0 in a friendly when (and this is the important bit for you Mary) playing your best team a month before a major Championship is not a good sign. If you think it is then fair play, see a doctor.

Anyway since friendlies are included in the rankings I thought I'd point that result out. That logic ok for you?
23/07/2007, 10:36 AM
Lionel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

I don't value them as I stated but getting hammered 3-0 in a friendly when (and this is the important bit for you Mary) playing your best team a month before a major Championship is not a good sign.

Anyway since friendlies are included in the rankings I thought I'd point that out. That logic ok for you?

No it's not. You're still essentially saying Sweden are easy meat.

Barring the clown who clatttered Trigger just before the 2002 finals I can scarcely think of a hard challenge in any friendly in the run up to a finals.

That Swedish team never shifted out of second and why would they? Playing for the jersey or the place in the starting eleven? I'd say hardly. Most teams that've qualified will be bedded down by then and will be doing more tinkering with tactics than personnel.
23/07/2007, 4:52 PM
EalingGreen

Quote:

Originally Posted by youngirish

I don't think they should be included in the rankings as I stated earlier but getting hammered 3-0 in a friendly when (and this is the important bit for you Mary) playing your best team a month before a major Championship is not a good sign. If you think it is then fair play, see a doctor.

Anyway since friendlies are included in the rankings I thought I'd point that result out. That logic ok for you?

I'm not sure whether you consider friendlies important or not - maybe only when ROI win a friendly, perhaps?

Anyhow, you presumably take competitive matches seriously. In which case, since Sweden's defeat in Dublin they have played seven* competitive matches. They won five of those (including against Spain) and were 2-2 away to Denmark in the sixth, a man up and with an injury-time penalty still to take, when the referee abandoned the match (subsequently awarded to them anyhow, as it happens).

Since they are notorious for not taking friendlies seriously, I would guess that it is their form in competitive matches, and regular qualification for Tournaments etc which accounts for their consistently high showing in the FIFA Rankings:
http://www.fifa.com/associations/ass...r=m/index.html

Unless, of course, you think that this, too, is unfair...

* - I'll not mention who their only defeat was to in the seventh game, for fear that you'll call for me to be banned. Again. ;)

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page