Did they get the dates wrong when they went to Windsor Park then? :)
Printable View
Did they get the dates wrong when they went to Windsor Park then? :)
USA don't or ever have had the calibre of players we have had though with our current management setup you might be right in your assumption that they may have looked better in recent years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kivlehan
We should still beat them comfortably though in a game on neutral territory (we might struggle in the USA). The Czechs walked all over the USA at the World Cup and I'd rank them as similar to us at the moment (they are possibly slightly a better team overall though we IMO have better players to choose from).
I wouldn't consider the USA to be too much better than Wales though their ranking might indicate otherwise (mainly because they generally only play against very poor opposition in ranked matches). If the USA joined UEFA tomorrow and had to play in the Euro qualifiers they wouldn't qualify for any finals and would float far down the rankings (harsh but true).
in fairness we have a far better team than USA, Yet the USA always preform well in tournaments, and generally well as a team.
I think that's a bit unfair. USA get the exact same amount of points for beating 52nd placed Costa Rica in a qualifier as we'd get for beating Wales or Austria (74/75th). A win for them against Canada would be the equivalent of a win for us against Estonia or Malta.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Even a win for USA against Mexico will get them the same amount of points as a win for us over Finland.
When FIFA changed the ranking calculation were all matches in the 4 year period before that changed to reflect the new system or did it only count for games from then on?
Yeah all previous matches were used.Quote:
Originally Posted by DmanDmythDledge
Still, they are near the top of their group and were top until last month after which they have fallen. The new rankings system tends to give priority to more recent results and Scotland have done well this campaign. 19th does not seem wrong to me, especially when you consider where England are.Quote:
Originally Posted by carloz
USA really gave us a thrashing last time we played them. Admittedly we were under strength that day (when aren't we?) but I think they are often underrated. They weren't under-rated by the old rankings that had them in 4th though, rather the opposite.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Also, you say this but the Czechs are a much different side since the World Cup and even now I'd have them as a better side than you. The side that beat USA 3-0 in the World Cup was in much better form and Jan Koller was fully fit, a key player for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Saying around my way that there's no such thing as a poor Kerry footballer!Quote:
Originally Posted by ollie
Oh, and that's poor financially, though it rings true for sport too of course!
Well that might explain what went wrong on their previous visit to Ireland (Lansdowne, 01/03/06 ;) ), but I doubt whether the Swedes would make the same mistake twice! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
Well they finished 32 out of 32 teams in WC2002 having gone into the tourney as 'dark horses'. They got to the semis of a Copa America but that tournament is up and down. They also have done OK in the Gold Cup but really haven't shone in the WC. Player for player we are better but they are good athletes and have an excellent attitude as you would expect. They continue to improve.Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenerased
Yes - this is correct. Basically every January/February an international team made up of exclusively Scandinavian-based players is sent to places such as the Middle East or, most recently, Ecuador to play a few friendly matches. However and even when Sweden plays friendlies with "a full squad" - they're not up to much. This is because Sweden tries to experiment in their friendly matches - with varying degrees of success. When it comes to competitive matches, there is absolutely no experimenting. It's always a cautious 4-4-2 formation, one central midfielder sitting in front of the back four, and an attacking play based on countering. You'll never see a Sweden side force the pace of a game - simply because they're not capable of doing so. And anytime they try to do so, see friendly matches, they are a very ordinary side.Quote:
Originally Posted by EalingGreen
The Czechs were not particularly brilliant in the World Cup in fairness either. They lost their other two games so I wouldn't consider them any different than the team we played a few months later and should really have beaten. I agree they are better than us but only slightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
The only player they really miss would be Nedved though he's getting on a bit anyway.
The USA are a pretty average to poor team IMO. I'd still say we should beat them comfortably though under Stan any result is possible. They have a terrible record in the World Cup also bar 2002 when they did well in any easy group (the easiest in the tournament, only Portugal were much cop though they did beat them).
I think Koller got injured in that game against the USA actually, which shows how important he is to them.
:confused: The US got to the quarter-finals in 2002Quote:
Originally Posted by Qwerty
South Korea were in that group as well by the way, knocking out the so-called Golden Generation of Portuguese footballQuote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Last years WC handed them a very tough group - Czechs, Italy and Ghana - where they probably under-performed though did manage a tempestuous draw against ultimate victors Italy.
I wouldn't say they've a terrible record in the WC, just a bit hit and miss, which is never a good thing in a WC:p
Yeah it was lucky they had the ref and the two linesmen playing for them all through the tournament. The poorest team to ever reach the semi finals of a World Cup in living memory. I thought they were rubbish. The didn't look too hot without home advantage and the ref last time around.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
They were very poor alright and seemed to get every bad referee's decision their way...having said that Turkey also got to that semi final, and then failed to qulaify for the nest major championship, Croatia got to the semi in France 98, and with a little help from us, failed to qualify for the next majopr tournament, and in USA 94 a rather average Bulgaria side made it to the semi and done very little afterwards. An average team always seems to make it to the semi's somehow. If one thinks back in Japan and Korea in 2002, had we won our group, we would have had quite an easy route to the finalQuote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
Sorry I meant '98, the years whizz by.Quote:
Originally Posted by kingdom hoop
Pity we can't give him the Stephen Hunt treatment and put him out of commisionhQuote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
The USA are somewhere in between how well they did in 2002 and how badly they fared in 2006. In 2002, they got some lucky breaks e.g. S Korea beating Portugal with a late goal, shocking Portugal in their initial game and meeting the one side they knew they could beat in the second round, Mexico. In 2006, they were unlucky e.g. Reyna hitting the post just after Koller scored, questionable sending off against Italy and a dodgy penalty given against them against Ghana.
I watch a lot of both teams and I'd say USA and Ireland are comparable in terms of standard. The US do have an easier qualification route to the World Cup but they can only beat the teams put in front of them which they always do. And we do not.
[QUOTE=Metrostars;672463]"Jacques Santini...will be greeted in every dugout of the country by "one-nil, one-nil" - Clive Tyldsley, 89th minute of France-England June 13, 2004.
"Ooooohhhh Nooooooo" Bobby Robson 91st minute.
QUOTE]
I remember I was working that day in a pub. Before the game, I had a break and was about to go down to the bookies to place a bet on a 28-1 shot with the £10 (northerner) I had in my pocket, but I was called away and had to work. One of the bouncers went down and placed the same bet I was going to place, but I never got down. Three-ish hours later he came back with his money, the best part of £300. What happened? England were up at half time, and lost the game. My bet was England half time/France full time. I'm still bitter. Nick Barmby let me down for a fortune on Saturday too.
The Republic of Ireland have slipped six places in the new FIFA world rankings to 38th after the recent friendly draws against Bolivia and Ecuador.
Scotland are down nine to 23rd while England remain eighth following recent results.
After making a strong start to their Euro 2008 qualifying Group B campaign the Scots rose as high as 14th in the governing body's ratings.
But despite a 2-0 away win against the Faroe Islands last week, Alex McLeish's side have been overtaken by the likes of Serbia, Ghana, Ivory Coast and the USA.
England held their position after drawing at home to Brazil in a friendly and winning their latest qualifier in Estonia last week.
Northern Ireland, who recently appointed Nigel Worthington as Lawrie Sanchez's successor, moved up four to 29th despite not having played since March.
Wales remain 75th after a friendly draw with New Zealand and the Euro 2008 stalemate against Czech Republic in Cardiff.
World champions Italy remain top while France have overtaken Brazil to go second. Argentina are down to fifth, now behind Germany who now occupy their highest position in four years
Despite "reasonable" performances in our friendlies in USA, we have slipped down the rankings (again!:mad:) to 38th!!
Quality of the opposition, Bolivia are around the 97 mark. Understandably no credit for a draw there.
Who cares? These world rankings are meaningless, they don't affect entry into competitions or seedings for anything. Our position in our qualifying group is the only statistic that matters.
Armenia moved up 48 places last month, after winning 1-0 against Poland.
Now that's a decent result but not worth a 48 place jump surely?
These rankings are even more meaningless than the old system, and I'm not just saying that because we're 75th.
They are meaningless rubbish. They are updated far too regularly and the fact that they now take friendly results into account makes them all the more ridiculous. No doubt EalingGreen is wetting himself since the North have jumped above us in the rankings even though they haven't played since the last update and we put out our C team against Ecuador and Bolivia in a pointless trip to the States.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cymro
But how can they be meaningless? Our drop to 24th place was a major factor in the old manager loosing his job! Unless..........
I think that main reason he lost his job was our poor finishes in the two qualifying campaigns he overseen. The rankings would have mattered nowt if we'd qualified for anything in his time in charge and he'd still have his job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
I think they're fairly accurate anyway and the new system is decent. People have to remember that every month we're also losing points from results 12, 24, 32 and 48 months ago. It's all averaged.
Armenia moved up so much by beating Poland because that result improves their average so much. Last month they had 180 points. That's the average of all their points using the system. They get 1638 points for beating Poland. That's no more than Italy would get for beating Poland but it's not going to do much to Italys average obviously.
On top of that Armenia haven't even got a draw in June in the last 4 years so they won't lose any points. What that means is, say we beat Brazil last June. The points for that match would be halved because the match will then be outside the 12 month period. We're losing points for wins against Georgia, Albania, Jamaica, Holland, Faroes and a draw against Israel. No defeats in June in the last 4 years.
It's hard to explain. Read the guardian link:
http://football.guardian.co.uk/comme...871529,00.html
They are still meaningless though. :D
If they got 1638 points for beating Poland surely they'd be top of the rankings? ;)
The new system sees too many sharp changes either way. Armenia haven't suddenly become a team 48 places better after beating Poland, respectable result though it may have been.
havent seen EG around these parts lately-probably fears the worst for nordies after sanxhez departure. if a team as low as armenia beats a team as high as the polskis a huge jump in rankings is only fair.
San marino probably would have jumped 100 places if they got a draw with us
EG must be on his hols or his mum pulled the plug on the internet !
You've said the system is decent, and then proceeded not to back up why its decent, but to explain how it works.Quote:
Originally Posted by eirebhoy
Its fairly clear how it works, but it doesn't make it any more relevant and accurate (mainly for the reasons outlined in the posts above, principly the fact that friendlies aren't worth toffee anymore).
I would wind up a few different members about the rankings, but really they should be taken with a pinch of salt.
The rankings are based on results over the past 4 years. So if you had good results 4 years ago but bad results recently, then you'll be losing points from before and replacing them with none now. So that is why rankings fluctuate greatly.
Before it was over 7 or 8 years, which in my opinion was very silly as there could be a breed of 11 superstars replacing a breed of 11 wooden ones.(unlikely but you know my point)
These rankings are only a guideline and to me a bit of fun to use as banter.(which some people take very seriously and decide to be insulting)
People know in there heads which teams are the best in the world.
IMO Brazil is still the best team in the world, even if the rankings don't reflect that.
They actually have a tournament to decide the best team in the world and from memory Brazil aren't the champions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Bruce
They are nowhere near the best at the moment. I wouldn't even have them in third. They are sh*te defensively.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Greece won the European championships, does that make them the best in Europe? And if that is the case how can Greece be the Best in Europe and Italy be the best in the World yet not the best in Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
That doesn't make any sense at all.
And if England/Germany/France etc win the European Championships next year, does that mean Italy are best team in the world bar Europe?
A very flawed arguement.
It's all opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by youngirish
I wouldn't have Germany being in the top 5. But they are.
italy are far better than brazil , steve bruce , brazil should be the best with their personnel but they are nowhere near. to my mind they peaked in that confed cup tournament