1 Brazil
2 France
3 Spain
4 Mexico
5 Argentina
5 Netherlands
5 Turkey
8 Germany
9 USA
10 Italy
11 Czech Republic
12 Cameroon
13 England
14 Republic of Ireland
15 Denmark
16 Nigeria
17 Belgium
18 Sweden
19 Iran
20 Croatia
(Are the US better than Italy??)
Last edited by cullenswood; 09/06/2004 at 2:29 PM.
UCD sha-la-la
Where's France?
This month is the first time we actually gained ranking points in nearly a year. We went from 697 to 705. Have a look through previous months and you'll notice that even when we beat the Czech Republic and drew with Brazil we dropped points.
The FIFA rankings are a load of crap TBH.
These rankings are always a waste of time. Everyone knows that Mexico shouldnt be number 4 and the US shouldnt be number 9. There isnt a perfect ways of evaluating teams. Only the World Cup is the true ranking.
Actually Mexico have beaten Brazil *twice* in competition,
(CONCACAF Gold Cup 2003 USA/Mexico ), friendlies don't
count as much.
They are a decent side as Mexico is *very* big/keen on football.
Also Mexico knocked Ireland out of the World Cup finals in the USA
if I remember correctly.
Having said that they did draw 0-0 with Iceland recently in a friendly.
The rankings are as good a guide as any. Taking a look at the teams
at the top, Brazil and France, and the bottom, BongoBongoland tells
you that.
And the USA are a good side, look at how far they got on the World
Cup.
Mind you on points per head of poplulation Ireland are top
US got to the last 8 of the last World Cup - not too far out?!Originally Posted by Metrostars
As long as a team that didn't finish in the TOP TWENTY in qualifying for Europe's championship can be ranked ninth in Europe, these FIFA lists are unlikely to be taken seriously
They're red, they're black
The hatchetmen are back.
We'll support you evermore
Though you never score...
Come on now Dav, be fair. While we're off beating the likes of Holland, our friends are playing all-comers on islands across the Caribbean to get the result. Where next for our intrepid heroes? Watch out Western Samoa...Luckily we were in the top 20!
As opposed to 124,FFS!
PP
Semper in faecibus sole profundum variat
You weren't in the top twenty dum-dum. Ten groups times a winner and runner up in each.
It seems the Trini posse isn't calc'd until next month btw
PS Dav, have yer two Tic books, second arrived today. Collect tomorrow at Rosie's if ye like?
They're red, they're black
The hatchetmen are back.
We'll support you evermore
Though you never score...
Ahhh, twist the knife, why don't you? The pain, the pain...
PP
Semper in faecibus sole profundum variat
Contradicting rumours in the Belfast press re a game in Suisse in August. Would be nice to meet my namesake, the (Calvinist) bish of Geneva
My logic is that, since the quali groups are of a roughly equivalent standard, finishing third in one as you did suggests a weaker standard than any of the runners up. Equally of course it means NI are still pants
They're red, they're black
The hatchetmen are back.
We'll support you evermore
Though you never score...
If it was rankings since September 2002 France would be No.1 not Brazil. Italy, England and Germany would also be ahead of Holland and Turkey. I think you meant to say how come a team ranked 9th in Europe didn't make the top 20 in the last qualifiers.As long as a team that didn't finish in the TOP TWENTY in qualifying for Europe's championship can be ranked ninth in Europe, these FIFA lists are unlikely to be taken seriously
Anyway, the reason I don't take the rankings seriously is because friendlies are counted. Too many teams (ie. England) don't take friendlies too seriously. If friendlies weren't included in the calculations it would be a lot more realistic. Also, they should sort something out with the countries hosting the tournament, Portugal have falling to 22nd.
ROI has finished no worse than second in all WC and EC qualifying groups since the qualifier for WC'86 until the this past campaign - that is 9 campaigns in a row whcih is pretty damn consistent. I think based on that we are still top 20, one bad campaign in a tight 3-way doesn't weight heavily enough IMO.Contradicting rumours in the Belfast press re a game in Suisse in August. Would be nice to meet my namesake, the (Calvinist) bish of Geneva
My logic is that, since the quali groups are of a roughly equivalent standard, finishing third in one as you did suggests a weaker standard than any of the runners up. Equally of course it means NI are still pants
Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
Nationalism is an infantile disease, the measles of mankind
No-one's saying you're not consistent Mick, merely that over the last two years (who cares about the last 10?), you're self-evidently not one of the top twenty teams in Europe. You're not as good as Latvia, Slovenia, Wales, Norway or Scotland. You're still better than the occupied illegal six country sectarian statelet, you say? Well, fcukety diddle-doo and bully for ye!
They're red, they're black
The hatchetmen are back.
We'll support you evermore
Though you never score...
You cannot judge just over one qualifying campaign as some groups are a lot harder the others. The reason for this is that some teams on the back of theis quality over the last ten years have a high seeding and then turn out to be crap and others who have a low seeding turn out to be much better than expected. Scotlands group was pretty dire and we would have easily finished second in that one if not topped it. The point is we got to last 16 less than two years ago so we are definately in the top 20 if the world cup is the judge.
Sorry Duncan but I think you are talking rubbish. We are alot better than Scotland and Wales. You cannot say that we are not in the top 20 in europe - as per a previous quote - if we are going by your line of thinking - we are in top 16 in world so naturally we have to be in top 20 in europe.
to be ranked 14th in the world with a population of under 4 million is astounding esp when soccer isnt the no 1 sport.
a lot of the credit must go to the much maligned FAI esp their investment at youth and schoolboy level.
in comparison our friends up north are lagging way behind at all levels.
"tight? he's the kinda guy that eats baked beans on tuesday so's he can have a bubble bath on wednesday"!
Neil. Like I said, no-one denies you were a good team two years ago. But the evidence you aren't now is that two mediocre teams finished ahead of you.
While the standard in Scotland's group was poor, it did include the World Cup runner-up. So you think you'd have topped them even though Brian's boys got ONE POINT from four matches against the two decent teams in your group?
The seedings aren't perfect of course, but performance in the current qualifying groups has to be a better guide to quality than either the previous competition or recent friendlies.
Contanta. You're quoting something I didn't say! Try and read other posts properly before describing them as rubbish. You are self-evidently not in the top twenty in the World. I won't hazard a guess to your exact position, but does it really matter? Wales took more points in qualifying against Italy than you did against Switzerland and Russia combined.
Parnell. Are you sure? Football is a larger participant sport in the Republic than either GAA code. Northern Ireland qualified for the recent UEFA U-17 Finals- unlike Germany, Italy and the Republic. If you need any info about the game up there, I'd be glad to help.
They're red, they're black
The hatchetmen are back.
We'll support you evermore
Though you never score...
I'm no huge fan of the Barstool XI or their supporters, but there's no denying that they're one of the top teams in Europe, just on the fringes of the Germany-France-Italy-Netherlands-Spain-England axis (although England's inclusion in that group is questionable; Sweden, one of the most consistent and consistently underrated nations in football, should probably be there instead.) The FIFA Rankings are balls, and Ireland (like Swtizerland) will always have an artificially high position because they were well-placed in the original version 11 years ago, but 14th place is hardly as conspicuously stupid as Mexico in 6th, the USA in 8th or Saudi Arabia in 23rd.
Ireland have been more or less unbeatable at home for thirty years. Euro 2004 was the first time they failed to finish in the top two of a qualifying group since 1986. Every team has its peaks and troughs, but I believe Ireland have established their natural level as one more or less consistent with their ranking (even with a sh*t team, they almost qualified for WC 98.)
DG
I am certainly not misqouting you - and I repeat my opinion that yopu are talking rubbish. Your quote 19 lists a numbmer of teams that we are worse than in your opinion
Concanta, I neither said nor inferred that. I think you are outside the top twenty in Europe- for which I offered plenty of evidence. It obviously follows from that, that you must be outside the top twenty in the World NOW- as I say, no-one disputes you were much better two years ago.
If you really think I'm talking rubbish, offer some evidence. Otherwise, keep shtum.
Davros- just to correct your claim that the RoI didn't enter the UEFA U-17, you were knocked out in the first qualifying stage by Austria, Switzerland and Belarus. Meanwhile, we were disposing of Croatia, Malta, Belgium, Scotland and Belarus again.
Sheridan. "More or less unbeatable"? Less, I think they'd say down Suisse way...
They're red, they're black
The hatchetmen are back.
We'll support you evermore
Though you never score...
Posting Permissions
Quote
Bookmarks