Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 12:42:55 GMT
Wales down 7 places to 84th.
England up 1 place (?!)
Montenero 72nd
NZ up 24 places to 54th.
Joke? No, its true. Time to make a mockery of these rankings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2010 12:43:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jul 14, 2010 13:41:41 GMT
NZ deserve that result after the World Cup they've had. England got to the last 16, too, let's not forget.
We're now officially the worst of all the teams in our group.
|
|
|
|
Post by welshwizard79 on Jul 14, 2010 15:36:10 GMT
Ok this is getting bad .....Yeah the rankings are pants but results dont lie and we have only beat Lichtenstein and a poor Scotland in the last 12 months ago. So we are only ranked above San Marino, Malta, Luxembourg, Faroes, Andorra, Moldova, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbiajian and Georgia...And we have lost to Georgia and struggled to beat Azerbiajian in the last 2 years. On a more postive note our 21s are class :-)
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jul 14, 2010 15:53:50 GMT
So we are only ranked above San Marino, Malta, Luxembourg, Faroes, Andorra, Moldova, Estonia, Armenia, Azerbiajian and Georgia. I didn't believe that when I read it, so had to check it out, thinking we'd surely also be above some other teams like Albania, Iceland, Lithuania and the like. But apparently it is true: www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html#confederation=27275&rank=194We're 41st out of 53 in UEFA. Jesus, how did it get so bad? |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jul 14, 2010 15:56:26 GMT
Other teams in our group (FIFA ranking, followed by UEFA ranking in brackets):
England 7 (4)
Switzerland 18 (11)
Bulgaria 43 (25)
Montenegro 72 (38)
Wales 84 (41)
|
|
|
|
Post by flynnfan on Jul 14, 2010 15:56:29 GMT
The rankings are a joke. OK, so we lost our last 2 games to Sweden and Croatia, but then Montenegro have lost their last 3 games to Macedonia, Norway and Albania. There's no logical reason as to why they should be above us.
|
|
|
|
Post by llannerch on Jul 14, 2010 20:15:34 GMT
If I recall - and it was on the old DS board - your results have to better ones achieved four years earlier to not drop in the rankings. If Montenegro's results in losing to those 3 nations are still nonetheless better than their results 4 years earlier then they have 'improved'. They're codswallop though....unfortunately FIFA and UEFA take them into consideration for seedings and the like  |
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Jul 14, 2010 20:48:17 GMT
Llannerch is correct - the World Rankings take into account results over 4 years
So results from 2006 World Cup warm-up matches have just been struck from the ranking.
We beat Trinidad & Tobago in May 2006, this is one of the results that has just been removed. This might explain why T&T have jumped above us, despite neither team having played in the last month.
|
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Jul 14, 2010 20:54:20 GMT
I wouldn't take much notice of the month to month changes as it depends how many matches a team has played in the previous month - and at what level (World Cup Finals games get a bigger rating).
South Africa were one of the teams that climbed above us - they played seven matches in the last month, including 3 in the World Cup Finals.
Iceland were another team that jumped above us - they played one match, but won it 4-0.
We didn't play in the last month.
And if you don't play - while at the same time wins from 4 years ago are taken away - you will fall down the ranking.
|
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Jul 14, 2010 21:05:16 GMT
What we should all be concerned about is our position within the UEFA section of teams, 41 out of 53 nations.
That is a sad reflection of our failure to get any wins (or even many draws) against higher-ranked nations during Euro 2008 and the 2010 World Cup qualifiers.
If we don't start punching above our weight we will find ourselves among the bottom seeds for 2014 and 2016. We need some wins on the board, starting this autumn.
|
|
|
|
Post by flynnfan on Jul 14, 2010 21:08:21 GMT
Plus, it doesn't make any difference whatsoever to what we've got to do in the next 18 months, which is- qualify from a group containing England, Switzerland, Bugaria and Montenegro. Which is possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by cilmeri on Jul 15, 2010 8:46:23 GMT
You obviously have to take these rankings with a pinch of salt, but can certainly take note of the patterns. (England were deemed 13th in the world cup for example, but have risen to 7th in the world - bizarre). Nevertheless when it was announced that the Euros were expanding to 24 teams I got pretty excited as we were 25th or 26th in Europe at the time, but now down to 41st! We have to make a move to get better seedings for 2016, as with the expansion that has to be our best chance of qualifying.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardibach on Oct 25, 2010 12:12:27 GMT
How do you think we should be doing this?
My view is if we start organising games against teams slightly higher than us, ie those in the 80,s and 90's, we should beat them, and then rise above them by next month's rankings. This does not seem like rocket science.
We can't get too greedy and want to play the major nations like Germany and Spain - they'd hammer us, and we'd slip even further down the rankings. They probably wouldn't want to play us anyway.
In the same vein, there's no point playing the likes of Luxembourg or Liechenstein. Beating them means nothing.
We set our sights on Azerbaijan, Cyprus and Finland, or even the Cape Verde Islands or the UAE (cracking away trips!), beat them and start climbing the rankings month by month.
If we lose to them, then we deserve to be where we are. And that isn't even worth thinking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 25, 2010 12:26:22 GMT
Beat England in March
|
|
|
|
Post by cilmeri on Oct 25, 2010 12:38:37 GMT
Wrong on all accounts I think cardibach. Yes, that may get us up the rankings but why? Seeds (I believe) are based on performances and positions in the last few group stages / qualifying rounds, so by fixing "easy" friendlies it won't impact the seedings, which is more important than ranking. So do we want easy or hard games, and I'd say we want to play the big boys - get ramsey and bale in tune together against Germany and spain, not helping themselves to easy wins against luxembourg, then flounder when we play competitive games again.
|
|
|
|
Post by yrarglwyddlucan on Oct 25, 2010 13:47:55 GMT
Seeding is based on ranking points gained in each match played in the most recently completed five qualifying tournaments or finals of the World Cup or European Championships. 1. 10,000 points are awarded for each match played, 2. for an outcome of each match an additional 30,000 for winning, 20,000 for winning after a penalty shoot out, and 10,000 for a draw (including forcing, but failing to win, a penalty shoot-out), 3. the finals tournament, or play-offs to determine qualification, are granted extra points, ranging from 6,000 to 38,000, 4. 501 points are earned for a goal scored , and 500 lost for each goal conceded, 5. points are divided by the number of games played, 6. more recent tournaments have double the weighting of earlier tournaments, 7. special arrangements are in place for hosts of competitions, who have therefore not participated in the qualifying tournament. The European rankings at the end of 2009 had Wales with 21,274 points ranked 36, just below Belgium and just above Macedonia. Montenegro were ranked 39. Performance in the current qualification tournament so far is likely to worsen Wales' ranking and seeding. see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_coefficient |
|
|
|
Post by cardibach on Oct 25, 2010 22:22:52 GMT
So friendlies count for absolutely nothing?  |
|
|
|
Post by cardibach on Oct 25, 2010 22:33:33 GMT
The seeding system does seem strange. Russia and Croatia were in Pot 1 for 2012, even though they did not qualify for the World Cup finals in 2010, yet Slovenia, who did qualify for World Cup 2010 were in Pot 4 with us. I know it's taken from the results over 4 years, but this seems bizarre.
|
|
|
|
Post by yrarglwyddlucan on Oct 26, 2010 9:09:02 GMT
Cardi, the results are taken over ten years, not four. Note that it refers to COMPLETED tournaments. In which case the end of 2009 ranking would be based on tournament results from about August 1998 to August 2008.
|
|
|
|
Post by youngdragon on Oct 26, 2010 9:09:30 GMT
friendlies are meaningless
we beat scotland who were 40 places above us three nil
yet dropped a place in the rankings
|
|
|
|
Post by yrarglwyddlucan on Oct 26, 2010 9:14:43 GMT
The FIFA and ELO rankings are quite different to the UEFA classification for seeding. The FIFA or ELO ranking might be used by the FAW to monitor the performance of the manager.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardibach on Oct 26, 2010 10:06:27 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cardibach on Oct 26, 2010 10:08:12 GMT
Anyway, surely, we need to climb the world rankings? It's embarrassing being 104th.
|
|
|
|
Post by cardibach on Oct 26, 2010 10:15:28 GMT
Wrong on all accounts I think cardibach. Yes, that may get us up the rankings but why? Seeds (I believe) are based on performances and positions in the last few group stages / qualifying rounds, so by fixing "easy" friendlies it won't impact the seedings, which is more important than ranking. So do we want easy or hard games, and I'd say we want to play the big boys - get ramsey and bale in tune together against Germany and spain, not helping themselves to easy wins against luxembourg, then flounder when we play competitive games again. Cilmeri, I've just read your reply again, and realised you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm on about climbing the world rankings, not the seedings. I'm not happy being 104th in the World. Even if we stay in Pot 4. I'd rather be 50th in the World and in Pot 4 than 104th in the World and in Pot 4. But let's be realistic - I honestly can't see us going up to Pot 3 based on this qualifying campaign. Can you? Realistically? Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we did win all the remaining games and qualified, but sadly, I just can't see it happening, regardless of how much I want it to. |
|
|
|
Post by cilmeri on Oct 26, 2010 11:38:22 GMT
Wrong on all accounts I think cardibach. Yes, that may get us up the rankings but why? Seeds (I believe) are based on performances and positions in the last few group stages / qualifying rounds, so by fixing "easy" friendlies it won't impact the seedings, which is more important than ranking. So do we want easy or hard games, and I'd say we want to play the big boys - get ramsey and bale in tune together against Germany and spain, not helping themselves to easy wins against luxembourg, then flounder when we play competitive games again. Cilmeri, I've just read your reply again, and realised you've got the wrong end of the stick. I'm on about climbing the world rankings, not the seedings. I'm not happy being 104th in the World. Even if we stay in Pot 4. I'd rather be 50th in the World and in Pot 4 than 104th in the World and in Pot 4. But let's be realistic - I honestly can't see us going up to Pot 3 based on this qualifying campaign. Can you? Realistically? Don't get me wrong, I'd love it if we did win all the remaining games and qualified, but sadly, I just can't see it happening, regardless of how much I want it to. Not at all Cardi. What I'm saying is that I don't really care where we are ranking wise, so let's have friendlies against big teams that we may lose, but which may put us in a better place when we get to competitive games. ie if we beat San Marino in 10 friendlies will we be in a better place to beat someone like Bulgaria, than if we lose narrowly but are competitive against Germnay 10 times |
|
|
|
Post by cilmeri on Oct 26, 2010 11:39:57 GMT
friendlies are meaningless we beat scotland who were 40 places above us three nil yet dropped a place in the rankings Nope, it's just that they have a different weighting. I'd imagine that beating Scotland at home in a friendly is worth a lot less than drawing North Korea in a world cup tournament. BUt it's still worth something. |
|
|
|
Post by cilmeri on Oct 26, 2010 11:50:02 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bellamyforever on Nov 3, 2010 14:41:51 GMT
lets beat england and climb up 20 places , its a little bit surreal that we lost the first 3 games, shocking to be honest, we didnt deserve that, i would have said we deserved 4 points.
|
|
|
|
Post by yrarglwyddlucan on Nov 3, 2010 15:33:56 GMT
"Deserved". That's the sort of bullshit Flynn utters.
|
|
