|
|
Post by scoop76 on Nov 19, 2010 13:14:52 GMT
You assume a top 20 ranking is unlikely because we are so far off that spot now but it's largely irrelevant. All we have to do is improve our result against that achieved in the corresponding fixture 4 years earlier. The mathematical calculation allows for huge leaps up the rankings. A factor more relevant than our far we have to improve, is whether we can attract highly-ranked opposition for friendlies. not quite that straightforward - results from the past 12 months are given a greater weight (and more ranking points) than results from 2, 3 or 4 years ago. It's true that we'll drop down the rankings is we get a worse result than we did in a match exactly 4 years previously, but bettering the results of 4 years ago won't automatically see us flying up the table. Also, more ranking points are awarded for World Cup, continental finals and qualifiers.. The only way to guarantee upward movement is by beating higher-ranked nations in competitive games. |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Nov 19, 2010 13:16:17 GMT
A further weakness of the rankings in my view.
I sincerely hope UEFA are not going to start basing seedings on world rankings again.
|
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Nov 19, 2010 13:20:38 GMT
A further weakness of the rankings in my view. I sincerely hope UEFA are not going to start basing seedings on world rankings again. looks like the system is here to stay |
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Nov 19, 2010 13:24:09 GMT
We could easily be top 20 in 5 years' time. Montenegro are on the fringe of this now, and they have done it despite finishing last in their previous qualifying group. This highlights the weakness of the 4-year ranking system. Montenegro are an odd case though, as they didn't compete in Euro 2008. They only had such a low ranking because they didn't play any qualifiers until 2008. They are picking up competitive wins now, but this time four years ago weren't playing any competitive games. |
|
|
|
Post by llannerch on Nov 19, 2010 13:38:21 GMT
A further weakness of the rankings in my view. Absolutely, but you posted: to rise 70+ places in them over the course of a couple of years is pretty meaningful.
The fact that Northern Ireland hadn't won for three years entirely illustrates the argument for considering Sanchez's charge of NI a success, rather than somehow demeaning the rise up the rankings. So you accept it is piss easy to shoot up the rankings with very little substance.....I'd say it is rather demeaning. |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Nov 19, 2010 14:09:56 GMT
I said it's a weakness of the rankings that they can be open to short-term distortion, but no-one would deny that Montenegro's rise up the rankings has nonetheless been meaningful, as was Northern Ireland's. It's possible to criticise the rankings whilst at the same time acknowledging that there is some method behind the madness.
By the way, I'm pretty sure at least part of NI's rise up the rankings took place while they were still calculated over 8 years. Yep, just checked it - the system changed in 2006, two years after Sanchez had taken over as boss of NI and a year before he left for Fulham.
|
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Nov 19, 2010 14:20:52 GMT
Ireland 32
England 6
Scotland 54
Northern Ireland 42
Montenegro 26
England 6
Switzerland 21
Bulgaria 45
looking at the rankings of our 2011 opponents, we'll have a decent rise up the rankings if we can beat a few of those top 50 teams
|
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Nov 19, 2010 14:23:29 GMT
I suppose what defined Northern Ireland and Montenegro's climb up the rankings was that they both got results against higher-ranked nations. N Ireland beat Spain, Sweden and England; Montenegro beat Bulgaria and Switzerland and drew with England. That's the sort of run we need.
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Nov 19, 2010 14:24:17 GMT
Giggs almost missed more games than he played. He is a traitor to the shirt. Someone who has the voice of a nervous ten year old should not be anywhere near Welsh management. Regarding the Fifa ranking. Shame on you FAW, they have been caught with their pants down yet again. We need radical changes asap not these tiny little baby steps they seem to be doing. This is what we get by listening to their ' next qualification group' bullshit. Are they actually happy with the state we are in now? They seem to be unaccountable for their poor behaviour and they don't seem to have realised that its because of there incompetence that we have extremely low attendances and public and media apathy. I would argue the opposite. Hindsight is obviously a wonderful thing, but I did say at the time when Savage was dropped that the changes by Tosh were far too radical. There was no real attempt at continuity as he was only too eager to ditch established decent(ish) players in favour of youngsters who needed to be eased in gently, not given a flurry of caps overnight in the belief that it would automatically make them a good player. Look at Nyatanga, 20 odd caps he got during the Tosh years, does it mean hes a good player? The harsh reality is that he will likely not get another one now Tosh has gone. I think we are more than likely to pick someone else from League 1 than play him again. Tosh decided to forsake short term results in favour of long term development and at the end of 6 years of Tosh we have a youngish side but with only two top quality players (possibly a 3rd in Allen) and yet an all time low in the rankings and pot placements. Is that really what we imagined 6 years ago? Northern Ireland have arguably a lesser side and yet they get better results. Was it really all worth it? Just to quickly correct - when Toshack left (after the Mont. game) we would have been about 80s in the rankings and still in pot 4. The last two games have really cooked our goose in that respect, although had Toshack stayed it's unclear that he would have done any better than Flynn. |
|
|
|
Post by georgetm1 on Nov 19, 2010 16:07:06 GMT
Giggs almost missed more games than he played. He is a traitor to the shirt. Someone who has the voice of a nervous ten year old should not be anywhere near Welsh management. You mean he missed lots of meaningless friendlies. Who cares? Not me. Giggs would have the respect of the players. The part-time Wales fans (which is the overwhelming majority) would love it. The media would love it, too. If he was available (which, sadly, he ain't) it would be a complete no-brainer. As for rankings, we have the potential to go much higher than we are at present but top 20 is a tad optimistic. He missed all these so called meaningless friendlies by order of his manager. That shows me he didn't care about his country that much and he has got no balls. So why would you want such a meek man with absolutley zero charisma to take the highest footballing job in Wales? Who cares what the media and the fair weather fans think, the most important things are results not having some voiceless primadonna in charge who will sell shirts for a short while and then become public enemy no1 after we get beaten by San Marino. I suppose once he would get sacked we could "build for the future" yet again for the 500th time. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2010 16:47:35 GMT
I would argue the opposite. Hindsight is obviously a wonderful thing, but I did say at the time when Savage was dropped that the changes by Tosh were far too radical. There was no real attempt at continuity as he was only too eager to ditch established decent(ish) players in favour of youngsters who needed to be eased in gently, not given a flurry of caps overnight in the belief that it would automatically make them a good player. Look at Nyatanga, 20 odd caps he got during the Tosh years, does it mean hes a good player? The harsh reality is that he will likely not get another one now Tosh has gone. I think we are more than likely to pick someone else from League 1 than play him again. Tosh decided to forsake short term results in favour of long term development and at the end of 6 years of Tosh we have a youngish side but with only two top quality players (possibly a 3rd in Allen) and yet an all time low in the rankings and pot placements. Is that really what we imagined 6 years ago? Northern Ireland have arguably a lesser side and yet they get better results. Was it really all worth it? Just to quickly correct - when Toshack left (after the Mont. game) we would have been about 80s in the rankings and still in pot 4. The last two games have really cooked our goose in that respect, although had Toshack stayed it's unclear that he would have done any better than Flynn. Fair point that, obviously we dont know for sure. But lets be fair, if the Pools Panel had been brought in to adjudicate Im sure it would have been put down as an away win, home win combo! ;D |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 19, 2010 16:50:01 GMT
You mean he missed lots of meaningless friendlies. Who cares? Not me. Giggs would have the respect of the players. The part-time Wales fans (which is the overwhelming majority) would love it. The media would love it, too. If he was available (which, sadly, he ain't) it would be a complete no-brainer. As for rankings, we have the potential to go much higher than we are at present but top 20 is a tad optimistic. He missed all these so called meaningless friendlies by order of his manager. That shows me he didn't care about his country that much and he has got no balls. So why would you want such a meek man with absolutley zero charisma to take the highest footballing job in Wales? Who cares what the media and the fair weather fans think, the most important things are results not having some voiceless primadonna in charge who will sell shirts for a short while and then become public enemy no1 after we get beaten by San Marino. I suppose once he would get sacked we could "build for the future" yet again for the 500th time. To give the Giggs argument some perspective, it took him the best part of 10 years to play in a wales friendly because of 'injuries' He had never missed a Manchester derby in 18 years until last week. A staggering comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by raptor on Nov 19, 2010 19:35:27 GMT
It makes not one iota of difference which pot we are in.
If our squad is good enough to qualify then it will qualify.
As things are at present they could put us in pot 1 and we would still fail.
Give us a few years, give us some defenders and two strikers and we'll be fine.
No defenders and no strikers and then it's just more of the same I'm afraid.
Whichever pot.
|
|
|
|
Post by youngdragon on Nov 19, 2010 19:49:09 GMT
raptor is right
it dosent matter what pot we are in if we are good enough we will qualify
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Nov 20, 2010 1:36:12 GMT
It makes not one iota of difference which pot we are in. If our squad is good enough to qualify then it will qualify. As things are at present they could put us in pot 1 and we would still fail. Give us a few years, give us some defenders and two strikers and we'll be fine. No defenders and no strikers and then it's just more of the same I'm afraid. Whichever pot. Of course it makes a difference which pot we are in. You are right to say that we would not qualify from pot 1 at present, but the reality is that as a pot 1 team you will not have to face a team of Spain, Germany or England's quality which makes gathering points much easier. As a pot 4 team, we were eligible to face both San Marino and Liehctenstein this time around (had te draw been kinder). If we are in pot 6, we will have an absolute nightmare group next time, like this one with all difficult games. Let's look at our most recent success, when we made the ploay-offs in 2004. The key to our success there was having five teams in the group, one of whom was Azerbaijan. That gave us a guaranteed six points and less matches, which meant more chance of getting two good results (Finland away/Italy home) which proved to be enough despite our relative collapse in the second four matches. Had we been fifth seeds for that group, we would have faced two additional uncertain matches and potentially mght have ended up with only six points. That is why we need to avoid falling into the bottom pot of seeds. |
|
|
|
Post by raptor on Nov 20, 2010 19:06:41 GMT
It makes not one iota of difference which pot we are in. If our squad is good enough to qualify then it will qualify. As things are at present they could put us in pot 1 and we would still fail. Give us a few years, give us some defenders and two strikers and we'll be fine. No defenders and no strikers and then it's just more of the same I'm afraid. Whichever pot. Of course it makes a difference which pot we are in. You are right to say that we would not qualify from pot 1 at present, but the reality is that as a pot 1 team you will not have to face a team of Spain, Germany or England's quality which makes gathering points much easier. As a pot 4 team, we were eligible to face both San Marino and Liehctenstein this time around (had te draw been kinder). If we are in pot 6, we will have an absolute nightmare group next time, like this one with all difficult games. Let's look at our most recent success, when we made the ploay-offs in 2004. The key to our success there was having five teams in the group, one of whom was Azerbaijan. That gave us a guaranteed six points and less matches, which meant more chance of getting two good results (Finland away/Italy home) which proved to be enough despite our relative collapse in the second four matches. Had we been fifth seeds for that group, we would have faced two additional uncertain matches and potentially mght have ended up with only six points. That is why we need to avoid falling into the bottom pot of seeds. I disagree, it's not the pot we're in it's more of a case how good we play. It's that simple. We can analyse things to death. We could get a group where a team in pot two could possibly end up being the best team in the competition. Again, we could be drawn against a pot one team who are on the slide. Moreover if my aunty had balls she'd be my uncle. Suffice to say if we end up in pot five it will probably be because we are very weak; hence no qualification and it would have made no difference which F*****G pot we came out of. LOL. |
|
|
|
Post by youngdragon on Nov 20, 2010 19:45:09 GMT
the pot makes no differance
montenagro are in pot 5 and they top our group and will most certainly make the play offs
proof that if you are good enough you will get there
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Nov 21, 2010 13:49:01 GMT
Montenegro are an exception to the rule. How many other pot 5 teams have qualified or even made the play-offs in recent times?
|
|
|
|
Post by youngdragon on Nov 21, 2010 15:10:53 GMT
none
but that is becuase the teams in pot 5 are genereally not good enough and so dont
put Italy in pot 6 they will qualify, England in pot 6 they will qualify etc becuase they are good enough to
and vice cersa put Andorra in pot 1 still wont qualify, Liechtenstien in pot 1 still wouldn't qualify
becuase they simply aren't are good enough.
however I do admit the pot helps but ultimatly its down to the quality of the indivual team
Latvia in 2004 were pot 4 wern't they?
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Nov 23, 2010 14:24:08 GMT
put Italy in pot 6 they will qualify, England in pot 6 they will qualify etc Even if they have to get past, say, Russia and Germany? There's no guarantee of them qualifying from a group containing those two, yet that is what we had in WC2010 as our top two seeds. Had we been second seeds for that campaign, we would have had an easier ride, although doubtless we would still have failed to qualify. But perhaps Finland might have, had they been seeded second. That is the difference it can make being in the higher pots. As you say, being in a higher pot by no means guarantees anything but the I never said that. All I said was that it mattered and makes a difference. |
|
|
|
Post by caradocevans on Nov 24, 2010 12:16:51 GMT
He missed all these so called meaningless friendlies by order of his manager. That shows me he didn't care about his country that much and he has got no balls. So why would you want such a meek man with absolutley zero charisma to take the highest footballing job in Wales? Who cares what the media and the fair weather fans think, the most important things are results not having some voiceless primadonna in charge who will sell shirts for a short while and then become public enemy no1 after we get beaten by San Marino. I suppose once he would get sacked we could "build for the future" yet again for the 500th time. To give the Giggs argument some perspective, it took him the best part of 10 years to play in a wales friendly because of 'injuries' He had never missed a Manchester derby in 18 years until last week. A staggering comparison. Well, it's just a comparison. Meaningful games versus non-meaningful games. Who cares? Not me. Welsh football needs to re-engage with the public and the best person to do that is Giggs - not Lawrie Sanchez or Chris Coleman. |
|
|
|
Post by georgetm1 on Nov 24, 2010 15:09:11 GMT
To give the Giggs argument some perspective, it took him the best part of 10 years to play in a wales friendly because of 'injuries' He had never missed a Manchester derby in 18 years until last week. A staggering comparison. Well, it's just a comparison. Meaningful games versus non-meaningful games. Who cares? Not me. Welsh football needs to re-engage with the public and the best person to do that is Giggs - not Lawrie Sanchez or Chris Coleman. Giggs is such a non character. How would he re-engage the public? At least Sanchez and Coleman have got a voice. By the way it's results that we need at the moment not public approval, and Giggs wouldn't have the experience or the brain power to get either of them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2010 15:16:36 GMT
Well, it's just a comparison. Meaningful games versus non-meaningful games. Who cares? Not me. Welsh football needs to re-engage with the public and the best person to do that is Giggs - not Lawrie Sanchez or Chris Coleman. Giggs is such a non character. How would he re-engage the public? At least Sanchez and Coleman have got a voice. By the way it's results that we need at the moment not public approval, and Giggs wouldn't have the experience or the brain power to get either of them. No that's right - he's only the most be-medalled player to grace the history of the British game. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2010 16:58:36 GMT
Giggs is such a non character. How would he re-engage the public? At least Sanchez and Coleman have got a voice. By the way it's results that we need at the moment not public approval, and Giggs wouldn't have the experience or the brain power to get either of them. No that's right - he's only the most be-medalled player to grace the history of the British game. And that makes him a good international manager does it? |
|
|
|
Post by yrarglwyddlucan on Nov 24, 2010 17:25:07 GMT
"And that makes him a good international manager, does it?"
Stern but fair
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2010 17:32:09 GMT
Giggs is such a non character. How would he re-engage the public? At least Sanchez and Coleman have got a voice. By the way it's results that we need at the moment not public approval, and Giggs wouldn't have the experience or the brain power to get either of them. No that's right - he's only the most be-medalled player to grace the history of the British game. And that makes him a good international manager does it? |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Nov 24, 2010 18:59:15 GMT
To give the Giggs argument some perspective, it took him the best part of 10 years to play in a wales friendly because of 'injuries' He had never missed a Manchester derby in 18 years until last week. A staggering comparison. Well, it's just a comparison. Meaningful games versus non-meaningful games. Who cares? Not me. Welsh football needs to re-engage with the public and the best person to do that is Giggs - not Lawrie Sanchez or Chris Coleman. Friendlies are meaningful. There's no three points at stake, but they are useful for getting the playes to gel together as a team and developing a winning mentality. The fact that Giggs missed so many has to be counted against him as a choice for our next manager. But the real problem with a Giggs appointment for me would be his total lack of proven ability at management level. A resounding NO to Giggs.....at this point in time. |
|
|
|
Post by youngdragon on Nov 24, 2010 19:44:25 GMT
simply a no to Giggs
unless the only other option is Rush
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2010 20:51:32 GMT
No that's right - he's only the most be-medalled player to grace the history of the British game. And that makes him a good international manager does it? Who knows? |
|
|
|
Post by cardibach on Nov 24, 2010 21:28:45 GMT
I honestly don't know why anyone can count lack of managerial experience as a reason not to appoint an individual to the Wales job.
Mark Hughes had absolutely zero managerial experience, he did ok with Wales, didn't he?
On the other hand, Bobby Gould had managed at the highest level for years, won the FA Cup, etc. All his experience didn't do him much good though, did it?
|
|
