|
|
Post by youngdragon on May 26, 2011 22:12:52 GMT
there's a country called Suriname?
|
|
|
|
Post by squatter1 on May 26, 2011 22:42:49 GMT
If we lose we join the likes of said Oman and Kuwait, and we uprise as a nation in what will become known as the mad arab spring.
REVOLUTION BOYOS IS WHAT IT IS, RIGHT!!
|
|
|
|
Post by muaythai on May 27, 2011 10:10:48 GMT
there's a country called Suriname? yeah mate lol theres other countries down by us i never even thought existed lmao |
|
|
|
Post by cymrupenybont on May 27, 2011 11:07:24 GMT
is jordan still better than us?
|
|
|
|
Post by rushlegend on May 27, 2011 11:31:46 GMT
Yes Jordan is better than us now even at 59!!!!!! - still hate him now after he cheated at Anfield!
|
|
|
|
Post by cymrupenybont on May 27, 2011 11:33:34 GMT
gattuso got the bastard
|
|
|
|
Post by llannerch on May 27, 2011 17:29:44 GMT
there's a country called Suriname? Hey Marge, there's a country called U R Gay! |
|
|
|
Post by Baxter Cymru on Jun 4, 2011 11:38:03 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 12:01:01 GMT
E = pot 5, I presume, could have been worst!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Baxter Cymru on Jun 4, 2011 12:11:43 GMT
true haha i was thinking pot 6 cheers mate
|
|
|
|
Post by georgetm1 on Jun 4, 2011 14:19:26 GMT
I cant believe we are ranked 45 out of 53 in Europe. That is extremely weak, considering the players we have. The FAW and the players should be ashamed of themselves.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2011 15:02:35 GMT
I cant believe we are ranked 45 out of 53 in Europe. That is extremely weak, considering the players we have. The FAW and the players should be ashamed of themselves. And some people wonder why there is so much negativity.... Lets be honest, if we were Malta or San Marino we would be quite happy with that as its where we deserve to be. Wales should NOT be 45/53 and we should continue to point this out in the strongest possible terms until the situation is rectified. I mean its not like we can rely on the media to ask searching questions. Bananaman spent Tosh's reign shoved up his arse and now hes left he cant be bothered full stop. Its just a handful of posters on a messageboard that seem to care about how bad we really are! |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jun 4, 2011 15:07:05 GMT
The national team finally lifts itself back above the national league then.
Being in Pot E is not so bad, we could have been in pot F. But the ranking itself is extremely poor. We need to improve it and start winning games again.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Jun 4, 2011 16:37:41 GMT
I don't think friendlies are taken seriously enough by the FAW, the team or the managers. They are a valuable source of ranking points and yet who have we played recently?
Not including the Nations cup we've played Sweden (28th), Luxemburg (125th), Croatia (10th) and next up is Australia (20th)
Why are we playing teams that are ranked so much higher than us instead of the teams that are ranked around us. I know you only get basic points from friendlies but we need to keep them ticking over, get the kids a chance to play and then when we move up a few spots start playing the teams that are around us then.
For the likes of Croatia to be playing us would be like us playing Luxemburg. Yes we are better than Luxemburg but the rankings will testify that it isn't by much even if the result down Llanelli said otherwise.
Could it be that playing a big team is seen as a way of getting bums on seats. If so then they need to look at the big picture.
|
|
|
|
Post by scoop76 on Jun 4, 2011 22:32:28 GMT
Stu, ranking points are allocated according to the standard of opposition you play. So competitive wins against highly ranked teams is the best way to climb the rankings.
You don't get many ranking points for beating Luxembourg or Lichtenstein in a friendly.
Taking on - and beating - teams in the top 40 is the only way we will significantly climb. So friendlies versus the likes of Australia are a good thing, if we can get a competitive team out.
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jun 4, 2011 22:55:32 GMT
Really, we should target some high-ranked teams who are more beatable than Australia, who I predict will have enough to see us off.
Lithuania are currently world ranked 47th and Albania 50th, those are the two I would start with, along with (ironically) Montenegro who are 24th but really not that great in my opinion. Problem with friendlies is that there's give-and-take involved, and if you pick an away trip to Vilnius in June you can bet half the squad will pull out. And there's the possibilty of making a friendly with them now only for them to plummet in the rankings by the time we play them, now that rankings are calculated over 4 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Jun 5, 2011 9:35:10 GMT
Stu, ranking points are allocated according to the standard of opposition you play. So competitive wins against highly ranked teams is the best way to climb the rankings. You don't get many ranking points for beating Luxembourg or Lichtenstein in a friendly. Taking on - and beating - teams in the top 40 is the only way we will significantly climb. So friendlies versus the likes of Australia are a good thing, if we can get a competitive team out. I know that you get more points for beating better teams but we aren't beating anyone at the moment. Apart from Luxemburg and a very weak N Ireland. And yes we may not have many points from beating those, that's because after we beat someone like Luxemburg we go after Croatia and then Sweden. What's the point in that, especially when we know we will have players injured or dropping out. I don't mean travelling to places like Cambodia or Kuwait but at least play against teams within UEFA who are around us, Azerbaijan for example are the next team above us within UEFA, but 6 places above us in the world rankings. People need to realise qualifying is not a realistic target, our target should be to move up a pot so we get easier qualifiers. It would also give our team some confidence and experience instead of turning up for another hiding by a team that regularly qualifies for the World Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by youngdragon on Jun 5, 2011 11:48:41 GMT
to be fair Croatia was ruined by absentee's and sweden would have been wineable had Aaron not been injured
|
|
|
|
Post by stu on Jun 5, 2011 13:50:59 GMT
to be fair Croatia was ruined by absentee's and sweden would have been wineable had Aaron not been injured Every friendly we play we have at least one first choice player injured and some that go awol. This excuse doesn't wash with me because it's always the same story. I'm not saying we only play teams that are rubbish, I want us to play teams that are on and around our level. Our opponents should improve as we do. We are below Azerbaijan, let's stop dreaming that we are better than we are. The old saying look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves could translate quite well I think. |
|
|
|
Post by flynnfan on Jun 5, 2011 14:52:47 GMT
I think with Swansea's promotion we should look to take the Australia friendly there. There would be more of a buzz about it. Ideally, we'd play the Aussies in Wrexham cos then we'd have our 3 upcoming home games in different parts of the country, but that seems unlikely. I fear playing the game at the CCS, with Cardiffs championship disappointment hangover will play into the Australians hands.
|
|
|
|
Post by llannerch on Jun 6, 2011 11:52:54 GMT
I love the old 'why don't we play x or y to boost our ranking' argument. It pre-supposes that the Albanias and Lithuanias would want to risk their inflated ranking by playing us? The FAW also gets slated here for unglamorous friendlies and you want to play Albania or Lithuania  |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jun 6, 2011 17:48:29 GMT
I love the old 'why don't we play x or y to boost our ranking' argument. It pre-supposes that the Albanias and Lithuanias would want to risk their inflated ranking by playing us? The FAW also gets slated here for unglamorous friendlies and you want to play Albania or Lithuania Offer to play them at their place and they will likely accept. They probably don't know anything about us so will look at our ranking and conclude we're rubbish. Which we are, but potentially we're OK. I have never complained about unglamourous friendlies. I am quite pleased with the friendlies we have arranged in the last few seasons because there has a good mix of decent tests and opportunities to boost our ranking. That we have generally fluffed thse opportunities is not really the FAW's fault, well, except indirectly, through making poor decisions in hiring and firing of management staff. |
|
|
|
Post by llannerch on Jun 6, 2011 22:02:09 GMT
I have never complained about unglamourous friendlies. You're in the minority then |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jun 7, 2011 0:34:37 GMT
Any thoughts on the rest of my post?  |
|
|
|
Post by llannerch on Jun 8, 2011 18:00:20 GMT
There's no market in selling the rights for games in Albania and Lithuania.S4C is skint, Sky wouldn't bother, maybe BBC Wales but given how that leaked report suggested sport at BBC Wales was going to be slashed I doubt they would be interested.
The FAW would make a loss on those sorts of games.
Of course, beat England and we'd be more marketable to better class European countries
|
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jun 8, 2011 22:31:56 GMT
Sky would almost certainly show them. They have shown every game we have played for as long as I can remember that wasn't being covered by terrestrial TV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2011 23:13:23 GMT
Sky would almost certainly show them. They have shown every game we have played for as long as I can remember that wasn't being covered by terrestrial TV. Yes, but they would start a new channel specifically for us called "Sky Bollocks Office", with transmission being switched on 5 minutes into the game, no half time analysis just an overview of the pitch whilst the subs warm up and 5 minutes of Chris Coleman at the end where he talks about the England match the following night. It will be so bad we will look back on the days of being on sky sports 3 with fondness. |
|
|
|
Post by saints19 on Jun 8, 2011 23:57:08 GMT
Sky would almost certainly show them. They have shown every game we have played for as long as I can remember that wasn't being covered by terrestrial TV. Yes, but they would start a new channel specifically for us called "Sky Bollocks Office", with transmission being switched on 5 minutes into the game, no half time analysis just an overview of the pitch whilst the subs warm up and 5 minutes of Chris Coleman at the end where he talks about the England match the following night. It will be so bad we will look back on the days of being on sky sports 3 with fondness. Take out Chris Coleman and there's nowt wrong with that. No analysis is generally better than Sky Sports pundits' analysis. And transmission being switched on 5 minutes into the game just means five less minutes of stress, frustration, screaming at the TV for Speed to bring off Andrew Crofts and tearing your hair out. What's bad about that? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2011 1:05:56 GMT
Yes, but they would start a new channel specifically for us called "Sky Bollocks Office", with transmission being switched on 5 minutes into the game, no half time analysis just an overview of the pitch whilst the subs warm up and 5 minutes of Chris Coleman at the end where he talks about the England match the following night. It will be so bad we will look back on the days of being on sky sports 3 with fondness. Take out Chris Coleman and there's nowt wrong with that. No analysis is generally better than Sky Sports pundits' analysis. And transmission being switched on 5 minutes into the game just means five less minutes of stress, frustration, screaming at the TV for Speed to bring off Andrew Crofts and tearing your hair out. What's bad about that? Because you would still be listening to the radio tearing your hair out, so you might as well be able to see it if only Sky Bollocks Office would improve their service! ;D And of course we might miss some action on the touchline. Speed might actually stand up and look like hes in charge for a change- you wouldnt want to miss that would you? EDIT: You cant take out Chris Coleman either, thats the whole bloody point! It wouldnt be Sky Bollocks Office otherwise Its all about Sky being contractually obliged to show our non-glamour friendlies in conflict-torn hell holes like Albania, organised purely for ranking points and not viewing figures and them doing it with the least grace possible. And that most certainly involves Coleman talking about England whilst referring to Wales as "they"! |
|
|
|
Post by Baxter Cymru on Jun 9, 2011 14:42:51 GMT
|
|
