mauro wrote:he 18
he is fagget bitch
Go bully him off it then
+5
Grenade
Ben
Mario
Keanoo
SBSP
9 posters
World Rankings (12 January 2011)
Guest- Guest
Go bully him off it then
Guest- Guest
door is lock 
Guest- Guest
he probly is masturbationing right now
Guest- Guest
Kick the door down then. Rip his cock off and tell him to go to bed.
Walcott-
- Posts : 14547
Location : at the stewards with Lewis Hamilton.
Supports : Arsenal & Lewis Hamilton.
Gotta love Mauro.
SBSP-
- Posts : 50010
This right?mauro wrote:english players dont even know what triangles are
Grenade-
- Formerly known as : grenade187
Posts : 9113
Age : 42
What exactly has England done in recent history that makes them deserve that ranking? Im all for my country but this is pretty stupid
Guest- Guest
the top ten is normally just about right, with a little tweaking you can normally get them in the right order too.
the world rankings dont work though, its very rare for teams to play competitively against other teams from different confederations in a proper game. they take into account games that were played up to 4 years ago in the official FIFA rankings and given their opposition, the likes of Mexico & USA invariably win versus second and third rate opposition while the likes of Venezuela & Peru have an awfully hard time playing mostly against against top rate opposition!
the fact remains though, as shit as England were in the WC, we made it to the last 16 and lost to the 3rd best team in the World. France & Italy didnt make it out of their groups and this is reflected in the rankings! but the system is horribly flawed and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
the world rankings dont work though, its very rare for teams to play competitively against other teams from different confederations in a proper game. they take into account games that were played up to 4 years ago in the official FIFA rankings and given their opposition, the likes of Mexico & USA invariably win versus second and third rate opposition while the likes of Venezuela & Peru have an awfully hard time playing mostly against against top rate opposition!
the fact remains though, as shit as England were in the WC, we made it to the last 16 and lost to the 3rd best team in the World. France & Italy didnt make it out of their groups and this is reflected in the rankings! but the system is horribly flawed and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
Guest- Guest
boring anti-English rhetoric = inferiority complex.
go find someone to hug.
go find someone to hug.
Guest- Guest
I'm not gonna get involved in this, but it goes both ways. You guys have quite the superiority complex as well.'orrible bastard wrote:boring anti-English rhetoric = inferiority complex.
go find someone to hug.
Guest- Guest
(polskaGOLA) wrote:I'm not gonna get involved in this, but it goes both ways. You guys have quite the superiority complex as well.'orrible bastard wrote:boring anti-English rhetoric = inferiority complex.
go find someone to hug.
damn right we do and for good reason! its far healthier than living in other peoples shadows. whether we happen to be wrong or right, we're not the ones with a problem with our nations percieved standing!
Guest- Guest
tbh, as an Englishman, I'd think that'd be the least of your worries.'orrible bastard wrote:(polskaGOLA) wrote:I'm not gonna get involved in this, but it goes both ways. You guys have quite the superiority complex as well.'orrible bastard wrote:boring anti-English rhetoric = inferiority complex.
go find someone to hug.
damn right we do and for good reason! its far healthier than living in other peoples shadows. whether we happen to be wrong or right, we're not the ones with a problem with our nations percieved standing!
Guest- Guest
(polskaGOLA) wrote:tbh, as an Englishman, I'd think that'd be the least of your worries.'orrible bastard wrote:(polskaGOLA) wrote:I'm not gonna get involved in this, but it goes both ways. You guys have quite the superiority complex as well.'orrible bastard wrote:boring anti-English rhetoric = inferiority complex.
go find someone to hug.
damn right we do and for good reason! its far healthier than living in other peoples shadows. whether we happen to be wrong or right, we're not the ones with a problem with our nations percieved standing!
my biggest problem as an Englishman is the impending collapse of democracy as we know it. its only a matter of years until the labour manufactured social underclasses will have too big a say in the running of this nation. we're doomed, doomed i tell ya.
Scuba Steve-
- Posts : 6682
Age : 37
'orrible bastard wrote:the top ten is normally just about right, with a little tweaking you can normally get them in the right order too.
the world rankings dont work though, its very rare for teams to play competitively against other teams from different confederations in a proper game. they take into account games that were played up to 4 years ago in the official FIFA rankings and given their opposition, the likes of Mexico & USA invariably win versus second and third rate opposition while the likes of Venezuela & Peru have an awfully hard time playing mostly against against top rate opposition!
the fact remains though, as shit as England were in the WC, we made it to the last 16 and lost to the 3rd best team in the World. France & Italy didnt make it out of their groups and this is reflected in the rankings! but the system is horribly flawed and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
Your theory has merit, but at least in our case (and I'm sure in the case of Mexico), it doesn't actually apply.
Since the 2006 World Cup, these are the teams that we have played:
Denmark (x2)
Mexico (x6)
Ecuador
Guatemala (x4)
China
T&T (x5)
El Salvador (x4)
Panama (x2)
Canada
Argentina (x2)
Paraguay
Colombia (x2)
Sweden (x3)
Switzerland
Brazil (x4)
South Africa (x2)
Poland (x2)
England (x2)
Spain (x2)
Barbados (x2)
Cuba (x2)
Costa Rica (x2)
Honduras (x5)
Italy
Egypt
Grenada
Haiti
Slovakia
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Turkey
Australia
Slovenia
Algeria
Ghana
That means since the beginning of 2007, we played 33 games against teams that appeared in the 2010 World Cup (which includes our 4 games in the World Cup). Those 33 games were played against 19 of the 32 teams that participated in that 2010 WC. If we expand to count the games against teams that also played in the 2006 WC, that would increase the count to 46 games against 24 teams. Yes, we have played easy games in there, but our coefficient is so much lower, which makes up the difference. I don't know about England's last 4 years, but if they played that many games against 2010 WC teams, I'd be impressed.
dena-
- Posts : 18688
Age : 34
Location : only place to find base heads and hot women
We did do an awesome job this cycle of playing top teams. Continuing now too with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Egypt...
Scuba Steve-
- Posts : 6682
Age : 37
Scuba Steve wrote:'orrible bastard wrote:the top ten is normally just about right, with a little tweaking you can normally get them in the right order too.
the world rankings dont work though, its very rare for teams to play competitively against other teams from different confederations in a proper game. they take into account games that were played up to 4 years ago in the official FIFA rankings and given their opposition, the likes of Mexico & USA invariably win versus second and third rate opposition while the likes of Venezuela & Peru have an awfully hard time playing mostly against against top rate opposition!
the fact remains though, as shit as England were in the WC, we made it to the last 16 and lost to the 3rd best team in the World. France & Italy didnt make it out of their groups and this is reflected in the rankings! but the system is horribly flawed and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
Your theory has merit, but at least in our case (and I'm sure in the case of Mexico), it doesn't actually apply.
Since the 2006 World Cup, these are the teams that we have played:
Denmark (x2)
Mexico (x6)
Ecuador
Guatemala (x4)
China
T&T (x5)
El Salvador (x4)
Panama (x2)
Canada
Argentina (x2)
Paraguay
Colombia (x2)
Sweden (x3)
Switzerland
Brazil (x4)
South Africa (x2)
Poland (x2)
England (x2)
Spain (x2)
Barbados (x2)
Cuba (x2)
Costa Rica (x2)
Honduras (x5)
Italy
Egypt
Grenada
Haiti
Slovakia
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Turkey
Australia
Slovenia
Algeria
Ghana
That means since the beginning of 2007, we played 33 games against teams that appeared in the 2010 World Cup (which includes our 4 games in the World Cup). Those 33 games were played against 19 of the 32 teams that participated in that 2010 WC. If we expand to count the games against teams that also played in the 2006 WC, that would increase the count to 46 games against 24 teams. Yes, we have played easy games in there, but our coefficient is so much lower, which makes up the difference. I don't know about England's last 4 years, but if they played that many games against 2010 WC teams, I'd be impressed.
I looked it up myself anyways. Starting in 2007, England played:
Spain (ii)
Israel (ii)
Andorra
Brazil (ii)
Estonia (ii)
Germany (iii)
Russia (ii)
Austria
Croatia
Switzerland (ii)
France (ii)
USA (ii)
T&T
Czech Republic
Andorra (ii)
Croatia (iii)
Kazakhstan (ii)
Belarus (ii)
Slovakia
Ukraine (ii)
Holland
Slovenia (ii)
Egypt
Mexico
Japan
Algeria
Bulgaria
Montenegro
So in the same time that we played 33 games against 19 teams from WC 2010, England played 20 games against 12 teams that appeared in World Cup games.
And yes, I know your argument was based on competitive matches, but like I said, our coefficient is low enough, that if we didn't play the high ranking opponents in friendlies, then our current standing would be for naught.
Scuba Steve-
- Posts : 6682
Age : 37
dena wrote:We did do an awesome job this cycle of playing top teams. Continuing now too with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Egypt...
Yup! Don't forget the Chile game either though.
Guest- Guest
Scuba Steve wrote:'orrible bastard wrote:the top ten is normally just about right, with a little tweaking you can normally get them in the right order too.
the world rankings dont work though, its very rare for teams to play competitively against other teams from different confederations in a proper game. they take into account games that were played up to 4 years ago in the official FIFA rankings and given their opposition, the likes of Mexico & USA invariably win versus second and third rate opposition while the likes of Venezuela & Peru have an awfully hard time playing mostly against against top rate opposition!
in addition to this, organising friendlies against teams in weirdly inflated positions only goes to further blur the intgrity of the ranking system.
the fact remains though, as shit as England were in the WC, we made it to the last 16 and lost to the 3rd best team in the World. France & Italy didnt make it out of their groups and this is reflected in the rankings! but the system is horribly flawed and should not be taken seriously by anyone.
Your theory has merit, but at least in our case (and I'm sure in the case of Mexico), it doesn't actually apply.
Since the 2006 World Cup, these are the teams that we have played:
Denmark (x2)
Mexico (x6)
Ecuador
Guatemala (x4)
China
T&T (x5)
El Salvador (x4)
Panama (x2)
Canada
Argentina (x2)
Paraguay
Colombia (x2)
Sweden (x3)
Switzerland
Brazil (x4)
South Africa (x2)
Poland (x2)
England (x2)
Spain (x2)
Barbados (x2)
Cuba (x2)
Costa Rica (x2)
Honduras (x5)
Italy
Egypt
Grenada
Haiti
Slovakia
Netherlands
Czech Republic
Turkey
Australia
Slovenia
Algeria
Ghana
That means since the beginning of 2007, we played 33 games against teams that appeared in the 2010 World Cup (which includes our 4 games in the World Cup). Those 33 games were played against 19 of the 32 teams that participated in that 2010 WC. If we expand to count the games against teams that also played in the 2006 WC, that would increase the count to 46 games against 24 teams. Yes, we have played easy games in there, but our coefficient is so much lower, which makes up the difference. I don't know about England's last 4 years, but if they played that many games against 2010 WC teams, I'd be impressed.
friendlies count very, very little towards FIFA rankings though. ranking points gained in qualifiers are far more important than those gained in friendly competition or even those in the confed cup!
Last edited by 'orrible bastard on Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:08 am; edited 1 time in total
Scuba Steve-
- Posts : 6682
Age : 37
I can't find it, but I thought seeing that our federation coefficient was almost as low as a friendly game. Maybe that's not right, but our coefficient is the lowest one around.
Guest- Guest
Scuba Steve wrote:I can't find it, but I thought seeing that our federation coefficient was almost as low as a friendly game. Maybe that's not right, but our coefficient is the lowest one around.
i realise that. its something like 0.85 for concacaf games off the top of my head, but they are far easier to maximise points in. its even flawed within the confederations - the same multiplier of 0.85 is used whether the US are beating Mexico or St Kitts & Nevis! there is and always has been a deep ceded (or should that be seeded) problem in which the rankings are compiled! the multiplier for qualifiers regardless of confederation is 2.5! is it right that more ranking points are awarded to the USA after a game versus Guatemala than in a friendly versus Brazil? is it right that the US can potentially accrue more ranking points in the cocacaf gold cup than in the final WC qualifying group?
a quick look on Wiki tells me that the concacaf multipier is now 0.88! the third strongest confederation in World Football? or a whole confederatio being upgraded because of the performance of its 2 best teams?
Last edited by 'orrible bastard on Sat Jan 15, 2011 9:31 am; edited 1 time in total
Scuba Steve-
- Posts : 6682
Age : 37
'orrible bastard wrote:Scuba Steve wrote:I can't find it, but I thought seeing that our federation coefficient was almost as low as a friendly game. Maybe that's not right, but our coefficient is the lowest one around.
i realise that. its something like 0.85 for concacaf games off the top of my head, but they are far easier to maximise points in. its even flawed within the confederations - the same multiplier of 0.85 is used whether the US are beating Mexico or St Kitts & Nevis! there is and always has been a deep ceded (or should that be seeded) problem in which the rankings are compiled!
a quick look on Wiki tells me that the concacaf multipier is now 0.88! the third strongest confederation in World Football? or a whole confederatio being upgraded because of the performance of its 2 best teams?
At the same time though, England gets the same amount of points for winning a game against Germany and Andorra. (seeded was the term you were looking for -- but I agree about the problem about how the rankings are compiled).
And if the multiplier is now that -- then it has to do with our recent restructuring of our qualification process, which ends up with more games in the overall process (while actually making it easier for US and Mexico to get to the World Cup). And I will wholeheartedly admit that the increase is unwarranted.
Guest- Guest
Scuba Steve wrote:'orrible bastard wrote:Scuba Steve wrote:I can't find it, but I thought seeing that our federation coefficient was almost as low as a friendly game. Maybe that's not right, but our coefficient is the lowest one around.
i realise that. its something like 0.85 for concacaf games off the top of my head, but they are far easier to maximise points in. its even flawed within the confederations - the same multiplier of 0.85 is used whether the US are beating Mexico or St Kitts & Nevis! there is and always has been a deep ceded (or should that be seeded) problem in which the rankings are compiled!
a quick look on Wiki tells me that the concacaf multipier is now 0.88! the third strongest confederation in World Football? or a whole confederatio being upgraded because of the performance of its 2 best teams?
At the same time though, England gets the same amount of points for winning a game against Germany and Andorra. (seeded was the term you were looking for -- but I agree about the problem about how the rankings are compiled).
And if the multiplier is now that -- then it has to do with our recent restructuring of our qualification process, which ends up with more games in the overall process (while actually making it easier for US and Mexico to get to the World Cup). And I will wholeheartedly admit that the increase is unwarranted.
im not arguing that the ranking system works in Europe either. from the example you gave with Andorra & Germany it is clear that the system is horribly flawed everywhere!
i wasn't US bashing, i merely used them as an exmple because Mexico and the US are 2 decent teams in a somewhat shitty confederation where they are seldom given a game! the US and Mexico are flattered by the ranking system in that they rarely have to play anyone of real quality in both qualifiers and the Gold Cup - their records in the GC would back up this theory!
my "deep ceded (seeded)" comment was a play on words and an attempt at humour - clearly it went right over your head or just wasnt funny! or as i suspect, a bit of both.
Guest- Guest
dena wrote:We did do an awesome job this cycle of playing top teams. Continuing now too with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Egypt...
I wonder how our team will adapt from playing teams like Uganda, Burundi, and Kenya over the past week to playing the USA next month.
dena-
- Posts : 18688
Age : 34
Location : only place to find base heads and hot women
They won't adapt well, I'll tell you that. 
Guest- Guest
dena wrote:They won't adapt well, I'll tell you that.
We'll see about that.
Guest- Guest
Steve in case you missed my edit earlier. the multiplier for a friendly is 1, the multiplier for a qualifier is 2.5. there are regional multipiers too, concacaf is now 0.88 while Conmebol and UEFA is 1, these are applied to the team that are playing versus one another added up and divided by 2.
to illustrate how the rankings are bullshit, here's an example;
if the US played a friendly V Spain tomorrow;
i cant be bothered to do the sums but if the US beat Spain they would be awarded 5.58 ranking points, if they drew they would recieve 1.86 and 0 for losing
if the US beat St Kitts and Nevis in a preliminary WC Qualifier they would recieve 5.21 points, if they drew they would be awarded 1.73 and 0 for losing!
the disparity between beating shit teams in meaningful games versus beating decent opposition in shit games is ridiculous!
to illustrate how the rankings are bullshit, here's an example;
if the US played a friendly V Spain tomorrow;
i cant be bothered to do the sums but if the US beat Spain they would be awarded 5.58 ranking points, if they drew they would recieve 1.86 and 0 for losing
if the US beat St Kitts and Nevis in a preliminary WC Qualifier they would recieve 5.21 points, if they drew they would be awarded 1.73 and 0 for losing!
the disparity between beating shit teams in meaningful games versus beating decent opposition in shit games is ridiculous!
Guest- Guest
I agree.'orrible bastard wrote:Steve in case you missed my edit earlier. the multiplier for a friendly is 1, the multiplier for a qualifier is 2.5. there are regional multipiers too, concacaf is now 0.88 while Conmebol and UEFA is 1, these are applied to the team that are playing versus one another added up and divided by 2.
to illustrate how the rankings are bullshit, here's an example;
if the US played a friendly V Spain tomorrow;
i cant be bothered to do the sums but if the US beat Spain they would be awarded 5.58 ranking points, if they drew they would recieve 1.86 and 0 for losing
if the US beat St Kitts and Nevis in a preliminary WC Qualifier they would recieve 5.21 points, if they drew they would be awarded 1.73 and 0 for losing!
the disparity between beating shit teams in meaningful games versus beating decent opposition in shit games is ridiculous!
I know Poland is shit at football and everything, but because of not qualifying for the WC, and now not having any meaningful games until EURO 2012, add that our Points from the impressive qualifying campaign for EURO 2008 are being erased, we could potentially see Poland dropping down below 100th place.
Guest- Guest
'orrible bastard wrote:Steve in case you missed my edit earlier. the multiplier for a friendly is 1, the multiplier for a qualifier is 2.5. there are regional multipiers too, concacaf is now 0.88 while Conmebol and UEFA is 1, these are applied to the team that are playing versus one another added up and divided by 2.
to illustrate how the rankings are bullshit, here's an example;
if the US played a friendly V Spain tomorrow;
i cant be bothered to do the sums but if the US beat Spain they would be awarded 5.58 ranking points, if they drew they would recieve 1.86 and 0 for losing
if the US beat St Kitts and Nevis in a preliminary WC Qualifier they would recieve 5.21 points, if they drew they would be awarded 1.73 and 0 for losing!
the disparity between beating shit teams in meaningful games versus beating decent opposition in shit games is ridiculous!
Check your math/rules again. I got 5.64 (or rather 564pts) if USA beat Spain. I also got 5.214 (or rather 521pts) if USA beat St Kitts and Nevis.
I know there isn't much a difference between this and your math. CONCACAF's multiplier is a bit high. I don't get how CONCACAF has the 3rd highest multiplier in the world. And with CONCACAF's new WCQ format, teams like USA and Mexico will get even easier opponents to face. I won't be surprised if both nations surge in the rankings throughout the campaign.
But 43 points (the difference between the two scenarios) can mean a lot to a team. Currently USA would go up at least 2 additional places in their ranking. Other teams could go up say 10 places because of an additional 43 points.
dena-
- Posts : 18688
Age : 34
Location : only place to find base heads and hot women
Our multiplier is third because behind Europe and South America we are obviously the third best confederation in the world.
Plus Jack Warner is our chief. :troll:
Plus Jack Warner is our chief. :troll:
|
|
|