mauro wrote:he 18
he is fagget bitch
Go bully him off it then
mauro wrote:he 18
he is fagget bitch
This right?mauro wrote:english players dont even know what triangles are
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.
(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.
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!
(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!
'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.
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.
dena wrote:We did do an awesome job this cycle of playing top teams. Continuing now too with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Egypt...
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.
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.
'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?
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.
dena wrote:We did do an awesome job this cycle of playing top teams. Continuing now too with Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Egypt...
dena wrote:They won't adapt well, I'll tell you that.![]()
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!
'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!
|
|