[TRS-T]

(Original post by CB91)
In 96 Spain were **** and not a top nation.

And even then it was only on penalties, you didn't beat them.

So at the 1990 World Cup, Euro 96, the 1998 World Cup, 2002 World Cup, Euro 2004, Euro 2012 we were not beaten either since we went out on penalties.

[Gob Bluth]

I saw the thread title and immediately knew what would be posted.

It's hilarious, and to see people defend the ranking makes me realise how thick and deluded some English people are. Fact is England are not as good and would be 2nd best to any team in the top 10, and some other teams outside of the top 10. I also question the Danes and the Greeks rankings. But i guess the teams that don't deserve it are those which are hard to beat. It's just how it's calculated. England aren't one of the top 10 teams in the world, but they know how to grind out results and avoid upsets.

[CB91]

(Original post by TRS-T)
So at the 1990 World Cup, Euro 96, the 1998 World Cup, 2002 World Cup, Euro 2004, Euro 2012 we were not beaten either since we went out on penalties.

Nice change of conversation.

[DaveSmith99]

Brazil 11th, England 4th. The rankings are a complete joke.

[FrescoDiMorte]

(Original post by TRS-T)
We have got better results than you.

That's why we're above you.

That's why we "deserve" to be above you.

Simple.

Your lieng. We lost 1-0 to germany in a well fought battle, in 2010 england were destroyed 4-1 and began crying about a disallowed but when it happened to ukraine it didnt matter. You drew to a terrible french team (who played better than you), Just about beat sweden and ukraine (meaning you have yet to beat a top 10 team).

We then dominated the netherlands (a top ten team wohooo) which we should have won more than 2-1 and edged out denmark 3-2 (a top ten team who would have beaten you this tournament). We then had quite an easy game in the czech republic who we beat 1-0. And then faced the best team on the planet to which we matched if not outplayed during the 90 mins and then went on to e.t and penalties to which we lost. Whereas you guys got butt****ed for 90 mins and e.t by italy.

In conclusion portugal reached the semis, you reached the quarters. We were in the group of death , you had some dodgy countries and a bad france. We beat 2 top 10 teams (Holland and denmark) whereas you beat ... Ukraine and sweden.

[CraigFrew]

Uruguay are third? How do these rankings work?

[FrescoDiMorte]

(Original post by CraigFrew)
Uruguay are third? How do these rankings work?

They won the Americas version of the Euro, not sure if it warrants third place though.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by XJR)
The FIFA rankings are calculated over a long period of time. England qualified well for the 2010 world cup (winning group and only losing one game), got out of their group at that world cup and then qualified well for Euro 2012 and won their group and didn't lose a game in 90 mins. This is along with good results in friendlies makes England so high up.

The terrible world cup that Italy had in 2010 (beat off Slovakia, drew with Newzealand - a team with part-time players - and finished bottom of their group) will still be hurting their ranking, while Portugal only got one game further on than England.

It does seen silly to England fans who are less than impressed with their team but in the quantitative way these things are worked out it makes sense.

(Original post by Tommyjw)
Not a joke. Way it is calculated isn't the best, but the same way still applies for everyone (no doubt people try to act like England are the only ones) and we come out in that position because our results aren't actually that bad.

The way the are calculated should be changed. They obviously don't put enough weight on tournament performance or on the strength of the opponent faced. You shouldn't get a tonne of ranking points for breezing through qualifying against the likes of Macedonia and then scraping through the group and losing in the first knockout round.

[CraigFrew]

(Original post by FrescoDiMorte)
They won the Americas version of the Euro, not sure if it warrants third place though.

I don't think it does , there's at least 5 teams below them that are better.

[TRS-T]

(Original post by FrescoDiMorte)
Your lieng. We lost 1-0 to germany in a well fought battle, in 2010 england were destroyed 4-1 and began crying about a disallowed but when it happened to ukraine it didnt matter. You drew to a terrible french team (who played better than you), Just about beat sweden and ukraine (meaning you have yet to beat a top 10 team).

We then dominated the netherlands (a top ten team wohooo) which we should have won more than 2-1 and edged out denmark 3-2 (a top ten team who would have beaten you this tournament). We then had quite an easy game in the czech republic who we beat 1-0. And then faced the best team on the planet to which we matched if not outplayed during the 90 mins and then went on to e.t and penalties to which we lost. Whereas you guys got butt****ed for 90 mins and e.t by italy.

In conclusion portugal reached the semis, you reached the quarters. We were in the group of death , you had some dodgy countries and a bad france. We beat 2 top 10 teams (Holland and denmark) whereas you beat ... Ukraine and sweden.

You couldn't top your qualification group.

You couldn't beat Cape Verde.

You couldn't beat Macedonia.

[FrescoDiMorte]

(Original post by TRS-T)
You couldn't top your qualification group.

You couldn't beat Cape Verde.

You couldn't beat Macedonia.

Whoo qualifiers ? What is it with english people and friendlies and non important matches ? Rather do bad when it doesnt really matter (portugal) than be overrated and **** when it does matter in tournaments (england). Only the english think they are worthy of a top 10 spot and tournament after tournament they'll be proven wrong again and again and again.

[ForensicShoe]

(Original post by FrescoDiMorte)
Whoo qualifiers ? What is it with english people and friendlies and non important matches ? Rather do bad when it doesnt really matter (portugal) than be overrated and **** when it does matter in tournaments (england). Only the english think they are worthy of a top 10 spot and tournament after tournament they'll be proven wrong again and again and again.

I don't agree with the rankings by the way.

[The Cornerstone]

Croatia and Denmark ahead of Brazil ? Really? How do they make stuff like this? Is it a punishment for the way they play now?

[BlueJohn]

You do realise England have only lost 8 times in competitive games (at WC's at Euros and qualifying) since the 1998 euros so even though we never won anything we don't lose either cos a draw and going out on penos is not a loss so to be fair we are a very difficult team to beat and the rankings is on how you do statistically not anything else and on paper we are a very good (but unlucky) team

[Sbapu]

(Original post by TRS-T)
Why do people only question the rankings when England do well in them?

Would you say Holland are better than us?

How did they get on at Euro 2012?

Would you say Belgium are a good team?

Where were they in Poland and Ukraine?

It's based on results not opinion.

Roy Hodgson is unbeaten as England manager.

We deserve our 4th place ranking.

Yeah, Holland are better than England. They had the hardest group and failed to click but would stilll beat England.
Unbeaten? Penalties don't count do they?

[BlueJohn]

England are a top 10 team hence always make the quarters so always in the best 8

[TRS-T]

We are 5th in the World Football Elo Ratings

[TRS-T]

(Original post by The Cornerstone)
Croatia and Denmark ahead of Brazil ? Really? How do they make stuff like this? Is it a punishment for the way they play now?

Brazil have not been able to gain many points since they are already qualified for the 2014 World Cup.

So they are not playing any competitive games, only friendlies.

[The Cornerstone]

(Original post by TRS-T)
Brazil have not been able to gain many points since they are already qualified for the 2014 World Cup.

So they are not playing any competitive games, only friendlies.

So that's how FIFA give their points? Bit flawed, that's not really the national team's fault that they cannot prove the themselves.

[Aramiss18]

The BBC comments section and this thread have shown a worrying lack of respect for Uruguay. Or are they still unpopular for beating Ghana in WC2010?

But yes of course the rankings are flawed. You get the same points for beating minnows like San Marino in qualifying as you would beating another top team. And, as much as I detest England's playing style and fear of the ball, as has already been pointed out England very rarely lose in 90 minutes.