[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Introvert2020)
I must admit I really don't see the issue with that. Points are tallied based on the rankings of the two sides in a match, their confederations, and whether the match is competitive or an exhibition - adding what stage of a tournament (and remember there are numerous international tournaments from the World Cup all the way down to the ASEAN Championship for South-East Asia, for example) the matches took place in which just further confuse an already convoluted system.

It isn't convoluted at all currently. It is:

Result * Importance * Strength of opp * Multiplier

It is then averaged and weighted, really not very complicated.

Adding another weighting to the importance of the match is all it would take. So it would not take readjusting points for different tournaments as games are already weighted by confederation.

It could make a big difference. Theoretically it is possible that a team could get more ranking points for going out in the first knockout round than the team who actually won the tournament.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Kallisto)
If I was you, I would be not so serious. Its a ranking without value in my opinion. I don't understand what the sense of one is.

Well it lets you see how your team is doing in an unbiased, mathematical way. Beyond the top 30 or 40 I agree it is pretty much redundant as they don't play as many competitive matches to formulate a reliable ranking. We know that England finished in the top 8 at the Euros or top 16 at the WC, but where a bouts are they within that range? It is also important from a seeding standpoint. England are consistently given high seedings, we in turn get easy qualifying groups.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
I'm not foaming at the mouth, I'm complaining about the way they are calculated. Would you agree that a group game is equally as important as a final. As far as the rankings are concerned they are.

You may as well be, because as I said if you and everyone else bothered to scrutinise the rankings you'd realise that England's prominent position is more to do with the other traditional powers being erratic and inconsistent than anything else and the no. 4 ranking is held on a knife edge, easily subject to change after a few more matches.
Obviously no in a footballing context obviously a final is more important than a group game, but that's beside the point. Spain and Italy were still rewarded by playing 6 games under a x3 multiplier. England only played 4 games as such. It seems to me that people are only really pissed of if England are ranked highly. Croatia, Denmark, United States, no one bats an eyelid, but England, well now there must be something wrong then...

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
You may as well be, because as I said if you and everyone else bothered to scrutinise the rankings you'd realise that England's prominent position is more to do with the other traditional powers being erratic and inconsistent than anything else and the no. 4 ranking is held on a knife edge, easily subject to change after a few more matches.

Well like I said, I have scrutinised the rankings and their formula, and I disagree with said formula.

Obviously no in a footballing context obviously a final is more important than a group game, but that's beside the point. Spain and Italy were still rewarded by playing 6 games under a x3 multiplier. England only played 4 games as such.

Yes but by that same system, a team who makes it to the final could be awarded fewer ranking points than a team who gets knocked out in the first knockout round. Heck a team who wins the tournament could even be given fewer points. Combine that with the fact that England get the same number of points for beating Sweden in a group match as Spain do for beating Italy in a final...well it just doesn't seem like the best way to rank teams in my opinion.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
It could make a big difference. Theoretically it is possible that a team could get more ranking points for going out in the first knockout round than the team who actually won the tournament.

If a team gets 4 pts from the group stage then wins every round on penalties, frankly the fact that they won the tournament itself doesn't suddenly make them a good team. If they are truly good, like Spain, they will take the chances they are given and win the matches, at which they will benefit handsomely from the ranking setup.

[Kallisto]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
(...) England are consistently given high seedings, we in turn get easy qualifying groups.

In other words: the better the ranking in one is the easier is the way for national teams to qualified for tournaments, right? Then I don't understand you why you are so angry. It's good for England to have an easier group for qualifying, isn't it?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
If a team gets 4 pts from the group stage then wins every round on penalties, frankly the fact that they won the tournament itself doesn't suddenly make them a good team. If they are truly good, like Spain, they will take the chances they are given and win the matches, at which they will benefit handsomely from the ranking setup.

Spain could have quite easily got 5 points in the group stage (had they drawn to Croatia, which was very possible). They don't even have to have won all their matches on penalties either in the knockout rounds.

For example:

England qualify from their group with 9 points then get knocked out on penalties in the QFs. England have roughly 5000 points from that.

Spain qualify from their group with 5 points (a slightly tougher group with the likes of Italy and Croatia however they will barely get any more points). That isn't too bad. Spain then win the one round on penalties (as they did this year) and win the other two outright. How many points do they get? About 5500-6000.

Then remember that the points are averaged over all the games. So in reality, England gain 1250 points whilst Spain gain around 900-1000.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by Kallisto)
In other words: the better the ranking in one is the easier is the way for national teams to qualified for tournaments, right? Then I don't understand you why you are so angry. It's good for England to have an easier group for qualifying, isn't it?

Well yes it is good for us, but it doesn't mean that it's right.

[Sir Fox]

(Original post by Astronomical)
Probably still feeling guilty about the last world cup where we'd have gone 2-2 with Germany and probably won the game, if it wasn't for a lack of goal line technology and incompetent referee and linesman.

Wembley. Now we're equal.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Well like I said, I have scrutinised the rankings and their formula, and I disagree with said formula.

I'm not referring to the formula, I'm referring to England's place within in the rankings, which everyone seems so offended by.

Yes but by that same system, a team who makes it to the final could be awarded fewer ranking points than a team who gets knocked out in the first knockout round. Heck a team who wins the tournament could even be given fewer points. Combine that with the fact that England get the same number of points for beating Sweden in a group match as Spain do for beating Italy in a final...well it just doesn't seem like the best way to rank teams in my opinion.

As I said, winning the tournament in itself doesn't make a team who barely gets out of the group stage and then wins every round on penalties good. Ultimately I think the current rankings are fair, you may not but that's beside the point. You seemed intent that England shouldn't be 4th, but then who would replace them? France, who had a worse tournament than England? Netherlands, who lost all three group games? Italy, who have actually only won 2 of their last 9 games?

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
As I said, winning the tournament in itself doesn't make a team who barely gets out of the group stage and then wins every round on penalties good. Ultimately I think the current rankings are fair, you may not but that's beside the point.

Spain getting 5 points would still have left them at the top of their group. They wouldn't have scraped through the group stages. But by the rankings, in my hypothetical scenario, England would have got 300 points more than Spain. You obviously didn't read my scenario either. They don't have to win every round on penalties. Winning one round on penalties (as Spain did) would be sufficient to see a team knocked out in the QF receive more points than one who wins the tournament.

You seemed intent that England shouldn't be 4th, but then who would replace them? France, who had a worse tournament than England? Netherlands, who lost all three group games? Italy, who have actually only won 2 of their last 9 games?

I don't know. Anything I said now would be subjective. Without actually creating a new formula which properly weighted different stages of a tournament it would be impossible to tell. Even so, I cannot foresee England being at number 4. Probably Portugal ahead of England. Despite their poor friendly and qualifying record a different formula would reward their superior tournament performance.

Realistically my top 8 would look something like:

Spain
Germany
Uruguay
Portugal
Italy
Netherlands
Argentina
England

Of course this is subjective and I can't really comment without doing some number crunching which I really cba to do. Although I imagine that England's relative consistency would see them jump possibly 1 or 2 spots in that list I just posted.

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
Spain could have quite easily got 5 points in the group stage (had they drawn to Croatia, which was very possible). They don't even have to have won all their matches on penalties either in the knockout rounds.

For example:

England qualify from their group with 9 points then get knocked out on penalties in the QFs. England have roughly 5000 points from that.

Spain qualify from their group with 5 points (a slightly tougher group with the likes of Italy and Croatia however they will barely get any more points). That isn't too bad. Spain then win the one round on penalties (as they did this year) and win the other two outright. How many points do they get? About 5500-6000.

Then remember that the points are averaged over all the games. So in reality, England gain 1250 points whilst Spain gain around 900-1000.

Well doing the maths, had England beaten France then proceeded as normal they would have gotten 5,217 pts (1,304 ave), if Spain had drawn with Croatia then proceeded as normal they would have gotten 7,284 pts (1,214 ave). So yeah you're right it's theoretically possible.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
Well doing the maths, had England beaten France then proceeded as normal they would have gotten 5,217 pts (1,304 ave), if Spain had drawn with Croatia then proceeded as normal they would have gotten 7,284 pts (1,214 ave). So yeah you're right it's theoretically possible.

I don't know why you needed to highlight theoretically as if to make it seem like a very unlikely outcome. England could have lucked a win against France as they did against Ukraine and Sweden and the Spain-Croatia game looked like it would be a draw for quite a while. And like you pointed out, if that would have happened, England would have got 100 more points for being knocked out 2 rounds earlier than Spain.

[munn]

the ranking system is flawed and teams like England (14 wins, 3 draws, 1 loss in the last 4 years) which regularly win qualifying games can take advantage of it.
there's no real penalty for losing games (you earn more points, but you can't lose any), so, for example in Euro 2008, Germany got 0 points for losing to Spain 1-0. But if Spain were to then lose 1-0 in their opening qualifying match to Andorra a few months later, they'd also earn 0 points. Thus there's no penalty for losing to a poorly ranked side (though a huge bonus for beating a higher ranked side). Hell, Portugal GAINED points for drawing 4-4 with Cyprus in qualification. That should never be the case.

Similarly, qualification is weighted much more highly than it should be - there's a 2.5x multiplier for qualification matches for Euros/World Cup but only a 3.0x multiplier for the actual matches in the world cup. This means that England's win against Bulgaria in qualification was worth approximately 810 points (going by their current ranking of 92, I'm unsure what their ranking is now), but Italy's draw with Spain in the group stages was worth just 597 points (the maximum amount any team could ever achieve for a draw outside of a world cup match), to compare. Yes a victory should be worth more than a draw, but there has to be a realistic weighting to them. To compare, the team currently ranked 110th in the world is Luxembourg. They're in group F for the World Cup qualifying alongside teams like Portugal, Northern Ireland and Russia. If each of those teams were to beat them (as they should be expected to, as one of the worst teams in European football and just 3 wins and 3 draws in tournament qualification in the last 16 years) they would be awarded 675 points. More than Italy got for drawing with Spain - more than England got for going to penalties with Italy, more than is possible to get from a draw in European Championship football. If San Marino were to make the Euros and draw with Spain there, they'd get less points than Spain would earn for beating Luxembourg in qualification! It's insane!

There's got to be a better way to work it, but I'm not going to sit here and work it out because I've spent long enough on this.

[Mequa]

(Original post by Cannotbelieveit)
Italy got hammered 4-0 by Spain; England beat Spain last November, but yet lost to Italy.

Italy are rock, Spain are paper, England are scissors.

[munn]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
I'm not referring to the formula, I'm referring to England's place within in the rankings, which everyone seems so offended by.



As I said, winning the tournament in itself doesn't make a team who barely gets out of the group stage and then wins every round on penalties good. Ultimately I think the current rankings are fair, you may not but that's beside the point. You seemed intent that England shouldn't be 4th, but then who would replace them? France, who had a worse tournament than England? Netherlands, who lost all three group games? Italy, who have actually only won 2 of their last 9 games?

The dutch lost all 3 group games, which had a major effect after having such a good euro 2008. but they also made a world cup final just 2 years ago, yet they came up against the number 2 team in the world, number 5 in the world and number 10 in the world and lost all 3 (and were arguably unlucky to lose in 2 of them), so because England managed to scrape by Sweden (17th) and Ukraine (46th) and draw with France (14th) they should be ranked higher?

And should Italy be ranked higher? Anyone that watched the game between the two knows the answer to that question. England might have taken it all the way to penalties and stopped Italy from scoring, but they never looked like winning that game, and unlike Germany, who in theory had a worse result against Italy, they at the very least threatened them (of course, that means nothing statistically, so it makes sense England should get more points than them)

England are definitely a top 10 european side, which by virtue of the fact that most of the rest of the world is rubbish, makes them a top 15 side.

Are they better than Italy, Germany, Spain, the Netherland or Portugal? I'd have to say no. Are they better than Croatia, Denmark or Russia? Arguably, but that's the level I would have them at. Are they better than Uruguay? Definitely not. Argentina and Brazil? Probably not, but they'd be competitive.
Brazil are now slipping down the rankings because as hosts of WC 2014 they don't need to play qualifying matches, that means that the only way for them to gain points from now until the finals is to play friendlies, and as they can never achieve more than 597 points from a friendly match, their ranking is only going to drop.

If you were to ask me, England would be somewhere in the 9-13 range of teams in the world, which is matched by their regular qualification to the last 16 of the WC, but rarely the last 8, and as top 8 in europe they regularly make the quarters but not the semis

[pol pot noodles]

(Original post by fudgesundae)
I don't know why you needed to highlight theoretically as if to make it seem like a very unlikely outcome. England could have lucked a win against France as they did against Ukraine and Sweden and the Spain-Croatia game looked like it would be a draw for quite a while. And like you pointed out, if that would have happened, England would have got 100 more points for being knocked out 2 rounds earlier than Spain.

No actually, I hadn't finished yet. I think the main problem with the FIFA ratings is that it can't take any form into account. A lot of people have trouble wrapping their head around England's position because let's be honest they play like dog ****, regardless of the fact that on paper they get results.
Anyway, I hadn't actually finished that post and was going to add this- How about if a x2 multiplier was added to finals games, 1.5 for semi-finals and 1.15 for quater-finals? Doing the maths, then even under your hypothetical scenario, Spain would ave 1,633 pts. If those multipliers were added to the real Euro 2012 results, the current world rankings would be-

Spain - 1942
Germany- 1533
Italy- 1325
England - 1306
Uruguay- 1297
Portugal -1279
Then the rest as normal. So actually England would remain 4th, although if I could be bothered i'd go back and add the multipliers to the last World Cup and also the Copa America, which would boost Uruguay, Netherlands etc.

[fudgesundae]

(Original post by pol pot noodles)
No actually, I hadn't finished yet. I think the main problem with the FIFA ratings is that it can't take any form into account. A lot of people have trouble wrapping their head around England's position because let's be honest they play like dog ****, regardless of the fact that on paper they get results.
Anyway, I hadn't actually finished that post and was going to add this- How about if a x2 multiplier was added to finals games, 1.5 for semi-finals and 1.15 for quater-finals? Doing the maths, then even under your hypothetical scenario, Spain would ave 1,633 pts. If those multipliers were added to the real Euro 2012 results, the current world rankings would be-

Spain - 1942
Germany- 1533
Italy- 1325
England - 1306
Uruguay- 1297
Portugal -1279
Then the rest as normal. So actually England would remain 4th, although if I could be bothered i'd go back and add the multipliers to the last World Cup and also the Copa America, which would boost Uruguay, Netherlands etc.

So there you go. England would probably drop to 6th or 7th had you included the WC and last Euros. Which seems like a much more reasonable ranking system.