England ranked 4th in the world by FIFA

[alom5]

Just read this with the bbc.....Is this for real??

How on earth did they get to that conclusion...better than Italy (ofcourse we are...we were all over them in the quarters of euro 2012)...better than Portugal (got beat by the width of the woodwork by the masters that are Spain) to name a couple...

What are your thoughts boys....

Fifa world rankings - top 20

1. Spain 2. Germany 3. Uruguay 4. England 5. Portugal 6. Italy 7. Argentina 8. Netherlands 9. Croatia 10. Denmark 11. Brazil 12. Greece 13. Russia 14. France 15. Chile 16. Ivory Coast 17. Sweden 18. Czech Republic 19. Mexico 20. Japan

Selected others:*26. Republic of Ireland 38. Wales 49. Scotland 102. Northern Ireland


Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk 2

[Shady]

its a league table, games played/won/goal difference etc.. its hardly confusing, put simply, we have ammassed more points than italy or portugal. its not just based on one off games

[nara]

It's nothing to do with perceived performance. It's based on results over a given period of time... and England's win/draw/loss ratios are excellent.

[nara]

It's nothing to do with perceived performance. It's based on results over a given period of time... and England's win/draw/loss ratios are excellent.

EDIT: Lol, Shady beat me to it.

[Shady]

i also notice how you have highlighted Englands status rather than highlighting say.. denmark being ranked above brazil..

now this wouldnt be an anti england thread would it?

[yasminandrio]

It looks like to me they have just picked names out of the bowl like they do for the Draw!!, should be more like 44!!

[Shady]

should it?

[lagerland]

It looks like to me they have just picked names out of the bowl like they do for the Draw!!, should be more like 44!!

Either that or they have been at the crack again...............

[yasminandrio]

should it?

I knew you would like that Shady

[yasminandrio]

Either that or they have been at the crack again...............

Or paid the powers that be!!

[Shady]

so let me get ths straight, ranking systems are wrong ?

so.. by extension, the ranking system of the premier league is wrong also, and manu should be nowhere near the top?

[yasminandrio]

so let me guess ths straight, ranking systems are wrong ?

This bit is so correct Shady!! your on the ball today!!

so.. by extension, the ranking system of the premier league is wrong also, and manu should be nowhere near the top?

But they finished second in the league table based on compatitive games!! not on pointless friendly games or pre season friendly games!! I know you don't beleve England should be ranked 4th!! the ranking system for international teams is crap.

[Shady]

are you actually suggesting that spain never really tried to beat england in our friendly game? that a team of highly paid professional sportsmen thought '~~~~ it, lets not try, cos its only a friendly',

Granted in the past, FIFA rankings have been all out of whack, giving the standards 3 pts for a win etc, and not taking into account competitive games, ranking of opposition.

All that has been sorted for a long time now.

You popped up to comment on Englands ranking, and not for instance Denmark being ranked higher than Brazil.

I put it to you that the ONLY reason you commented is to vent some of your bitter jealous bile at England.

[footycard steve]

i think the bookies prices are more realistic england are 7th favs at 25/1 for the 2014 world cup the same price as uruguay and portugal.

[yasminandrio]

Shady you are very silly sometimes... here is how they rank the teams!! Which is a load of bollocks!!! England ar Sh*t end of!! trust me i'm not bitter or jealous, i just think your blinded!!

FIFA's world rankings are intended to be an at a glance measure of a national teams standing in the world game. Listing all 208 member associations in order of strength, the monthly updates often create as much controversy as clarity.
"How can nation X have climbed places without playing?", "Why didn't nation Y move up a place or two after winning?" and "Are we really on the same level as ?" are all questions that seem to dominate conversation whenever the rankings are discussed.
The calculations used to decide the best to worst teams currently playing at international level have been revised in recent years and , though still complicated, allow any fan to figure out who is better, and who is best following the month's international fixtures.
CALCULATING RANKING POINTS FROM EACH MATCH
Ranking points are given for all international ***8216;A***8217; matches, including friendlies, with results holding relevance in the overall rank for a total of 48 months.
Points are calculated using a formula which draws in four factors: the match outcome (M), the importance of the match (I), the strength of the opponent (T) and the strength of the confederation (C).
The overall points awarded to a nation are calculated as: points = (M x I x T x C).
Match outcome
Three points are awarded for a win, one for a draw and none for a defeat. If a match goes to a penalty shootout, the winners are given two points and the defeated team are given one point.
If a team loses a match, it will receive no ranking points overall for the fixture.
Importance of match
International fixtures sit within one of four categories. A friendly match is equal to one point; a World Cup or confederation-level qualifier, such as the European Championships, is equal to 2.5 points; a match at a confederation-level tournament or the Confederations Cup is equal to three points; and a match at the World Cup counts for four points.
Opponent strength
An opponent***8217;s strength is calculated by subtracting their FIFA world ranking at the time of the fixture from 200. For example, a match against Brazil in October 2011 would give 193 points, with the nation ranked seventh in the world.
The team in top spot count for 200 points while any nation ranked 150th or below are given the value of 50. For the purposes of the final calculation, the strength of an opponent is divided by 100.
Confederation strength
If two teams from the same confederation meet, the weighting for the area they reside in is used. If a game takes place between two nations from different regions, a mean score is taken from the two confederation scores.
UEFA and CONMEBOL is equal to one point; CONCACAF is 0.88; AFC and CAF is 0.86 and OFC equals 0.85.
Final calculation
To determine the final amount of points gained from a match, all of the above factors are multiplied.
As an example, Scotland gained 395 points from their draw with Czech Republic in September 2011. They accumulated one points for the result (M), 2.5 for the match importance (I), 158 from Czech Republic 42nd placing in the FIFA ranking (T) and one point from the confederation strength (C).
The final score is then added into a nation***8217;s average for the past 12 months. Scotland's 12 month average stands at 296.3, having played 10 games.
OVERALL RANKING CALCULATION
All results within the previous 48 months are taken into consideration. The significance of results within the four year period, which are grouped into averages in 12 month chunks, decline year on year.
Averages are worth just 50% of their initial score after 12 months, 30% after 24 months and 20% in the period 36-48 months after a result has been recorded. All games which fall outside of the four year cycle are not taken into consideration.
It can be the case that a nation suffers a slump in the rankings even if its most recent results have been favourable. This is usually due to points being factored into a 12 month average, so if the accumulated points within the year haven***8217;t been high, a fall can occur when better results from four years previous are discounted.
As FIFA's guidance on the rankings states: ***8220;Teams who often lose or draw matches will get fewer points. Furthermore, any team that records a major victory (e.g. a continental championship title) will suffer losses in the ranking 12 months later if, by that time, it has not gained lots of points in more recent matches.
***8220;The longer it is since a match was played, the less important it becomes for the ranking. This continues until, after four years, the match no longer has any impact on the calculation of the ranking. As a result, it is possible for teams to climb or fall in the ranking even if they have not played.***8221;
In brief, you don't have to play to rise or fall in the rankings. A great result from more than a year ago becomes less significant as time goes by and can even have a negative effect, if wins against bigger nations are not consistently achieved.

As you can see this is untter bollocks and means ~~~~ all!!