Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:35 pm  

Robbie Rotten wrote:

So what? That's 'cause they play underdog every game and defend non-stop. Paraguay have beaten Brazil, Paraguay were very good in qualifying, whilst they've had to do without Santa Cruz for most of the past year due to injury, and one of their other good strikers - Cabanas - has been shot in the head. They're a better team than America, America had a good confederations cup last year but only because they could play their defensive football without any expectation to attack. Same with against us, they were gash and people seem to think they were good 'cause they kept us out, all they done is what the likes of Fulham, Stoke and Everton do every week.

It doesn't matter how you get results.

It's the results that count. USA have been better at getting results than paraguay hence they are 17 places above them in the FIFA ranking. They are a better team.

Your opinion can go to hell.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:48 pm  

back to back to back wrote:

It doesn't matter how you get results.

It's the results that count. USA have been better at getting results than paraguay hence they are 17 places above them in the FIFA ranking. They are a better team.

Your opinion can go to hell.

Sorry mate but that's rubbish. The FIFA rankings are a joke. Look at Portugal. Apparently the 3rd best team in the world, yet they finished behind Denmark(36th). Denmark got the better results, as they won the group, yet are placed 33 places below the team they beat to win the group. Bosnia-Herzigovina(51st) are ranked below Turkey(29th) yet finished 4 points above them in qualifying. North Korea "only" lost by 1 goal to Brazil, in a properly competitive match (not a Charity Shield equivalent) so I assume they are world beaters?

I don't know how FIFA arrive at these rankings but I'd love to because as far as I can see they are a load of twaddle.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:52 pm  

back to back to back wrote:

It doesn't matter how you get results.

It's the results that count. USA have been better at getting results than paraguay hence they are 17 places above them in the FIFA ranking. They are a better team.

Your opinion can go to hell.

Look at Spain's record, only been beaten by the USA is it in God know's how many years? Won the Euro's in 2008, yet they're second to Brazil because Brazil won the confeds. The only reason the USA are so high is because of their performance in the confeds, not because they are some outstanding team who are better than whoever. Judging by your theory, Hamburg, Liverpool and Sevilla are all better sides than Real Madrid because they're ranked higher by Uefa. Rankings mean absolutely nothing, Paraguay came tied second to Brazil in South American qualifying by only one point, the USA wouldn't even be there if they had to qualify in the South American qualification system.

Another reason showing you contradicting yourself: England are ranked 8th in the world, yet you say a final is the minimum expectation? So the minimum expectation of the 8th best side is to finish second? Rankings are bull, if the USA came up against Paraguay in this tournament, they would get blitzed. Paraguay are a very good side, not average like you claimed.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:52 pm  

Oh and the stats from the Confederations Cup Final are:

9 Shots 31
5 Corner kicks 10
1 Yellow cards 3
0 Second yellow card and red card 0
0 Red Cards 0
41% Possession (%) 59%

I know it only finished 3-2 but that hardly looks an even game to me.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:56 pm  

El Pac Carnegie wrote:

Sorry mate but that's rubbish. The FIFA rankings are a joke. Look at Portugal. Apparently the 3rd best team in the world, yet they finished behind Denmark(36th). Denmark got the better results, as they won the group, yet are placed 33 places below the team they beat to win the group. Bosnia-Herzigovina(51st) are ranked below Turkey(29th) yet finished 4 points above them in qualifying. North Korea "only" lost by 1 goal to Brazil, in a properly competitive match (not a Charity Shield equivalent) so I assume they are world beaters?

I don't know how FIFA arrive at these rankings but I'd love to because as far as I can see they are a load of twaddle.

The ranking system is weighted towards recent results.

Here’s the calculation FIFA gives us: P = M x I x T x C x 100

And here’s what those things stand for:

M = Match — how the match ended.

Win (no penalty shootout) 3
Win (penalty shootout) 2
Draw 1
Loss (penalty shootout) 1
Loss (no penalty shootout) 0

I = Importance
The more significant the match, the more it counts. The assumption here being that coaches may or may not field the strongest teams in a friendly, but they certainly will in the World Cup.

T = Team The strength of the team played.
This one is a surprisingly simple weighting system based on relative FIFA ranking. Start with 200. Subtract one point for every place a team lies below first. Then divide by 100. This means that the #1 team is weighted at 2.0, #2 at 1.99, #50 at 1.50, etc. Teams ranked lower than 150th are weighted at .50.

C = Confederation.
Each confederation is weighted based on how well that confederation did in the three most recent World Cups.
Current weights (based on 2006, 2002 and 1998) are:

UEFA (Europe) = 1.0
CONMEBOL (South America) = .98
CONCACAF (North and Central America, plus some outliers) = .85
AFC (Asia) = .85
CAF (Africa) = .85
OFC (Oceania) = .85

And that’s it. It’s that simple.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Tue Jun 15, 2010 11:58 pm  

Well done USA for an amazing confederations cup, it doesn't make them a great side. Greece won it in 2004 and they were an OK team who are now extremely average. Egypt keeps winning the ACN, but they are a pretty average side who seem to perform in that tournament only. The rankings are bull.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Wed Jun 16, 2010 12:04 am  

back to back to back wrote:

The ranking system is weighted towards recent results.

Here’s the calculation FIFA gives us: P = M x I x T x C x 100

And here’s what those things stand for:

M = Match — how the match ended.

Win (no penalty shootout) 3
Win (penalty shootout) 2
Draw 1
Loss (penalty shootout) 1
Loss (no penalty shootout) 0

I = Importance
The more significant the match, the more it counts. The assumption here being that coaches may or may not field the strongest teams in a friendly, but they certainly will in the World Cup.

T = Team The strength of the team played.
This one is a surprisingly simple weighting system based on relative FIFA ranking. Start with 200. Subtract one point for every place a team lies below first. Then divide by 100. This means that the #1 team is weighted at 2.0, #2 at 1.99, #50 at 1.50, etc. Teams ranked lower than 150th are weighted at .50.

C = Confederation.
Each confederation is weighted based on how well that confederation did in the three most recent World Cups.
Current weights (based on 2006, 2002 and 1998) are:

UEFA (Europe) = 1.0
CONMEBOL (South America) = .98
CONCACAF (North and Central America, plus some outliers) = .85
AFC (Asia) = .85
CAF (Africa) = .85
OFC (Oceania) = .85

And that’s it. It’s that simple.

So how do team's like Denmark end up ranked lower than Portugal despite finishing above them in groups in the WC qualifying? Surely they were the most important matches at that time? The Confederations Cup is the equivalent to the Charity Shield and seems to distort the rankings considerably. As has been said, if you put the USA into the CONMEBOL region they wouldn't get to the finals, not even close IMO.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:48 am  

There's only one way to settle this......FIGHT!

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Wed Jun 16, 2010 7:55 am  

World cup is wide open right now, nothing to fear from what I have seen so far. Brazil and Argentina play pretty football but look dodgy at the back. There is only Spain we have not seen but they do have a history of underperforming in the WC.

Interestingly if Ivory Coast/Portugal both end up in stalemate draws with Brazil then it will come down to who beats NK by the most goals and Brazil only did it by 1. Brazil look to me like a side who needs a team to come on to them in order for them to be really effective. Portugal/Ivory Coast should defend deep and take a draw and see what they can do against NK.

I hope England play with more freedom and les fear and have a go, I think that mentality could take them far.

So far this WC is the biggest boreathon ever, poor football and a distinct lack of flair players.

Re: FIFA World Cup 2010 : Wed Jun 16, 2010 8:35 am  

PAUL M wrote:

World cup is wide open right now, nothing to fear from what I have seen so far. Brazil and Argentina play pretty football but look dodgy at the back.
I hope England play with more freedom and les fear and have a go, I think that mentality could take them far.

Whereas England aren't dodgy at the back? Weak goalkeepers, two slow central defenders and two full-backs who we aren't sure can even tackle. Another injury and what have we got left? As to flair, apart from Rooney we have absolutely none. Fitness we're way behind Brasil and Germany. So, if I were a betting man I'd say we have virtually zero chance of winning it (although, if we get through the group successfully the favourable draw might allow us to flatter to deceive by getting to an advanced stage).

As I said way up the thread we reverted in match 1 to the style of the darkest days of england football - long-ball aimlessly played up. I bote that since I made that comment the Kaiser has said the same thing.