comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)

posted 6 minutes ago

comment by GunaDave (U7710)
posted 1 minute ago
DJ

Not sure what system you would prefer?

LOL
----------------------------------------------------------------------
None that have been suggested, that is why I am defending this.

_____________________

Not having a pop just that comment after reading three screens of calculations really made me laugh

USA moved down two places after qualifying from a crazy group containing Portugal, Germany and Ghana and losing to Belgium, whilst Coata Rica beat Greece and they went up twelve positions. How is that comparable to USA? They lost 2 places and Costa Rica gained twelve! I feel that's crazy.

Brazil went in to the tournament like top 3 or 4? Now they're 7th. Likes of Colombia are ahead of them despite Brazil beating them and finishing 4th.
We all know Colombia are a better team. So for once FIFA have rightly reflected these rankings IMO.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
USA moved down two places after qualifying from a crazy group containing Portugal, Germany and Ghana and losing to Belgium, whilst Coata Rica beat Greece and they went up twelve positions. How is that comparable to USA? They lost 2 places and Costa Rica gained twelve! I feel that's crazy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective. Costa Rica had a pretty crazy group themselves don't you know, beating Uruguay and Italy. And went a round further (Greece were also highly ranked)

DJ - do you think the seeding system is fine also? For me that should be changed. I don't see how it's fair to give better teams an advantage, whilst giving weaker teams a disadvantage. I've always found seedings ridiculous. Why do the governing bodies continue to do everything they can to keep the top teams at the top? Surely it's much more exciting if it were to change a little more and if weaker teams had a chance to grow?

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 39 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 1 minute ago
USA moved down two places after qualifying from a crazy group containing Portugal, Germany and Ghana and losing to Belgium, whilst Coata Rica beat Greece and they went up twelve positions. How is that comparable to USA? They lost 2 places and Costa Rica gained twelve! I feel that's crazy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Selective. Costa Rica had a pretty crazy group themselves don't you know, beating Uruguay and Italy. And went a round further (Greece were also highly ranked)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I agree they had a pretty difficult group, although two teams under-performed and one had their best player for only two of them, regardless they did very well and I'm not trying to understate their achievements. However, surely USA's achievements were pretty similar, yet they actually lost two places, whilst Costa Rica gained twelve!

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
Belmonty - but is it not a few games? They moved up twelve places because of a few games, did they not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a different argument than what you first posed. I'm replying to your assertion that CR are above England due to a few games. Their not. They're above them due to a few years of results.

Yes they moved up 12 places on the back of a few games but its hard to argue they shouldn't move a lot of places seeing as loads of the teams above them didn't play any games.

In internationals or in general?
In internationals I think it is fair to give those who performed well in qualifying a reward in the main competition.

In the Champions League I think it would be better if teams from the same nation were ranked according to their position. Easy in the three leagues that have 4 teams, first goes into pot 1, 2nd in pot 2, 3rd in pot 3 and 4th in pot 4.
Gets a bit more complicated with the rest but that is for another day.

I wouldn't really advocate a seedless system, ending up with the best teams congested in groups and weak teams progressing thanks to the draw. This World Cup proved that seedings are not constrictive.

USA dropped because teams around them done quite well such as France, Colombia, chile.

CR moved up because most around them either didn't play or if they did, tanked.

It's actually fairly reasonable

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 3 minutes ago
In internationals or in general?
In internationals I think it is fair to give those who performed well in qualifying a reward in the main competition.

In the Champions League I think it would be better if teams from the same nation were ranked according to their position. Easy in the three leagues that have 4 teams, first goes into pot 1, 2nd in pot 2, 3rd in pot 3 and 4th in pot 4.
Gets a bit more complicated with the rest but that is for another day.

I wouldn't really advocate a seedless system, ending up with the best teams congested in groups and weak teams progressing thanks to the draw. This World Cup proved that seedings are not constrictive.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
In general. I don't think teams at the top should have an advantage over teams below them. Surely that keeps them at the top and thus keeps them being rewarded?

comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 6 minutes ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 7 minutes ago
Belmonty - but is it not a few games? They moved up twelve places because of a few games, did they not?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That's a different argument than what you first posed. I'm replying to your assertion that CR are above England due to a few games. Their not. They're above them due to a few years of results.

Yes they moved up 12 places on the back of a few games but its hard to argue they shouldn't move a lot of places seeing as loads of the teams above them didn't play any games.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I meant them moving up twelve places above England due to a few games.

comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 1 minute ago
USA dropped because teams around them done quite well such as France, Colombia, chile.

CR moved up because most around them either didn't play or if they did, tanked.

It's actually fairly reasonable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Colombia were already above USA. Chile got to the same stage as USA and qualified from a group where one win was against possibly the poorest team in the competition. Perhaps because they beat Spain, who were ranked first beforehand.

I also think it would be more exciting if there were no seedings and some groups were more congested with top teams, meaning more exciting qualifying and the chance for weaker teams to make it to the World Cup. This could create more interest, more fight and belief for players to improve and thus improve the weak sides.

Some of the other changes might not be so justified but to be honest England don't deserve any better than that after getting 1 point.

Comment deleted by Site Moderator

US won just one game, against a lower ranked nation from a lower ranked confederation. CR beat two highly ranked teams from the top two Confeds.

I'd rather see an exciting World Cup than exciting qualifying.

I also don't see how, say Northern Ireland, would greatly if they played in a weak qualifying group and qualified for the finals.

Similarly, I don't think the next Euros will be any more exciting just because there's a lot more weaker teams qualified.

comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
I also think it would be more exciting if there were no seedings and some groups were more congested with top teams, meaning more exciting qualifying and the chance for weaker teams to make it to the World Cup. This could create more interest, more fight and belief for players to improve and thus improve the weak sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So on one hand you are moaning about smaller nations progressing up the rankings, then on the other you are saying these nations should have better chances of going to the World Cup. Bit of a confused belief?

comment by I am gooner now (U16927)
posted 1 minute ago
Some of the other changes might not be so justified but to be honest England don't deserve any better than that after getting 1 point.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps not. I'm not really arguing against specific teams getting or not getting more points, just using them as an example. More so against the way the ranking points are given. I suppose there is no better way, which is sort of disappointing as you should be able to look at the rankings and say with a bit of certainly that one team is better than another, due to the rankings.

Somebody mentioned Switzerland earlier. I was in my brother in laws a while back and looking at a bet. Looked at a Switzerland game and thought, wow that team are good odds and he informed me that Switzerland are actually ranked like top five in the world. I couldn't believe it. I still bet on the other team...it was a draw

comment by D'Jeezus Mackaroni (U1137)
posted 49 seconds ago
comment by There'sOnlyOneReds (U1721)
posted 2 minutes ago
I also think it would be more exciting if there were no seedings and some groups were more congested with top teams, meaning more exciting qualifying and the chance for weaker teams to make it to the World Cup. This could create more interest, more fight and belief for players to improve and thus improve the weak sides.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
So on one hand you are moaning about smaller nations progressing up the rankings, then on the other you are saying these nations should have better chances of going to the World Cup. Bit of a confused belief?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not really moaning, just was thinking if there was a better way.

Without seedings, weaker nations would have a much better chance and I feel if they did make a major finals, it would propel them to do better.

comment by Manfrombelmonty (U1705)
posted 2 minutes ago
I'd rather see an exciting World Cup than exciting qualifying.

I also don't see how, say Northern Ireland, would greatly if they played in a weak qualifying group and qualified for the finals.

Similarly, I don't think the next Euros will be any more exciting just because there's a lot more weaker teams qualified.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it would be more exciting for the people who follow the weaker teams who qualified. Perhaps also for the people who follow their own side into the competition against basically the same sides every time.

Surely it is best to have the best teams at the finals, and not a bunch of the best teams missing out due to luck of the draw.
It would devalue the finals if 4 or 5 top nations missed out because the best 8 were all lumped together.

We see nations improving all the time, and Bosnia were yet another debutant this year. Teams can progress and improve without needing to rely on lucky draws, especially in international football.

I think it would be more exciting for the people who follow the weaker teams who qualified. Perhaps also for the people who follow their own side into the competition against basically the same sides every time.

----------

Well yes, I'd be much more excited if NI got to the finals. I don't see that it would make their team stronger.

Just looked at how the rankings are calculated and to use the term that it is calculated over four years is very loose. In fact the games three years ago are divided by 20%. Two years ago 30%. And last year 50%. This year 100%. Perhaps this is fair but does put more weight on a few games shooting you up the table.

It puts a weighting on your present squads strength rather than from 4 years ago. Again, seems reasonable