- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:21 am to RandySavage
quote:
A team that hasn't lost a competitive fixture in 4 years
What team are you talking about?
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:22 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
So losing in PKs isn't losing, in your opinion.
Is that what you're saying? Because it counts as a loss everywhere else.
It officially goes down as a tie in the records.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:24 am to WarSlamEagle
quote:
Because it counts as a loss everywhere else.
No it doesn't.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:25 am to ohiovol
quote:
Finished outside the top four?
In just one continent's tournament = 3rd best in the world.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:27 am to Jumbeauxlaya
quote:
In just one continent's tournament = 3rd best in the world
Says the guy who wants the BCS which arbitrarily put a team that finshed second in its own division in the championship game. At least England won their group.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:35 am to RandySavage
quote:
A team that hasn't lost a competitive fixture in 4 years
I guess this is technically true, since the World Cup game against Germany certainly wasn't competitive.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:37 am to ohiovol
quote:
It officially goes down as a tie in the records.
My bad. As soon as I posted that, I thought about it being called a draw officially. Dumb rule, but I was wrong.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:40 am to ohiovol
quote:
I guess this is technically true, since the World Cup game against Germany certainly wasn't competitive.
But if Lampard's goal had counted...
Ha, no but yea you're right. I'm already looking ahead to Rio and thinking SA was four years ago. Change the 4 to 2. Still, I think since 2007 they've only been beaten twice in competitive fixtures. They also didn't lose a game in the 2006 WC.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 11:42 am to tylercsbn9
quote:
England is up to #3.
A pointless ranking based on sustained mediocrity more than anything else.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 12:01 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
A pointless ranking based on sustained mediocrity more than anything else.
Pretty much but I'd change to a pointless ranking system based on sustained above average performance.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 12:01 pm to RandySavage
quote:
They also didn't lose a game in the 2006 WC.
True, but who was the best team they beat? Paraguay on an own goal, or Ecuador?
Posted on 8/8/12 at 12:04 pm to tylercsbn9
quote:
joke
Not really a "joke" if you understand the system. Take it with a grain of salt because it doesn't rank the best teams in the world in order. It distinguishes which teams are better at getting results than others (over a period of 4 years).
Posted on 8/8/12 at 12:09 pm to RandySavage
Well I suppose the rankings do have a point, since they are used for seeding at tournaments. The problem I have is that England is often well-ranked, which gives them easier groups in qualifying, which gives them a good ranking. The Elo rankings are not much better. In general, England beats who they are supposed to, and loses to teams they are supposed to. England doesn't often face sides better than they are, except the Western European countries, Brazil and Argentina. They've lost to only traditional powers at pretty much every tournament they play. So they are obviously in the second tier of international teams, just behind the elite teams.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 12:14 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:a fair assessment.
the second tier of international teams, just behind the elite teams.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 12:25 pm to tylercsbn9
Keep it on the Gaming Board.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 12:29 pm to thenry712
quote:
The sad thing is that FIFA rankings take into account results from up to four years ago
It's not an incredibly large contribution, and the rankings would be pretty hilarious without them e.g. the Netherlands would be outside of the top 50 using points accumulated in 2012.
quote:
skews in favor of UEFA and CONMEBOL teams.
Yeah, that's one of those things that sounds alright until you consider how European microstates are treated.
This post was edited on 8/8/12 at 12:30 pm
Posted on 8/8/12 at 1:15 pm to ohiovol
quote:
True, but who was the best team they beat? Paraguay on an own goal, or Ecuador?
I agree with that, do you know if "strength of schedule" or quality of opponents has any bearing on the rankings? Also, I'm quite sure the rankings don't take into account the fact that they won by an own goal or they won "ugly" by stacking the box and playing counter attack.
Again I'm not saying England are the 3rd best team but they are consistently in the mix in big tournaments and have solid results in qualifying. People are acting like they are Somalia or something.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 3:31 pm to tylercsbn9
quote:
Latest FIFA rankings
Are rubbish and always have been.
Posted on 8/8/12 at 10:55 pm to cwil177
and how many elite teams are there that England are behind? Not many.... Either way it's stupid to name them 3rd.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News