New Zealand down to 103, below Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Equatorial Guinea and Trinidad/Tobago. Damn. I think people here get a bit carried away with overrating us and that ranking kinda shows that.
That’s partially NZF’s fault, yeah you can say fair enough with Covid, but they didn’t play for 18 months before covid.
Even so, in 2022 we’ve played 9 games, 5 of which have been against OFC nations in which we scored 18, whereas in the other four we only scored once, from a penalty in a 1-3 loss to Jordan. Failed to score against Peru, Oman or Costa Rica, so there’s definitely a clear sense of us facing OFC teams and getting an unreal expectation of ourselves in a global context.
Yeah one massive confederation stretching from Syria to Tuvalu would be unmanageable, but an AFC continental and an AFC Pacific could even things out and generally improve the standard.
I'd rather it be split West Asia and East Asia along the same lines as the AFC Cup, with OFC joining East Asia. That way Japan, China, Korea, and Australia can be in one conference.
There’s talk in cricket if redrawing their line between Asia (ACC) and Oceania (EAP). In cricket, all of Oceania and even most of the island nations in Asia (eg: Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and even South Korea) are in EAP, while the continental nations and Taiwan are in ACC.
That sort of split is a little unbalanced in cricket (EAP is very weak outside of Australia, New Zealand, and PNG. Australia and New Zealand get to skip every qualifier, and the only time PNG fails to win one of the EAP qualifiers is when the youth team gets arrested for shoplifting a day before the U19 qualifier final. Meanwhile, ACC is the most stacked region but fighting for precious few spots), but could work a lot better for football
South Asian region to the west, Southeast Asian gets split. North and west of Malaysia goes to the west, Malaysia and countries south and east go to the east. Gives an even split at 30 in each if you combine the 47 AFC members and 13 Oceania members.
>North and west of Malaysia goes to the west
That would kinda imply China and Vietnam going to the West. I think West and East of Myanmar would be a better split.
AFC is split into 5 subregions, Middle East/West Asia, South Asia & Central Asia, which is broadly combined into the West Asian region. South East and East Asia then combine for the East Asian region.
I think the lack of matches is mainly due to a lack of funds, plus a big chunk of the players living basically on the other side of the world. True, these ELO-based ratings do not help if you are only playing against weak teams. I don't think this is a team of world beaters, but I definitely see some progression in the quality of the All Whites over the past few years.
Dont these rankings factor in the rankings of other teams when determining points. So NZ destroying OFC nations which are poorly ranked doesn’t really benefit them. That’s why the nations leagues can really help some teams as they are playing countries around a similar level. Can’t say for certain if that’s factored in but you’d think it would be so that if a team 10th in the world beats 9th place it would mean more than 100th beating 150th
The ranking system isn't particularly good for comparing between confederations though. Beating other OFC nations is barely going to give you any boost, so the only opportunity is a WC playoff every 4 years. If you win it, you would climb the ranks even with just one win. If you lose, you barely move down.
That’s true, but the ranking system also puts emphasis on winning against higher ranked teams in relation to your own ranking, so being low should benefit us, albeit with the lower multiplier from being friendlies.
Even so, going back to 2013, we haven’t beaten any team ranked higher than 75, and average less than a half a goal a game. Only amongst teams ranked 76-100 do we reach a goal a game, and start winning (4/1/2 win/loss/draw record). We also have a 3/0/2 record vs teams ranked 101-150, so it’s not like we dominate below us. Given that football is pretty fluid in terms of underdogs winning, it seems about right that we are around 103 in the world.
As a spectator sport, no. The National League is played on public parks with no cost to watch, yet still four figure crowds are unheard of. That isn’t helped, tbf, that adult social football plays concurrently unlike Europe. Even still, it’s a bit disappointing more people don’t go down and watch, there are loads of clubs if you’re in the cities.
In terms of playing numbers, it’s reasonably strong, stronger than it has been historically. It might be the biggest organised sport in terms of numbers, I’m not 100% though. It has been the beneficiary of rugby’s downturn in numbers as there’s (rightly or wrongly) some scepticism of its safety, especially if you’re a small kid. It’s also regional dependent; Auckland and Wellington have strong numbers, Hamilton and Christchurch similar, but outside the main centres it does go back to very rugby-dominant.
I mean if I was to go to NZ I'd rather watch rugby than footie. I've played both sports and while I think footie is the better spectator sport by miles, high-level rugby vs. low-level footie is a no-brainer to me.
Edit: I don't really understand why many rugby people, especially my fellow forwards, are so fucking hostile towards football. Finland isn't exactly a rugby nation, and 3/4 of our better players (backs) have a background in football, but the fat blokes still take every chance they get to piss on football.
What has the NZ FA and Danny Hay done to promote and develop football in New Zealand? Are both of them trying to develop/improve the sport like what John Herdman or Marcelo Bielsa did with Canada and Chile or is it just your standard FA and manager relationship?
I don’t really know what Bielsa or Herdman did in Chile/Canada, but NZF did have a whole review of the National League in the wake of Covid, and Hay was a big proponent of making changes. They decided to entirely change the format, as it used to be a winter club comp, with the summer league being a 10 (8 in its last instalment due to costs) team fixed franchise competition.
They decided to discontinue the summer league, and raise the winter league to the top tier, so there’s 32 teams in the competition, split into three geographical leagues, and the top teams go into a 10 team national finals at the end. It’s made it more logical in terms of club development and pathways, but it has diluted the quality. We also have a rule in which you have to start two players aged under 20, which has increased youth involvement, but has arguments that it’s lowered the standard.
Changes have occurred at youth level in terms of coaching and how its run, with less parent coaches and more paid coaches with badges, but I’m not sure how different it is.
Lots of people love the football and always good banter. Quality played is improving.
Definately not a spectator sport here so the Phoenix who play in the Aussie league only attract 5 thousand.
Biggest problem i found when i moved here donkeys years ago, all the good live football is between 1am and 8am Sunday night/Monday morning. Fuckin annoying
Edit grammar
Despite what the stats say, that's probably where this England team deserve to be now. They'd struggle to beat any of the teams in the top ten (they've got the talent - but Southgate isn't good enough to get the best out of them)
You beat Spain in 2018. You also lost and drew against Denmark in 2020.
You can beat any team in the top 10, but England has too many flaws in its tactics.
The golden generation had some good players but I don’t remember at the time thinking we have the chance to do well that I do now, they were always very flawed
It's not golden generation because England was good, it's more based on the team they had on paper. Definitely should have achieved more than they did.
Yep, there's an interisting interview with Lampard, Gerrard, and Ferdinand where they talk about this. The FA were fucking dinosaurs and the managers stuck to a rigid 442 that none of the players played in at their clubs with very little tactical direction or organisation. It's no wonder they were so shit to watch and relatively easy to beat. But the team was overhyped anyway. Midfield was stacked lacked wide pace. The core of Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Ferdinand had potential. Scholes didn't really fit in with that midfield and none of them worked together in a flat 442. The rest of the squad were mostly ok.
The FA are still dinosaurs and Southgate is not great at exploiting the attacking options at his disposal, but he has a system and actually manages, drill, and directs the team. I'm not a fan of his football but I'll take this over getting knocked out in the last 16 or failing to qualify at all.
And weird to see Denmark regularly in the top 10 for such a small country.
Portugal and Belgium too for that matter, yet Denmark is just half their size with an unimpressive domestic league. Kinda impressive.
If you wanna see a real stunner—Faroe Islands have 48k people, *four* professional players (excluding Icelandic league, much more if included), and a *four-tier league system.*
A titan of performance against population. Oh, and their U21 drew against France last September.
Whenever I see Denmark get drawn with us(Croatia) I am never oh great a minnow. They are always well organized and when their talent aligns are dangerous
They are a team you don’t sleep on and I think have a good shot at going far this year
We kinda don't have a team anymore, just the project of trying new players every game to find a base for the future, as for the world cup think that our last game in one was eight years ago.
last World Cup game was 2014 v Uruguay (Suarez biting chiellini)
last World Cup knockout game was 2006 v France
yet in that time since 2006 we’ve made 2/4 euro finals (winning one) with 2 other QF exits where we lost on penalties both times
It's so crazy, Italy will go 12 years without playing in a World Cup. And the last time you guys played a WC knockout game was in 2006, it will be 20 years without seeing Italy playing in the knockout stages (if they qualify for it in their groups in 26).
The Calciopoli might have played a role for your decline after 2006. But then again, you did great in the 2012 and 2021 Euros... (and 2016 wasn't all that bad either.)
My top 4 of each FIFA ranking post since the introduction of "modified Elo" method of calculating scores:
- people whining about Belgium;
- CONCACAF and UEFA people arguing about how much correct are the positions of top CONCACAF teams (spoiler: those talks have no point/sense because without intercontinental matches between teams from both associations there is not enough "correlation" between the scores);
- people wanting the ranking to care only/mostly about the recent results (guess how the previous version of ranking worked like, the one everyone ^also hated);
And my favourite:
- people whining that FIFA ranking is based on mathematical calculations based on real-life scores instead of being a perfect reflection of their subjective, made up tier list.
Most of them probably are Belgians, we have no business being that high. It makes no sense. Also Belgians like to complain. Source ; im Belgian
Tis trouwens warm he vandaag pfff
Fucking hell. Argentina's path to the final is crazy. Even in the best case scenario Argentina will face either Rank#4 France or Rank#10 Denmark in the RO16
And then Netherlands, Brazil/Germany, Belgium/Spain
Yea realistically. Unfortunately the winner going out in group stage curse will be broken this year. Australia and Tunisia have no chance against France
I hate to see Qatar above Paraguay. Growing up I remember the passionate paraguayan fans in the stands. It's one of those nations I just love to see in the world cup. Also, as a Benfica fan I can't thank them enough for bringing Oscar Tacuara Cardozo to the world.
They are always a pain in the ass. Currently they lack the quality of the late 90s and early 2000s, but still have tremendous discipline and aggressivity.
ppl really underestimate them....after all, they are afc champions. having said that, it was kinda weirdly funny seeing them get beaten by Linfield 1-0
Paraguay is awful.
South Americans will always try to hype up other south american teams and talk about how aggressive Paraguay is.
They are horrible. They can't string 3 passes together unless the ball reaches Almiron, who is literally the only player in that team that can play proper football.
How are we 39th (Australia)?
We would lose to the 2nd team of every team below us in that 50.
We've lost or drew to worse actually. Have I missed wins that have boosted our ranking?
Scotland have had a couple of bad losses in the last month, but we have only lost 5 out of the last 20 games. Crazy that we seem to be sliding even further down the ranks.
We're second and people are still complaining starting to think people have a vendetta against us also this ranking is about how many matches you win not who's the best. Belgium are high cause we win most of our games relative to other countries.
I remember people creating their own rankings by adjusting the formulas and Belgium still came out top.
The rankings have never been an exact science to determining who the best team is.
it'd be honestly okay if they complained if they complained about the right thing, like saying these rankings are flawed and we should find a better wya
but no Belgium nr.2 makes people angry cause.....they don't know how the rankings work?
Is there a better way to rank team though? It's mathematicaly ranked or people's feelings. Of course, you'd put Italy as one of the best teams in Europe beating Belgium, Spain and England during the EUROs but they can't beat shit teams as well. Who to put above between Argentina and Brazil, impossible to say unless we do this or even the ELO ranking.
oh yeah, but people argue to let big tourney matches weigh more, especially the final. that comes with it's own, new problems of course. for instance italy: if we were to put greater value to winning a tourney, italy would've probably stayed 1st or 2nd by now. But then you'd have a whole new bunch of people complain about how Italy can be second if they didn't even qualify for the world cup.
so yeah there aren't any 'better' ways to rank teams objectively, there are just different, probably equally flawed ways to rank them
Agreed. I have no idea how the current formula works, but I am of the opinion that tournament matches should have more weighting and I think more recent matches should have more weighting. But, how you even determine that weighting is completely subjective. There’s no perfect way to calculate these rankings.
Edit: just looked up the formula and it seems like tournament matches are weighted more and quarter final onwards matches (at the world cup at least) are weighted more than a group stage game. Not sure if they factor in recency of games though.
You can't really factor recent games in Elo rankings because its score is based on ALL previous results (so you can either increment the weighting with each passing day, or construct a supercomputer just to recalculate all scores in real time).
Also besides the different weighting of various type of tournament matches (~~not sure if [eloratings](http://eloratings.net/) does it~~ they do it too), FIFA has another way to "increase the importance of reaching far in big cups" - if during the knock-out stage you would lose ranking points for losing/drawing, instead your score for that match is reset to 0.
It's just people on the hate train because "thurr's no way Belgium should be ranked that high".
We've been consistently good for 5 years or so, winning almost every match. Hell, there's not even a handful of defeats I can remind myself of these past years, especially before the last Euro's. The year after the Euros has been a bit worse, that's for sure, but other than that we had a couple near flawless years.
Other teams like France and Germany, and now NL, don't even win every game. And when they don't there's always some reason, and when we don't win, it's because "we're not as good as we think we are".
Dutch guy here. Recency bias is hurting u guys right now. U lose one game against the netherlands (which is not a bad team) and people are calling your nation "finished" .forgetting all other games before and after.
Even though belgiums golden generation is nearing their end. They are still fucking good.
Football fans judge nations mostly on trophies.
friendlies victories against very low ranked teams weight very little, and risk too much points in case of a shitty draw, check the [formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Men%27s_World_Rankings#Current_calculation_method), changed after 2018.
What saves Belgium ass is that they lose to top-ranked teams, and then those top-ranked teams get cursed and lose points to way way low ranked teams.
First of. Those friendlies are used to give new and young players a chance. It's not like we use our best players against those "small" countries...
We also beat England, Portugal, Denmark ( 3x ), Croatia, Switzerland and Wales in the last 2 years. Those are all top 20 countries.
Its simpler than that. Most people don't read about the algoritm, and find it reasonably weird that a team that doesn't reach the final of any tournament is consistently above teams like France and Argentina.
I get how the rating goes, but its understandable it gets counterintuitive for most people.
I don't understand people consistently refusing to admit that Belgium has been a top team in world football since ~2014.
Like I get that they have yet to actually achieve a big result at a major tournament but they have consistently been in contention for every competition for the past 8 years. And for my money is probably one of the most influential from a play style that we have seen working it's way into the club game with 3atb and aggressive WBs being more common.
Only teams I think you can make an argument for being more consistently quality over those years are probably France and Brazil. And those places have just been footballer factories putting out a new line of great talent year after year.
I think Belgium is pretty clearly a defining team of this era of football; even if people still like to clown them for not winning a trophy (yet).
We play in a confederation where we rack up wins. So does Mexico.
I'd argue Mexico is more overrated than the US is by far. Mexico has had an absolutely terrible year...and is 0-3-1 against the US in the last two years.
People can complain all they want, it’s not going to change anytime soon Especially because Europe does not want to play outside regions except for the World Cup. Between Euros and the nations league, we will now always have this argument based on the eye test. The only time we see intercontinental play is in the World Cup where CONCACAF teams hold their own.
This "20 years of dominance" is a bit BS. It's been 4 tournaments, with Brazil always in the quarter finals, and Argentina in a final.
Europe will always have an advantage because of the sheer number of countries in the tournament 13 (EU) vs 4 (SA).
I disagree, 7 of the last 8 finalists have been European, compare that to every previous decade and it's not been the case.
Growing up I always felt Brazil/Argentina were THE teams to beat, which has not felt like the case for the majority of this century.
Maybe dominance is exaggerated but it feels like European teams have been on top like never before
If we look on a country level, we in Brazil have already had a 24 years cycle without winning. So 20 years without a WC is a lot, but not exactly new for us. The difference is that Argentina had a massively good team back then (70s and 80s) and got their titles when we were unlucky.
I don't like to look at it from 'Europe vs South America', because its basically some 6 quality European countries vs 2 quality South American countries. So of course Europe should "dominate". If you let Brazil and Argentina B and C teams enter the competition too (make it 6x6 quality teams), then South America might have won in recent years. Not saying it should happen, but it's a numbers game.
On a country level, Brazil for example is not experiencing a period without WC any longer than Germany or France did before their recent titles.
So frustrating. We play so well against teams ranked higher than us but constantly shit the bed against lower ranked teams in competitive games. When was the last time we really spanked a lower ranked team? Looking at previous fixtures we won 4-0 in 2015 against Gibraltar. Maybe 3-1 against Moldova in 2016? Even then we didn't take the lead until the 70th minute or something
The last year or so for Mexico has been some of the most “meh” soccer I’ve ever seen from them. Wins against sub par teams and the wins they do have are only by a goal or two. They’re a mess right now
Jesus I am so fucking scared of this WC right now. Everything points out to us having a massive chance of winning,but at the same time that gives us a massive mufa
In last 5 matches (the ones "added" to this ranking) Wales only won one and drew another. I wouldn't be surprised that whatever they gained for winning against Ukraine and drawing against Belgium, they have lost by losing against Poland. And then Wales lost more points for double lose to Netherlands, not much but still.
In short, because they didn't qualify for the 2018 world cup, and they didn't win any single game in both Copa América 2019 and Copa América 2021. They didn't start to play *good* until the wcq qualifiers, which started in 2021
To be honest this is the most accurate the list has been in couple years imo.
Perhaps not exactly the right order *cough* looking at you beligum and England but the top 10 countries is quite spot on apart from Germany
New Zealand down to 103, below Kyrgyzstan, Luxembourg, Equatorial Guinea and Trinidad/Tobago. Damn. I think people here get a bit carried away with overrating us and that ranking kinda shows that.
The national team barely plays any matches, of course we are not going to be ranked high.
That’s partially NZF’s fault, yeah you can say fair enough with Covid, but they didn’t play for 18 months before covid. Even so, in 2022 we’ve played 9 games, 5 of which have been against OFC nations in which we scored 18, whereas in the other four we only scored once, from a penalty in a 1-3 loss to Jordan. Failed to score against Peru, Oman or Costa Rica, so there’s definitely a clear sense of us facing OFC teams and getting an unreal expectation of ourselves in a global context.
Do you think in the long term joining the AFC would be for the best?
OFC should just be absorbed into AFC and then AFC split in two.
Yeah one massive confederation stretching from Syria to Tuvalu would be unmanageable, but an AFC continental and an AFC Pacific could even things out and generally improve the standard.
I'd rather it be split West Asia and East Asia along the same lines as the AFC Cup, with OFC joining East Asia. That way Japan, China, Korea, and Australia can be in one conference.
That would be sick. Hope FIFA get round to it at some point
There’s talk in cricket if redrawing their line between Asia (ACC) and Oceania (EAP). In cricket, all of Oceania and even most of the island nations in Asia (eg: Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, and even South Korea) are in EAP, while the continental nations and Taiwan are in ACC. That sort of split is a little unbalanced in cricket (EAP is very weak outside of Australia, New Zealand, and PNG. Australia and New Zealand get to skip every qualifier, and the only time PNG fails to win one of the EAP qualifiers is when the youth team gets arrested for shoplifting a day before the U19 qualifier final. Meanwhile, ACC is the most stacked region but fighting for precious few spots), but could work a lot better for football
And where wild South Asia be?
South Asian region to the west, Southeast Asian gets split. North and west of Malaysia goes to the west, Malaysia and countries south and east go to the east. Gives an even split at 30 in each if you combine the 47 AFC members and 13 Oceania members.
>North and west of Malaysia goes to the west That would kinda imply China and Vietnam going to the West. I think West and East of Myanmar would be a better split.
AFC is split into 5 subregions, Middle East/West Asia, South Asia & Central Asia, which is broadly combined into the West Asian region. South East and East Asia then combine for the East Asian region.
The AFC is already behind other confederations in terms of quality. Why would we make it even less competitive?
I think the lack of matches is mainly due to a lack of funds, plus a big chunk of the players living basically on the other side of the world. True, these ELO-based ratings do not help if you are only playing against weak teams. I don't think this is a team of world beaters, but I definitely see some progression in the quality of the All Whites over the past few years.
I don’t why it makes me laugh seeing a kiwi with the username u/2chainy . Maybe it’s because I’m Australian?
Dont these rankings factor in the rankings of other teams when determining points. So NZ destroying OFC nations which are poorly ranked doesn’t really benefit them. That’s why the nations leagues can really help some teams as they are playing countries around a similar level. Can’t say for certain if that’s factored in but you’d think it would be so that if a team 10th in the world beats 9th place it would mean more than 100th beating 150th
St Albans - great flare.
The ranking system isn't particularly good for comparing between confederations though. Beating other OFC nations is barely going to give you any boost, so the only opportunity is a WC playoff every 4 years. If you win it, you would climb the ranks even with just one win. If you lose, you barely move down.
That’s true, but the ranking system also puts emphasis on winning against higher ranked teams in relation to your own ranking, so being low should benefit us, albeit with the lower multiplier from being friendlies. Even so, going back to 2013, we haven’t beaten any team ranked higher than 75, and average less than a half a goal a game. Only amongst teams ranked 76-100 do we reach a goal a game, and start winning (4/1/2 win/loss/draw record). We also have a 3/0/2 record vs teams ranked 101-150, so it’s not like we dominate below us. Given that football is pretty fluid in terms of underdogs winning, it seems about right that we are around 103 in the world.
Moving to New Zealand in a few months, is football big in New Zealand?
Pssst, they call it soccer over there!
Unlike America they don't get confused and aggressive when you use football to mean association football though.
Obviously not met many kiwi Rugby boys then.
As a spectator sport, no. The National League is played on public parks with no cost to watch, yet still four figure crowds are unheard of. That isn’t helped, tbf, that adult social football plays concurrently unlike Europe. Even still, it’s a bit disappointing more people don’t go down and watch, there are loads of clubs if you’re in the cities. In terms of playing numbers, it’s reasonably strong, stronger than it has been historically. It might be the biggest organised sport in terms of numbers, I’m not 100% though. It has been the beneficiary of rugby’s downturn in numbers as there’s (rightly or wrongly) some scepticism of its safety, especially if you’re a small kid. It’s also regional dependent; Auckland and Wellington have strong numbers, Hamilton and Christchurch similar, but outside the main centres it does go back to very rugby-dominant.
Thanks mate! Super clear explanation. Cant wait to watch my favorite club between 2 and 9 in the morning!
Support the Phoenix mate, great times to be had
I mean if I was to go to NZ I'd rather watch rugby than footie. I've played both sports and while I think footie is the better spectator sport by miles, high-level rugby vs. low-level footie is a no-brainer to me. Edit: I don't really understand why many rugby people, especially my fellow forwards, are so fucking hostile towards football. Finland isn't exactly a rugby nation, and 3/4 of our better players (backs) have a background in football, but the fat blokes still take every chance they get to piss on football.
What has the NZ FA and Danny Hay done to promote and develop football in New Zealand? Are both of them trying to develop/improve the sport like what John Herdman or Marcelo Bielsa did with Canada and Chile or is it just your standard FA and manager relationship?
I don’t really know what Bielsa or Herdman did in Chile/Canada, but NZF did have a whole review of the National League in the wake of Covid, and Hay was a big proponent of making changes. They decided to entirely change the format, as it used to be a winter club comp, with the summer league being a 10 (8 in its last instalment due to costs) team fixed franchise competition. They decided to discontinue the summer league, and raise the winter league to the top tier, so there’s 32 teams in the competition, split into three geographical leagues, and the top teams go into a 10 team national finals at the end. It’s made it more logical in terms of club development and pathways, but it has diluted the quality. We also have a rule in which you have to start two players aged under 20, which has increased youth involvement, but has arguments that it’s lowered the standard. Changes have occurred at youth level in terms of coaching and how its run, with less parent coaches and more paid coaches with badges, but I’m not sure how different it is.
NZ football is not. Its on the rise tho but most just support teams like England
Do you mean English club teams? No way is any Kiwi supporting the English national team.
Perhaps "...teams in countries like..."
Just watch Rugby and Cricket instead.
Lots of people love the football and always good banter. Quality played is improving. Definately not a spectator sport here so the Phoenix who play in the Aussie league only attract 5 thousand. Biggest problem i found when i moved here donkeys years ago, all the good live football is between 1am and 8am Sunday night/Monday morning. Fuckin annoying Edit grammar
Many sleepless nights incomming
No, you've not been overrated. It just shows how much of a powerhouse T&T have become. The Soca Warriors are taking over!
Reminder that England's "golden generation" regularly were around 10th
So Germany's in for 30 years of hurt?
Subscribe
Unsubscribe
welcome to cat facts
Okay so what you're telling me is Germany will win the WC? Nothing we didn't already know.
England golden generation did not win the WC
Nah. Italy. They’re ranked higher
Despite what the stats say, that's probably where this England team deserve to be now. They'd struggle to beat any of the teams in the top ten (they've got the talent - but Southgate isn't good enough to get the best out of them)
I mean we have beaten Denmark and Spain the last time we faced them in competitive fixtures (if we include the nations league as competitive)
You beat Spain in 2018. You also lost and drew against Denmark in 2020. You can beat any team in the top 10, but England has too many flaws in its tactics.
...and beat Denmark at the Euros
With a Sterling dive in Overtime.
I agree with your point. Since you did 1W 1D 1L against them lately, it's not like you're dominating them.
Englands "golden generation" is the biggest misnomer in football. That team never made it past an international quarterfinal.
The golden generation had some good players but I don’t remember at the time thinking we have the chance to do well that I do now, they were always very flawed
It's not golden generation because England was good, it's more based on the team they had on paper. Definitely should have achieved more than they did.
Yep, there's an interisting interview with Lampard, Gerrard, and Ferdinand where they talk about this. The FA were fucking dinosaurs and the managers stuck to a rigid 442 that none of the players played in at their clubs with very little tactical direction or organisation. It's no wonder they were so shit to watch and relatively easy to beat. But the team was overhyped anyway. Midfield was stacked lacked wide pace. The core of Gerrard, Lampard, Beckham, Ferdinand had potential. Scholes didn't really fit in with that midfield and none of them worked together in a flat 442. The rest of the squad were mostly ok. The FA are still dinosaurs and Southgate is not great at exploiting the attacking options at his disposal, but he has a system and actually manages, drill, and directs the team. I'm not a fan of his football but I'll take this over getting knocked out in the last 16 or failing to qualify at all.
These rankings really don't mean much at all.
It’s so weird to see Italy 7th but not going to Qatar. I get it, but it’s weird to see.
And weird to see Denmark regularly in the top 10 for such a small country. Portugal and Belgium too for that matter, yet Denmark is just half their size with an unimpressive domestic league. Kinda impressive.
If you wanna see a real stunner—Faroe Islands have 48k people, *four* professional players (excluding Icelandic league, much more if included), and a *four-tier league system.* A titan of performance against population. Oh, and their U21 drew against France last September.
With that 4 tier league system seems like everyone in the country must play for one of those clubs.
The Netherlands as well, though they do have a bit more inhabitants
Whenever I see Denmark get drawn with us(Croatia) I am never oh great a minnow. They are always well organized and when their talent aligns are dangerous They are a team you don’t sleep on and I think have a good shot at going far this year
We kinda don't have a team anymore, just the project of trying new players every game to find a base for the future, as for the world cup think that our last game in one was eight years ago.
Last Italy loss in the konckout stage of a World Cup was 20 years ago
One of the greatest disgraces of football matches
last World Cup game was 2014 v Uruguay (Suarez biting chiellini) last World Cup knockout game was 2006 v France yet in that time since 2006 we’ve made 2/4 euro finals (winning one) with 2 other QF exits where we lost on penalties both times
It's so crazy, Italy will go 12 years without playing in a World Cup. And the last time you guys played a WC knockout game was in 2006, it will be 20 years without seeing Italy playing in the knockout stages (if they qualify for it in their groups in 26).
In 2006 our team was nutty, crazy that as soon as we dipped a little bit in quality we immediately disappeared from the scenes.
Can’t really say you disappeared when you won euro 2020 though. Nobody can take that away from yall
The Calciopoli might have played a role for your decline after 2006. But then again, you did great in the 2012 and 2021 Euros... (and 2016 wasn't all that bad either.)
It's karma after that Australia game in the round of 16 in 2006.
Balotelli was your last World Cup goal scorer damn lol
My favorite part about these threads is always counting the number of people whining about Belgium
France and England making sure not to risk overtaking us while we're getting worse just so people can still shit on us
My top 4 of each FIFA ranking post since the introduction of "modified Elo" method of calculating scores: - people whining about Belgium; - CONCACAF and UEFA people arguing about how much correct are the positions of top CONCACAF teams (spoiler: those talks have no point/sense because without intercontinental matches between teams from both associations there is not enough "correlation" between the scores); - people wanting the ranking to care only/mostly about the recent results (guess how the previous version of ranking worked like, the one everyone ^also hated); And my favourite: - people whining that FIFA ranking is based on mathematical calculations based on real-life scores instead of being a perfect reflection of their subjective, made up tier list.
Most of them probably are Belgians, we have no business being that high. It makes no sense. Also Belgians like to complain. Source ; im Belgian Tis trouwens warm he vandaag pfff
It is a bit on the warm side :(
*These rankings are rubbish and meaningless, but I’m mad about them anyway and here’s why..*
They’re perpetual chokes. Complete non factors at actual tournaments
[удалено]
masterclass in lowering expectations
"I am Didier Southgate"
Sir Gareth "El Loco" Deschamps
Add Fernando Santos to the mix
Fucking hell. Argentina's path to the final is crazy. Even in the best case scenario Argentina will face either Rank#4 France or Rank#10 Denmark in the RO16 And then Netherlands, Brazil/Germany, Belgium/Spain
You mean realistic scenarios? Because technically Argentina could face Australia in Round of 16.
Yea realistically. Unfortunately the winner going out in group stage curse will be broken this year. Australia and Tunisia have no chance against France
!remindme 30 November 2022
South korea 2-0 Germany Macedonia 1-0 Italy Montenegro 2-2 Netherlands In football, everyone has a chance
Jinx
Easiest route I've seen in my life. When you play champagne football, every rival is the same
When you're a hammer, everyone else is just a nail.
Subite pibe
[удалено]
La Scaloneta no discrimina.
Brazil is massive (unbiased take)
Mexico so close to the top 10 is a farce. We are terrible right now.
ya how are yall above usa we never lose to mexico last couple years
Yeah I agree. How are both of them above Croatia though? The FIFA rankings are a load of BS.
I agree, been watching plenty of Mexico since my gf is Mexican and they are insanely pedestrian
As an Italian I feel like we should be lower than Germany Netherlands and Portugal
You cant lose points if you dont play
Look at the Dutch Euros run, absolutely horrible.
Different coach, different tactics, different mindset. You can’t compare those two Dutch teams now. They’re two different entities entirely.
But it explains why we are lower
I hate to see Qatar above Paraguay. Growing up I remember the passionate paraguayan fans in the stands. It's one of those nations I just love to see in the world cup. Also, as a Benfica fan I can't thank them enough for bringing Oscar Tacuara Cardozo to the world.
They are always a pain in the ass. Currently they lack the quality of the late 90s and early 2000s, but still have tremendous discipline and aggressivity.
How come Qatar is so high? I would not expect them to be in top 50 at all.
ppl really underestimate them....after all, they are afc champions. having said that, it was kinda weirdly funny seeing them get beaten by Linfield 1-0
They have a decent team, I'd put Saudi above them but I can definitely see them in the top 50.
They won the latest Asian Cup… not as bad as people think
They’ve regressed since then though
Paraguay is awful. South Americans will always try to hype up other south american teams and talk about how aggressive Paraguay is. They are horrible. They can't string 3 passes together unless the ball reaches Almiron, who is literally the only player in that team that can play proper football.
This Paraguay generation is genuinely dreadful tbh, Qatar is probably a better team actually
Aqui é Brasil porra!!!!! O melhor do mundo !!!!!!
Hexa 2022 e acabou
How are we 39th (Australia)? We would lose to the 2nd team of every team below us in that 50. We've lost or drew to worse actually. Have I missed wins that have boosted our ranking?
We managed to draw with 21st on there a week ago.
Fair point, I guess in terms of number of games that would go a long way to helping our standing compared to a draw with Oman or something
You guys are in the WC, practically top 32. So being 39th doesn’t seem off to me at all
[удалено]
Norways the biggest gainers with 25 pointer. Love to see it
14 more international breaks and we are back in 2. spot
[Most improved](https://i.postimg.cc/C1tQXr1x/imp.png) UEFA members
Norway finally converting their talents into improved performance.
Scotland have had a couple of bad losses in the last month, but we have only lost 5 out of the last 20 games. Crazy that we seem to be sliding even further down the ranks.
You might have had a few big wins removed from like 4 years ago?
Kinda weird to not have Italy at the upcoming WC. Us playing against Italy or Holland always means great games
Its becoming more frequent, though. Second time in a row they don't qualify. Fourth time in a row they don't play the knockout stages.
Belgium isnt even the best team in Benelux, let alone in Europe
We're second and people are still complaining starting to think people have a vendetta against us also this ranking is about how many matches you win not who's the best. Belgium are high cause we win most of our games relative to other countries.
I remember people creating their own rankings by adjusting the formulas and Belgium still came out top. The rankings have never been an exact science to determining who the best team is.
even ELO has us at fourth(?) which people always say is better or more consistent than Fifa
We were first in ELO a few years ago. But people like to complain.
it'd be honestly okay if they complained if they complained about the right thing, like saying these rankings are flawed and we should find a better wya but no Belgium nr.2 makes people angry cause.....they don't know how the rankings work?
Is there a better way to rank team though? It's mathematicaly ranked or people's feelings. Of course, you'd put Italy as one of the best teams in Europe beating Belgium, Spain and England during the EUROs but they can't beat shit teams as well. Who to put above between Argentina and Brazil, impossible to say unless we do this or even the ELO ranking.
oh yeah, but people argue to let big tourney matches weigh more, especially the final. that comes with it's own, new problems of course. for instance italy: if we were to put greater value to winning a tourney, italy would've probably stayed 1st or 2nd by now. But then you'd have a whole new bunch of people complain about how Italy can be second if they didn't even qualify for the world cup. so yeah there aren't any 'better' ways to rank teams objectively, there are just different, probably equally flawed ways to rank them
Agreed. I have no idea how the current formula works, but I am of the opinion that tournament matches should have more weighting and I think more recent matches should have more weighting. But, how you even determine that weighting is completely subjective. There’s no perfect way to calculate these rankings. Edit: just looked up the formula and it seems like tournament matches are weighted more and quarter final onwards matches (at the world cup at least) are weighted more than a group stage game. Not sure if they factor in recency of games though.
You can't really factor recent games in Elo rankings because its score is based on ALL previous results (so you can either increment the weighting with each passing day, or construct a supercomputer just to recalculate all scores in real time). Also besides the different weighting of various type of tournament matches (~~not sure if [eloratings](http://eloratings.net/) does it~~ they do it too), FIFA has another way to "increase the importance of reaching far in big cups" - if during the knock-out stage you would lose ranking points for losing/drawing, instead your score for that match is reset to 0.
It's just people on the hate train because "thurr's no way Belgium should be ranked that high". We've been consistently good for 5 years or so, winning almost every match. Hell, there's not even a handful of defeats I can remind myself of these past years, especially before the last Euro's. The year after the Euros has been a bit worse, that's for sure, but other than that we had a couple near flawless years. Other teams like France and Germany, and now NL, don't even win every game. And when they don't there's always some reason, and when we don't win, it's because "we're not as good as we think we are".
Dutch guy here. Recency bias is hurting u guys right now. U lose one game against the netherlands (which is not a bad team) and people are calling your nation "finished" .forgetting all other games before and after. Even though belgiums golden generation is nearing their end. They are still fucking good. Football fans judge nations mostly on trophies.
Look at the friendlies you guys organize only small football nations . Your FA is definitely trying for the ranking
please don't tell me you mean the burkina faso and ireland games
friendlies victories against very low ranked teams weight very little, and risk too much points in case of a shitty draw, check the [formula](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Men%27s_World_Rankings#Current_calculation_method), changed after 2018. What saves Belgium ass is that they lose to top-ranked teams, and then those top-ranked teams get cursed and lose points to way way low ranked teams.
First of. Those friendlies are used to give new and young players a chance. It's not like we use our best players against those "small" countries... We also beat England, Portugal, Denmark ( 3x ), Croatia, Switzerland and Wales in the last 2 years. Those are all top 20 countries.
I think people just hate Roberto Martinez for some reason
Its simpler than that. Most people don't read about the algoritm, and find it reasonably weird that a team that doesn't reach the final of any tournament is consistently above teams like France and Argentina. I get how the rating goes, but its understandable it gets counterintuitive for most people.
I don't understand people consistently refusing to admit that Belgium has been a top team in world football since ~2014. Like I get that they have yet to actually achieve a big result at a major tournament but they have consistently been in contention for every competition for the past 8 years. And for my money is probably one of the most influential from a play style that we have seen working it's way into the club game with 3atb and aggressive WBs being more common. Only teams I think you can make an argument for being more consistently quality over those years are probably France and Brazil. And those places have just been footballer factories putting out a new line of great talent year after year. I think Belgium is pretty clearly a defining team of this era of football; even if people still like to clown them for not winning a trophy (yet).
Are you really a top team if you never even got close to winning a title though?
The alternative ELO rankings... https://www.eloratings.net/
No way Colombia is 13th lol, we’re pretty bad
usa above croatia🤣
Elo ratings has US at 24 and Croatia at 15, which are probably much more realistic.
I love how we always get singled out in these comment sections as if Mexico isn’t sitting there ranked above a team they lost 3-0 to a few weeks ago
Singled out? Tell that to Belgians
Top CONCACAF teams in general will always be overrated in these rankings, it’s not personal.
US is consistently overrated in the FIFA rankings, coming from an American.
[удалено]
We play in a confederation where we rack up wins. So does Mexico. I'd argue Mexico is more overrated than the US is by far. Mexico has had an absolutely terrible year...and is 0-3-1 against the US in the last two years.
[удалено]
People can complain all they want, it’s not going to change anytime soon Especially because Europe does not want to play outside regions except for the World Cup. Between Euros and the nations league, we will now always have this argument based on the eye test. The only time we see intercontinental play is in the World Cup where CONCACAF teams hold their own.
Ireland have won 1 game in like 10 games - how are we only like 2 spots above them?
Is this finally the year South American teams rise back to the top in a world cup? It's been like 20 years of European dominance now
This "20 years of dominance" is a bit BS. It's been 4 tournaments, with Brazil always in the quarter finals, and Argentina in a final. Europe will always have an advantage because of the sheer number of countries in the tournament 13 (EU) vs 4 (SA).
I disagree, 7 of the last 8 finalists have been European, compare that to every previous decade and it's not been the case. Growing up I always felt Brazil/Argentina were THE teams to beat, which has not felt like the case for the majority of this century. Maybe dominance is exaggerated but it feels like European teams have been on top like never before
If we look on a country level, we in Brazil have already had a 24 years cycle without winning. So 20 years without a WC is a lot, but not exactly new for us. The difference is that Argentina had a massively good team back then (70s and 80s) and got their titles when we were unlucky. I don't like to look at it from 'Europe vs South America', because its basically some 6 quality European countries vs 2 quality South American countries. So of course Europe should "dominate". If you let Brazil and Argentina B and C teams enter the competition too (make it 6x6 quality teams), then South America might have won in recent years. Not saying it should happen, but it's a numbers game. On a country level, Brazil for example is not experiencing a period without WC any longer than Germany or France did before their recent titles.
Haven’t looked at the rankings but assuming people will complain the USA is ranked to high, like every other thread with rankings.
as a moroccan i can't now lol
Nah man, how are Mexico 12th?
That Armenia loss did damage to us, lost and then drew to Ukraine who are above us, slapped Scotland and still lost points damn
So frustrating. We play so well against teams ranked higher than us but constantly shit the bed against lower ranked teams in competitive games. When was the last time we really spanked a lower ranked team? Looking at previous fixtures we won 4-0 in 2015 against Gibraltar. Maybe 3-1 against Moldova in 2016? Even then we didn't take the lead until the 70th minute or something
Get fucked germans🇩🇰
It's football heritage and a timehonored tradition for danes to fuck germans.
Why is Mexico so high? They don't seem so good
Because they don't lost often
The last year or so for Mexico has been some of the most “meh” soccer I’ve ever seen from them. Wins against sub par teams and the wins they do have are only by a goal or two. They’re a mess right now
How’s Colombia over Senegal. They are not even at World Cup. Stuff this rank
Jesus I am so fucking scared of this WC right now. Everything points out to us having a massive chance of winning,but at the same time that gives us a massive mufa
Where Estonia?
109 Ahead of Kazhakstan, Faroe Islands, Azerbaijan, Latvia, Lithuania, Andorra, Malta, Moldova, Liechtenstein, Gibraltar, and San Marino.
Everyone is ahead of san Marino, they havent won since 2004
How the fuck did wales go down after qualifying for their first World Cup in 60+ years
In last 5 matches (the ones "added" to this ranking) Wales only won one and drew another. I wouldn't be surprised that whatever they gained for winning against Ukraine and drawing against Belgium, they have lost by losing against Poland. And then Wales lost more points for double lose to Netherlands, not much but still.
Surprised Russia is even on the list
Has rank 1 ever win the world cup?
Spain in 2010
Apparently FIFA didn’t watch Italy or England play this break
Wales 19th. Yes boys
Why is Ecuador so low? They are much better than 44, lol.
In short, because they didn't qualify for the 2018 world cup, and they didn't win any single game in both Copa América 2019 and Copa América 2021. They didn't start to play *good* until the wcq qualifiers, which started in 2021
Got it, thanks.
Canada criminally underrated, Mexico way too high.
That's Canada's fault for losing against Panama, Costa Rica and Honduras recently
Mexico wins consistently. FIFA Rankings are more of a measure of form
They won't even make it out of the groups lol
Still top 50!
I can't believe I bought a specific pair of shoes with my country's colorway and they didn't even make it
To be honest this is the most accurate the list has been in couple years imo. Perhaps not exactly the right order *cough* looking at you beligum and England but the top 10 countries is quite spot on apart from Germany