Italy fall again in rankings (1 Viewer)

dpforever

Prediction Game Champ 2003 & 2005
Jan 12, 2002
3,794
#1
Giovanni Trapattoni’s Italy side have slipped back to 10th place in the FIFA World Rankings.

The Azzurri did beat Azerbaijan 2-0 in their last outing but have still fallen one place in the last month.

World Champions Brazil remain first, followed by France and Spain who are joint second.

Turkey make history by entering the top 10 for the first time, while the United States and England remain ahead of the Italians.


Top 10:
1 – Brazil 858 points
2 – France 774
2 – Spain 774
4 – Germany 770
5 – Argentina 760
6 – Mexico 730
7 – Turkey 721
8 – USA 720
9 – England 718
10 – Italy 717

============

:down::down:
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#2
please nobody take notice of this bullsh*t

how in gods name are spain 3rd, how the hell are mexico above England and Italy?! Blatter is a w*nker and Fifa can shove this chart right up their arses:fero:
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#3
++ [ originally posted by Paolo_Montero ] ++
please nobody take notice of this bullsh*t

how in gods name are spain 3rd, how the hell are mexico above England and Italy?! Blatter is a w*nker and Fifa can shove this chart right up their arses:fero:
I second that!!

I guess Fifa are a bunch of blind 5 year olds.
Otherwise they would see the three stars on Italy's shirt!!
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#5
er






wonker means 'insane' 'off your trolley' 'a nut'

Ok its actually spelt wonka but you get the picture

;)
 

BigIzz

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2002
1,088
#7
The FIFA rankings are not an "instant look" at what are the best teams at this moment. These rankings do not mean that the 5th team should beat the 6th team, the 8th team should beat the 10th team, etc.

The FIFA rankings are based 100% on a mathmatical formula of matches over the past 8 years. They are a ranking of which teams have preformed the best over that time peroid, with more recent results weighted more heavily. This formula is availble on the FIFA web site.

Are these rankings perfect? No. But no one ever said they are and no one ever said they represent the ranking of the teams at this very moment. Such a poll would be impossible for FIFA to be objective about.
 

jaansu

Junior Member
Jul 12, 2002
337
#9
These rankings are bull, I know that Turkey got to the semies of the WC but I don't think they deserve to be in the top 10, and Spain only got to the last 16 on penalties, so officially that was a draw. ( hmmmmm I wonder who that was against :D:scared::cool:)
 

BigIzz

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2002
1,088
#12
I think the ratings do have some value. If you look at them as more like global standings then rankings, they are pretty accurate (ie, which nations have had the best 8 years, wighted towards the present).

I look at the ratings as more of a tier thing anyway. Teams 1-5 are the best, teams 6-15 are next, then 16-30, 30-50, etc etc. Most of the time, teams from one tier would not beat a team from another. That is where the ratings are accurate.

Bear in mind, these rankings are sterile, objective and unbiased. FIFA really shouldn't have rankings that are subjective or dependant on peoples opnions because they should be neutral.
 

Stu

Senior Member
Jul 14, 2002
17,521
#13
The FIFA rankings are bull! As soon as you see Mexico,Turkey,England and the USA ahead of Italy you know that it's shit. How many world cups have Mexico,Turkey,England and the US won put together? 1! Italy have more world cups than all 4 of them. **** FIFA! Forza ITALIA!
 

BigIzz

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2002
1,088
#14
I don't think anyone is arguing that Mexico, Turkey, England or the US are historically better then Italy, they simply aren't. As bad as the rankings are, they should not be based on 2 World Cup victories in the 1930s. If past results mattered that much, Hungary and Uruguay would be atop the rankings too.

These FIFA rankings are 100% based on results. As bad as they may be, they are not biased nor are they some sort of conspiarcy. Each team is judged on the same criteria. Based on that criteria, Mexico, Turkey, Italy and England have all done better then Italy. Perhaps that criteria is flawed, but it is still pretty black and white.

In case anyone is interested in how these rankings are determined, click here http://www.fifa.com/rank/index_E.html. They are not at all secret, and no one claims them to be the be all, end all of rankings. They are simply a mathmatical formula based on teams results.

BTW, out of that group (Italy, Turkey, England, US and Mexico), who has won the most World Cups in the past 20 years?

None of them have.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#15
well....like BigIzz said...its for the past 8 years....in that period, lets calculate those teams' successes.
A
Italy: Although they won NOTHING, they still got to the WC final in 94 and the Euro 2000 final.

Mexico: won the confederations cup (big deal!)
USA: won Nothing!
England: they won that little ternament b4 the 98 world cup (Italy, france, brazil, england)
Turkey: Nothing!!

OK....THE RANKING IS UNFAIR....IT CONCENTRATES ON RECENT SUCCESSES TOO MUCH (WC2002)
 

BigIzz

Senior Member
Jul 12, 2002
1,088
#16
Unfortunatley WC 94 was more then 8 years ago and is not counted in the rankings. France 98 is alos pretty far in the past. Clearly, WC 2002 should have the most weight.

The FIFA rankings are not unfair. They lack the capacity to be unfair. There is no opninon of individual teams invloved. Anyone can be first in these rankings and anyone can be last. The formula is not at all a secret, all a nation needs to do is take out thier calculator and then play better to improve their position on the rankings. If Italy had beaten South Korea, they would be ranked higher. These rankings do not care about which team has more talent, they do no care which teams have more World Cups in the past, they do not care which teams have better coaching. These rankings are based 100% on results.

Are they prefect? No, of course not. No ranking will ever be perfect. They are somewhat accurate though. Look at the breakdown.

The top 5 (Brazil, France, Spain, Germany, Argentina). Probably among the best 5 teams in the world. France had a bad WC, but they still have a WC and Euro Championship. Argentina had a bad WC too but they have been a sucessful team of late. I think these are the 5 best teams in the world.

6-15 are clearly better then 16-30, who are clearly better then 31-45, who are better then 46-60. Each place may not be 100% accurate, but I think you would have a hard time saying any team isn't within 4 or 5 spots of where they ought to be.
 

Majed

Senior Member
Jul 17, 2002
9,630
#17
i understand that there's no personal individual opinion that affects the ranking. I also agree that the top five deserve their places. i also know that its calculated by a specific formula......what i'm trying to say is that the Formula used to calculate the rankings is unfair...... There is toooo much emphasis on recent sucess.....They should call it the WORLD CUP 2002 raking!! i know france sucked at the world cup but still are ranked highly, well thats because France dominated from 98 till the Sengal game. The Formula should cosider that a Euro 2000 Final + a first place qualification to the WC2002 from a European Group is better than Korea's WC2002 position. Remember, Korea did poorly in their WC warm-up games. Yet Korea is ranked higher!!
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#18
Ok can someone tell me why the hell Spain are so high up? Their league might be the best, but surely this has no bearing on their poor national team, which has failed at god knows how many tournaments but has consistently stayed high in the rankings?
 

Tom

The DJ
Oct 30, 2001
11,726
#20
Its probably:

a win = 50 points
a draw = 10 points
a win (for Italy) = 5 points
a draw (for Italy) = 1 point
a win (for Spain) = 10,000 points
a draw (for Spain) = 9,999 points
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)