FIFA & IRB World Rankings - England

Discussion in 'Sports, Adventure Training and Events' started by loopintheP, Sep 5, 2012.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. I fail to understand the third place ranking in football, but don't really care as it is only football.

    As for rugby, no great surprises there except looking down the list I am amazed to see the number of countries thhat play. It would be worth paying good money to watch India (68th in the world) play Pakistan (78th) - no prisoners taken there I suspect.

    Poor old Finland at 96th are the worst side in the rankings, and 5.5 ranking points below Luxembourg in 95th. I reckon my sons under 12 team might be in with a shout against Finland!
  2. I've played in Finland in a quite exceptional competition, exceptional in terms of social rather than rugby standards!! Their national team is an ad hoc bunch of ex-pats who probably couldn't get on your boys team...but hey ho they are still international rugby players.
  3. Fair point - which is more than I am ever likely to be now I'm considerably more mature in years than I was when I last played.

    However I would like to stress to the WRU that I have never officially retired and remain available for selection.

    Er, and if the Finnish Rugby Union can find an imaginative way round the nationality rules I may be open to offers!
  4. England are very highly placed in the FIFA rankings because good results in competitive matches count for a lot of points and England have had a number of extremely easy qualifying groups for recent international tournaments.

    Every international match is worth a number of points. The number of points is calculated as:

    P = MxIxTxC

    M - match result (3 for a win, 1 for a draw, 0 for a defeat)

    I - importance of the match (1 for a friendly, 2.5 for an international tournament qualifier (ie World Cup, Euros, African Cup of Nations, Copa America etc)).

    T - strength of opposition (200 - your opponent's position in the FIFA rankings - the team ranked number one is always worth 200 points and teams ranked 150th and below are always worth 50 points).

    C - strength of confederation (UEFA and South America worth 1, North and Central America is 0.88, Africa and Asia are both worth 0.86 and Oceania is worth 0.85. If the match is between two teams from different confederations then the match is worth the average of the two confederations involved).

    Each team's ranking score is calculated from the average number of points gained in their matches for the previous 12 months added to the averages for the previous three years with your old score gradually depreciating (so you get 50% of last years points, 30% of two year old points and 20% of three year old points).

    Therefore England's two-yearly procession of victories over European minnows in qualifying tournaments is worth a fair amount of points as are the results of the (normally) straight forward group stages in the final tournaments.
  5. To make the above a bit clearer

    If England beat Armenia in their World Cup qualifier it will be worth 3 (for the win) x 2.5 (as a tournament qualifier) x 147 (Armenia are currently ranked 53rd in the world) x 1 (as both teams are from UEFA) for a total of 1,102.5 points.

    If they then drew a friendly against Egypt (for the sake of argument) it would be worth 1 (for the draw) x 1 (as a friendly) x 162 (Egypt are currently 38th in the world) x 0.93 (the mean of the European and African confederations values) for a total of 150.66 points.
  6. If only it translated into silverware. I presume that this at least gets us seeded into easier groups, which of course allows us to accrue more points but means **** all when we actually meet decent teams in the next round!!
  7. Fang_Farrier

    Fang_Farrier LE Reviewer Book Reviewer

    Really, tell us something we don''t know.

    Oh and mind on and tell the Australians how shite we are at rugby.
  8. Haha

    And we get stick for going on about 66 ;-)
  9. Exactly. Seedings for the groups are a bit of a self licking lollipop - a smaller team such as Wales or Scotland will be the third or fourth seed in the group so they'll end up at least two and possibly three good sides in the group with them (Wales and Scotland are actually in the same group this time round but they have Croatia, Serbia and Belgium in the same group who would all be expected to finish above them). England, on the other hand, have Montenegro, Ukraine, Poland, Moldova and San Marino in their group - they'd be favourites to beat them all at home and probably away too.

    So if the groups go as you'd expect then by the end of the qualifying tournament you'd expect England to have won the majority of their matches and have maintained their high position in the rankings. That means that in the draw for the Euro 2016 qualifiers they'll probably be in the top group of seeds again and get a similarly easy group keeping them highly ranked by the time World Cup 2018 rolls around and so on and so on.

    Scotland and Wales, thanks to probably having a poor qualifying campaign will again be in the third, fourth or fifth pot for the Euro 2016 draw and end up with one or more of England, Italy, France, Germany, Spain, Holland etc in their group again.

    Unless one of the small sides have a squad's worth of extremely good players who all come through from the youth ranks at the same time and manage to pull off a string of surprise results in at least two qualifying campaigns they're unlikely to ever drag themselves much higher.
  10. Either way, they're garbage.
    • Like Like x 1

    FORMER_FYRDMAN LE Book Reviewer

    1. You promised to make it clearer.
    2. Can we apply this system to each country's military record and annoy the Americans and French? I expect us to be top; the Vietnamese should be quite high up but we've played more fixtures. Also, in fairness to all, fixtures against the Scots and Welsh should be counted as 'friendlies' or training matches.
  12. England fourth in the IRB rankings? Do they let Jeremy Guscott and Eddie Butler decide them then? Because they're not that good.

    Sent from my iPhone using ARRSE
  13. Eddie Butler is a myopic Welshman.

    Sort yourself out.

  14. Yes of course he is, you obviously never hear him fawn over the English team, everyone else does