• Note for new users: Please keep your posts English or we will delete them. There's a "No English?" area in our Editing discussion forum for those who prefer writing in their native language.
  • Site maintenance info: We got rid of the "Patches and Option Files" area and moved all threads from 2020 to their corresponding subs in the Editing area. Let me know if you're missing a thread or face any other issues related to this move. /Tom

The real FIFA ranking!

brunnoce

World Cup Winner
29 July 2003
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Cruzeiro
well guys, as i am sure many of you(or maybe all of you) disagree with that stupid Fifa rankins, i am gonna post here a ranking made by a brazilian soccer magazine(PLACAR)...in this ranking they count every WC macth ever played..so they give 3 points for win, 1 for draw and 0 for loses...look how it looks(in my opinion this should be the real ranking)
also take a look how stupid fifa rankins are and compare them. how come germany is in 19th place..thats just bullshit


  • -------------------------Pts-----Gms-----Win-----Drw-----Los----FIFA Rank.
    1st - Brazil-------------194-----087-----060-----014-----013----(1st)
    2nd - Germany------------168-----085-----018-----018-----017----(19th)
    3rd - Italy--------------134-----070-----039-----017-----014----(14th)
    4th - Argentina----------101-----060-----030-----011-----019----(9th)
    5th - England------------081-----050-----022-----015-----013----(10th)
    6th - France-------------070-----044-----021-----007-----016----(8th)
    7th - Spain--------------069-----045-----019-----012-----014----(5th)
    8th - Russia-------------057-----037-----017-----006-----014----(37th)
    9th - *Yugoslavia--------056-----037-----016-----008-----013----(44th)*
    10th- Sweden-------------056-----042-----015-----011-----016----(16th)
    11th- Uruguay------------055-----040-----015-----010-----015----(22th)
    12th- Holland------------051-----032-----014-----009-----009----(3rd)
    13th- Hungary------------048-----032-----015-----003-----014----(76th)
    14th- Poland-------------047-----028-----014-----005-----009----(29th)
    15th- Mexico-------------041-----041-----010-----011-----020----(4th)
    16th- Austria------------040-----029-----012-----004-----013----(79th)
    17th- Belgium------------039-----036-----010-----009-----017----(56th)
    18th- Czech Republic**---038-----030-----011-----005-----014----(2nd)
    19th- Romania------------029-----021-----008-----005-----008----(25th)
    20th- Chile--------------027-----025-----007-----006-----012----(64th)
    21th- Denmark------------023-----013-----007-----002-----004----(11th)
    22th- Paraguay-----------022-----019-----005-----007-----007----(33th)
    23th- Portugal-----------021-----012-----007-----000-----005----(7th)
    23th- Switzerland--------021-----022-----006-----003-----013----(35th)
    25th- USA----------------020-----022-----006-----002-----014----(5th)
    26th- Cameroon-----------019-----017-----004-----007-----006----(15th)
    26th- Scotland-----------019-----023-----004-----007-----012----(59th)
    28th- Croatia------------018-----010-----006-----000-----004----(23th)
    29th- Bulgaria-----------017-----026-----003-----008-----015----(37th)
    30th- Turkey-------------016-----010-----005-----001-----004----(14th)
    31th- Peru---------------015-----015-----004-----003-----008----(66th)
    31th- Rep. Korea---------015-----021-----003-----006-----012----(29th)
    33th- Northern Ireland---014-----013-----003-----005-----005----(96th)
    33th- Rep. Ireland-------014-----013-----002-----008-----003----(31th)

*Now Servia and Montenegro
**As Czechslovakia

well if you guys want a specific team, just ask and i will post..leave your thought about this .
 
Last edited:

Dar

Part Timer
Staff
21 February 2003
Dublin
33th- Northern Ireland---014-----013-----003-----005-----005----(96th)
33th- Rep. Ireland-------014-----013-----002-----008-----003----(31th)

Still slightly flawed eh? :roll:

:lol:
 

Rocky

League 1
11 May 2005
Those rankings suck as much as the current Fifa rankings. Who cares if that ranking took into account all their previous WC games played, you dont rank teams for what they did in the past, you rank them for how they are playing right now.
 

FlawlessCowboy

Stunted
5 July 2004
Coventry, UK
8th - Russia-------------057-----037-----017-----006-----014----(37th)
9th - *Yugoslavia--------056-----037-----016-----008-----013----(44th)*


I'm sorry but these two teams higher than Holland? Those rankings are worse than the Fifa rankings
 

brunnoce

World Cup Winner
29 July 2003
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Cruzeiro
Rocky29 said:
Those rankings suck as much as the current Fifa rankings. Who cares if that ranking took into account all their previous WC games played, you dont rank teams for what they did in the past, you rank them for how they are playing right now.
i disaagree, you cant forget history...history is what makes present.
if werent for history every team would be rated the same. and how can you make a ranking wihtout history? by predictions? i really cant imagine a ranking without using what a team did in the past..casue if you tell me that brazil should be number 1 just casue he won most of the games in 2006 and so on, thats already history...evan brazil x croatia game is history.so the only way of making a ranking wihtout history is by predicitons, and football has proven many times predctions can aways be wrong.
also about holland. maybe theyre a better team than Yugoslavia, but they havent proven that in the WC...just look at the stats. the world is full of good ideias that has never been proven. the same hapens with great teams that never won as tehy could.
 

Rocky

League 1
11 May 2005
brunnoce said:
i disaagree, you cant forget history...history is what makes present.
if werent for history every team would be rated the same. and how can you make a ranking wihtout history? by predictions? i really cant imagine a ranking without using what a team did in the past..casue if you tell me that brazil should be number 1 just casue he won most of the games in 2006 and so on, thats already history...evan brazil x croatia game is history.so the only way of making a ranking wihtout history is by predicitons, and football has proven many times predctions can aways be wrong.
also about holland. maybe theyre a better team than Yugoslavia, but they havent proven that in the WC...just look at the stats. the world is full of good ideias that has never been proven. the same hapens with great teams that never won as tehy could.
Well history didn't really help Serbia and Montenegro today, who are supposedly, according to that magazine or whatever it came from, the 9th best team in the world. Point is, you dont rate teams on what they did in the past, only what they have done in the present or near past, and by that i mean like over the course of 2 years or sumtin(maybe i should have mentioned that earlier). plus, that ranking only judges teams on what they have done in the WC, not taking into what they have done in the Euro, Copa America, etc.
 

RuneEdge

Silent Assassin
1 October 2003
Manchester United
National teams are very different from clubs. Clubs play regularly so they're easier to rank. National teams only compete every 2 years.
What you're trying to achieve is a system that makes it so that teams are ranked in the order of how good those teams really are. But thats not realy possible cuz lets say for instance, Brazil screw up and lose the first game in the knockout competition of the WC, seeing how they dont have another competition for another 2 years, does that make them a team thats ranked below 8th? Of course not. We know that cuz we can see how good they truely are but recent stats would tell you something else.
The only way to rank Brazil higher statistically would be to take into account their history.
I think the biggest flaw in the FIFA rankings is (correct me if I'm wrong), that even though they track your wins and losses, it doesnt take into account who you beat or lost to. Surely having wins over Brazil, Argentina, England and Italy altogether should give you a better ranking compared to beating even 10 weak national sides.
 

brunnoce

World Cup Winner
29 July 2003
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Cruzeiro
i agree with you RuneEdge, and also think that rankings arent made to select wich is the best team in a certain competion of a specifc year like WC2006...to rank teams in WC2006 we will have to wait it to end ,and then say who is who.. like you can properly rank WC2002, 1st brazil, 2nd germany , etc... but that rank i posted has the objective to rank national teams throutght every WC ...so that rank cant be denied, as its based on stats...

by no means that rank is trying to show us that Russia is better than Holland nowdays...but its showing that Russia has been more succesfull than holland in WC all around, not at specifc WC.
 

brunnoce

World Cup Winner
29 July 2003
Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Cruzeiro
WEtongelre said:
Turkey 30th hahaha... good joke friend :D

what has turkey done to be higher than that?
they have been succecfull only in one WC...so i dont see why they should be in a higher place..
they have only played in 2 WC out of the 17. that aint impressive

maybe that ranking isnt the best..but i think that was a good ideia from the magazine..
in my opinion the ranking score should be given by the finnish place, like 1st place 32point, 2nd place 31 point, and so...i think that becasue i dont think a WC final win should give a team the same amount of points as a group stage macth
we can try that and see how it looks like...i will do it later... any other tips?
 
Last edited:

lo zio

International
24 October 2005
Palermo
RuneEdge said:
National teams are very different from clubs. Clubs play regularly so they're easier to rank. National teams only compete every 2 years.
What you're trying to achieve is a system that makes it so that teams are ranked in the order of how good those teams really are. But thats not realy possible cuz lets say for instance, Brazil screw up and lose the first game in the knockout competition of the WC, seeing how they dont have another competition for another 2 years, does that make them a team thats ranked below 8th? Of course not. We know that cuz we can see how good they truely are but recent stats would tell you something else.
The only way to rank Brazil higher statistically would be to take into account their history.
I think the biggest flaw in the FIFA rankings is (correct me if I'm wrong), that even though they track your wins and losses, it doesnt take into account who you beat or lost to. Surely having wins over Brazil, Argentina, England and Italy altogether should give you a better ranking compared to beating even 10 weak national sides.
totally agree with you!
 

pablocoo

League 2
6 November 2004
Not so good :(
It does not have much similar with present days.
I agree we can't forget history, but teams have changed...
Maybe similar ranking from 3 or 4 last WCs would be better
 

tuta

Marseillais
21 November 2004
France
Marseille
France 8th in fifa ranking, wtf ! When we often beat (in the last 10 years) teams before and after us in the ranking, you see the problem. We only have problems with poor teams :lol: !
 

Glavisted

Premiership
20 July 2005
Lima, Perú
Well, but it isn't a ranking, it's the historic table of the World Cups; I just have the update table until today with the matches Argentina 0-0 Holland and Ivory Coast 3-2 Serbia and Montenegro:



 

barahota

Non-League
18 October 2005
while we're on the subject can someone tell me why Czech Republic is in 2nd place, and why the hell is USA always high on that ranking?????
i mean they've never done anything special
 
M

Massacre_1907

Guest
brunnoce said:
what has turkey done to be higher than that?
they have been succecfull only in one WC...so i dont see why they should be in a higher place..
they have only played in 2 WC out of the 17. that aint impressive

maybe that ranking isnt the best..but i think that was a good ideia from the magazine..
in my opinion the ranking score should be given by the finnish place, like 1st place 32point, 2nd place 31 point, and so...i think that becasue i dont think a WC final win should give a team the same amount of points as a group stage macth
we can try that and see how it looks like...i will do it later... any other tips?
what has russia done to be in 8th place you moron ? :roll:
 
M

Massacre_1907

Guest
Rentalkid said:
They competed more often, played more often, won more often, drew more often, scored more goals...that's about it.

yeh , right.
 

Bule

Leoni Rossi
20 March 2004
Istanbul, Turkey
Galatasaray SK
So, Russia better than Turkey and they showed much better performance then Turkey right? Oh come on as brunnoce said, "These FIFA rankings are stupid." Everybody thinks that Uruguay and Hungary deserves their place? Maybe Blatter edited the list after Istanbul disaster.
 

Rentalkid

Premiership
5 August 2003
Germany
Milanista said:
Russia, if you consider them as USSR up until the 70's/80's were actually amongst the best teams in the world.
Exactly, and what they achieved back then has yet to be beaten by Turkey for example. This ranking only sums up what the teams achieved in world cup history, so they are a) accurate to the point and b) not a reflection of what teams are capable of in present day.
We got a World Cup going on for the latter just now, in which neither Russia nor Turkey compete...so, you could arguably put them together more closely, though the question that has to be asked is: In which direction would you shift? :P
 

Harregarre

Conference
16 July 2005
It also has to do with the Euro Championships Oceania Cup etc. that's why the USA can get so high. They just play Trinidad and Tobago or Panama or whatever and they earn their points. Totally lame when Holland/France/Germany and so on play eachother. (Why Czech is 2nd is totally weird btw.)

My list (top 10) would be (as based upon now and 'reputation')

1. Brazil
2. Germany
3. Argentina
4. Italy
5. Holland
6. France
7. England
8. Spain
9. Russia
10.Hungary or Czech
 
Top Bottom