FIFA World Ranking

[J1078]

I don't expect Greece to be in the top 10 anymore but I would be content with this team being in the top 20-25 going forward.  

[Argy]

As long as a team is consistently in the top 20, the NT program is a healthy one. 

[Argy]

The Ranking system is very flawed. Some countries have an advantage because they play vs weaker opponents, different tournaments. Sometimes teams that miss out on a bg tournament hold a steadier ranking than those that do and lose a couple of games

Edited October 21, 2016 by Argy

[Greekaroos]

22 hours ago, ELLAS75 said:

Peru are not doing well in 2018 World Cup qualifying but managed to defeated Brazil to reach the Copa America Quarter Finals earlier this year.

 

 

Edited October 21, 2016 by Greekaroos

[pash]

On 10/20/2016 at 8:47 AM, J1078 said:

I don't expect Greece to be in the top 10 anymore but I would be content with this team being in the top 20-25 going forward.  

They should aim to do better than they have before. I am not content with them relaxing once they're in 25th place. It will take time, but is doable.

[J1078]

3 hours ago, pash said:

They should aim to do better than they have before. I am not content with them relaxing once they're in 25th place. It will take time, but is doable.

I totally agree and I don't think anyone is suggesting they hit 25th in the world and then relax.. I would love to see them first in the world but the reality is a top 20 finish is respectable.. Being better then before when we were in 10th is very doubtful Considering they way we still look on the field I think a top 20 is still difficult but doable.. 

[ausgreek]

• If Wales can be 11, we can be no.10 in the world.

[georgelaz]

one of the flaws i think is we're comparing our best to other people's average.

yeah if Greece is at it's best we can be top 15 or more but it's turbulent still. greece at it's best is better than bosnia at their best, but if pjanic and dzeko are firing on all cylinders we can be in trouble and a great greece is hard to come by these days. our current form though is good results wise.

[Rockafeller Skank]

On 23/10/2016 at 1:18 AM, ELLAS75 said:

As for the rankings Greece should definitely be around the 15 mark, I agree how can Wales be ahead of us they have had one relatively good year in competition and for years they languished in the bottom of the rankings.

They had 2 good years in competition, whereas we ve had 2 very very bad years in competition.

We ve done 5 wins in a row (2 of them in friendlies) and we ve climbed a total of 8 or 10 spots if i remember correctly.

They deserve to be above us.

Also i cant rate greece at the 15 mark. A 25 one would be both realistic and enough for pot 2.

How sad can it be that from the top 30 teams, like at least 20 of them are European. And people cry about Europe taking too many spots in the WC draws.

 

Edit: Just searched it. in the top 30 , 19 teams are European. Daymn I was spot on.

Also just for the recored, in the top 50, 28 teams are European.

28 out of the 54 total European teams recognized by Fifa are in fact in the top 50.

Thats more than half.

And people are crying that Europe is taking so many spots.

Like, rest of the world are you even trying?

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Rockafeller Skank

[maggica]

If you want to have a world cup with the most quality, I think there should be more European and South American teams. Take out one team from Asia, Africa, and Concacaf.

[pash]

If anything, South America is overrepresented. Four teams in directly, a fifth through an easy inter-confederation play-off. This is out of a total of ten teams - so, 50% of teams make it in.

Compare this to UEFA, which has 54 teams competing for 13 spots (24%). Going by Skanky's earlier stat, this will leave out six of the top 30 teams in the world.

With all that said, I don't think Europe (or South America) need more slots. The tournament is weighted enough to those sides as it is. If what you're searching for is a truly egalitarian qualification campaign, then the confederations should be ignored entirely, with qualification groups being truly worldwide. That is obviously not what happens, however, and for good reason.

Long story short, keep things as it is, stop complaining.

[georgelaz]

yeah for instance denmark has struggled to qualify past 10 years but they're a great side and way better than some of the other sides that get in

logistically it would be too much to have teams flying to other continents for games.

Edited October 25, 2016 by georgelaz

[Blackhawk]

With that in mind FIFA is trying to increase the teams taking part in the WC finals to 40 or 48. Obviously they will try to include more teams from outside Europe and South America. In my opinion this will completely ruin the WC. There is no need for it. Platini already screwed up Euro, and now his right hand man Infantino will try to ruin the World Cup.

[Rockafeller Skank]

2 hours ago, pash said:

If anything, South America is overrepresented. Four teams in directly, a fifth through an easy inter-confederation play-off. This is out of a total of ten teams - so, 50% of teams make it in.

Compare this to UEFA, which has 54 teams competing for 13 spots (24%). Going by Skanky's earlier stat, this will leave out six of the top 30 teams in the world.

With all that said, I don't think Europe (or South America) need more slots. The tournament is weighted enough to those sides as it is. If what you're searching for is a truly egalitarian qualification campaign, then the confederations should be ignored entirely, with qualification groups being truly worldwide. That is obviously not what happens, however, and for good reason.

Long story short, keep things as it is, stop complaining.

Cant put players through long trips from Usa to Berlin (example trip), then back to Usa to play another National match, when the National Team breaks are like 10 days long. That's probably the reason FIFA gave qualification to each of he confederations.

 

I also agree talentwise/teamwise/budgetwise and lot more, Europe and South America should be taking more spots, but that means we re literally writing off the rest confederations, which means the whole "WORLD" cup goes to the trash.
Its fine, going to 40 team one (as was suggested some years ago) would be finer but more matches for the players? Shouldnt we think about them as well?

[pash]

You misunderstand me. I don't think that qualification should be switched to that kind of system - unless there's some sort of revolution in transportation, that would be too onerous of a system. It is a world cup as you say, so reasonable representation for each continent should be required (and so qualification within the confederations makes sense).

Even with expansion (which I think is unnecessary), we shouldn't allocate more spaces to Europe/South America.

[Rockafeller Skank]

8 minutes ago, Blackhawk said:

With that in mind FIFA is trying to increase the teams taking part in the WC finals to 40 or 48. Obviously they will try to include more teams from outside Europe and South America. In my opinion this will completely ruin the WC. There is no need for it. Platini already screwed up Euro, and now his right hand man Infantino will try to ruin the World Cup.

Strongly disagree.What they did with Euro was splendid for some reasons that i ll list:
A) Teams that would never make it to a 16 teams Euro can now dream.

Albania, Turkey, Hungary, Romania Wales , N Ire, Ire even Greece in its current form : We re talking about mediocre teams that can make it or not, based on a lucky draw, lucky results and big teams kicking each other out in the qualification. Otherwise its only a dream. These teams and Nations can finally visit a Euro just for the experience.

B) Competition has gone to the to. How many good teams, with roster capable to progres to the Euro are left outside for a few bad games? Serbia, Bosnia these teams have good rosters with good players who havent seen Euros for a while.

Bigger competition -> More decent teams -> More teams worthy are left out of the tournament.
C) The reason you hate this 24 team Euro is simple:Minnow teams defending against giant teams hoping that with 2 or 3 points they can make it as 3rd in the R16.Ye I see your point, not every team is playing to win but , what you in fact hate is defensive football. Why cant we reward a low budget team like Albania tryharding at its maximum to keep a giant like France from scoring? Why is defensive football considered anti football? And if you agree with that statement, why do you follow the National Team of Greece? Makes no sense.

 

These 3 reasons are simply

[Rockafeller Skank]

6 minutes ago, pash said:

You misunderstand me. I don't think that qualification should be switched to that kind of system - unless there's some sort of revolution in transportation, that would be too onerous of a system. It is a world cup as you say, so reasonable representation for each continent should be required (and so qualification within the confederations makes sense).

Even with expansion (which I think is unnecessary), we shouldn't allocate more spaces to Europe/South America.

An expansion to 40 teams from 32 will probably be close to
Asia+1
Afrika +2
Oceania+1
South America +0,5
Europe +2

North America +1,5

Cant give more to south America because then qualifiers dont mean a thing.
Cant give more to Asia because all their teams get knocked in the R16 max , unless refballs drag them higher.

Africa is trying and also creating football talent, lots of big teams like Arsenal,West Ham, Paok and Dortmund have African star players. Not only that, but They ve stepped up their NT level.
 

[Blackhawk]

Skank WTF are you talking about? Where did I say I hate defensive football. And even if I did, what does it have to do with following the Greek NT? I don't follow the NT for the style they play, I follow it because I am GREEK.

I want a sensible amount of teams in these competitions in order to have an exciting and competitive tournaments, not having games that are being manipulated in the process. The worst thing as a result of the increased teams in the competition are these "best 3rd place" teams, where you can qualify to the next stage even without winning a game. Only the top 2 teams from each group should be qualifying to the next stage. Even better would be to have direct knock-out competition right from the start.

There is no need to increase the number of teams in the world cup.

[georgelaz]

wasn't portugal the best 3rd placed team when they won it?

[Rockafeller Skank]

4 hours ago, Blackhawk said:

Skank WTF are you talking about? Where did I say I hate defensive football. And even if I did, what does it have to do with following the Greek NT? I don't follow the NT for the style they play, I follow it because I am GREEK.

I want a sensible amount of teams in these competitions in order to have an exciting and competitive tournaments, not having games that are being manipulated in the process. The worst thing as a result of the increased teams in the competition are these "best 3rd place" teams, where you can qualify to the next stage even without winning a game. Only the top 2 teams from each group should be qualifying to the next stage. Even better would be to have direct knock-out competition right from the start.

There is no need to increase the number of teams in the world cup.

because the only reason someone can see the euro expansion to 24 from 16 as bad is because minors that I named played totally defensive football to try and lock draws which can lead them to the R16. No other point to not like it as a football fan.
More teams, more matches, more people more of everything.

[kbxk508]

In the end it comes down to personal preference, with pros and cons. I prefer the 32-team and 16-team formats purely because top 2 teams get through. It's a simple, unbiased process. The positive with more teams, is even if you lose your opening 2 matches you still have a chance of qualifying to the knock out. Great for fans. The negative is, and I can see it happening, is that you end up with two teams in different Groups with the same points, same goal difference, same goals for and against, and then its a coin toss to see who makes it.

E.g. in Euro 2016, when Turkey lost to Croatia 1-0 and Spain 3-0, then beat Czech 2-0 in their last game they had a good chance of making it. As it turned out, they missed out to NI who also lost 2 matches but had a better goal difference. If Germany beats NI 3-0 in their last Group match, then both Turkey and NI end up with identical points and goals for and against. 

[Nikitas]

greece still ranked #42. im suprised we didnt dropped a couple of spots after losing to belarus.

http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/men/

[Argy]

If Greece keeps taking every friendly match as lightly as they did Belarus, good luck getting any sort of favorable draw for upcoming qualifications, not to mention being at a disadvantage if ever we secure second spot and go to a playoff draw, where we will be drawn against the likes of Portugal, Netherlands and Italy, instead of Northern Ireland, Slovenia, Ukraine. Makes a different now doesn`t it? All that hard work during qualifications, to end up with a 2-leg playoff vs a powerhouse. 

Yes, you can rest two or three of your starters, especially in anticipation to an important qualifier like vs Bosnia, but friendlies still count, and whatever we gained from winning vs the Netherlands was flushed down the toilet after the pathetic showing vs Belarus.  

Edited November 30, 2016 by Argy

[Rockafeller Skank]

23 hours ago, ELLAS75 said:

Yup we have to beat these lesser nations in friendlies and get up in the rankings as much as we can. If we end up 2nd we don't want to face Spain or Italy that would end our hopes before the matches are played.

you dont lose points if u lose. u just dont get any. not all teams play friendlies. the only problem the belarus friendly cause is the mentality. if we had drawn/won it we would be unbeaten for 7 matches. also the speakers told thetruth. you cant just call your B team players like oikonomou,glykos,diamantakos and not have them play at all. its a disrespect torwards the players.

Edited December 1, 2016 by Rockafeller Skank

[Argy]

2 hours ago, Rockafeller Skank said:

you dont lose points if u lose. u just dont get any. not all teams play friendlies. the only problem the belarus friendly cause is the mentality. if we had drawn/won it we would be unbeaten for 7 matches. also the speakers told thetruth. you cant just call your B team players like oikonomou,glykos,diamantakos and not have them play at all. its a disrespect torwards the players.

Exactly, we missed an opportunity to pick up important points, and considering we are ranked an embarrassing 42nd, we should value these even more. 

You know what, yes you can sit them every game. They must be patient. It is honor enough to be called up for international duty, that adds experience and pedigree which can also help a player`s career club-wise. In my opinion, the backups must be patient and earn a starting job. Until then, they should be content with the call-up. Now, I'm all for resting our top guns like Sokratis, Mitroglou or Torosidis ahead of a big match, but a more competitive lineup, and most importantly, a more competitive mindset should have been fielded vs Belarus. 

Edited December 1, 2016 by Argy