Zathras

Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The ranking is calculated on a pure mathematical base of points accredited to matches over a certain period. So the fact that America are dropping down despite winning a game can for example be down for certain games from four years ago not being considered any more or something similar. And the fact that Mexico are ranked higer is just because they collected more points in that period. Nothing else (well, of course you could consider cheating...). My point was more that the weighting of results while better now is still not quite right IMO. I'm not quibbling with the math, I'm quibbling with the formula. Also, the way in which 'strength of opponent' is calculated leads to the rankings being somewhat self-sustaining. It does, but then again teams like Australia, USA and Mexico have comparatively easy routes to the World Cup, so they then get the chance to prove their worth where it really matters. Actually, I disagree with the premise that their routes to the World Cup being easier gives them a chance to prove their worth. Playing conditions and officiating in Central America are worse than most European managers can really imagine. Take the last US qualifier in Panama for example. The US had three players injured by tackles at the knee and yet there was never so much as a booking until the 90th minute when Panama were losing 3-0 and getting more blatant in their frustration. But more than that, playing sub-standard opposition makes it more difficult to be in form and ready to play top class teams when you only bring in your full top squad once in a blue moon.

Sorry, but I still don't understand what point you are trying to make. The ranking is calculated on a pure mathematical base of points accredited to matches over a certain period. So the fact that America are dropping down despite winning a game can for example be down for certain games from four years ago not being considered any more or something similar. And the fact that Mexico are ranked higer is just because they collected more points in that period. Nothing else (well, of course you could consider cheating...). My point was more that the weighting of results while better now is still not quite right IMO. I'm not quibbling with the math, I'm quibbling with the formula. Also, the way in which 'strength of opponent' is calculated leads to the rankings being somewhat self-sustaining.

I used it as an example because I knew USA and England results. I am sure I could have found similar results from any number of other teams, but England and the US are the teams with which I am most familiar. I note that CONCACAF Matches are rated at 85% of the value of any UEFA Game, and that the ranking of the opponent enters into it. So while the Gold Cup will inflate rankings a bit, it bears mentioning that a Gold Cup Final Match between the USA and Mexico would garner a lot fewer points than a UEFA Championship qualifier between Ireland and Wales.

Don't worry, I guess the US will play some GREAT tournament or qualification games agaist some Caribbean islands soon and shoot up in the rankings as they always do... U-S-A U-S-A... Yes, because that's what I was saying in my post.

North America. Thanks. Ooh, get her. I was being polite! Thanks. No problem. I don't suppose you know where these North American based teams are in the rankings, do you? No, but if you're that bothered you could look on fifa.com Good idea. Mexico are 21st and USA are 30th. When did they drop so low? The last time I remember looking they were both comfortably in the top ten. I don't think fifa.com has an archive section. When they both were shit at the World Cup? I still don't understand why Mexico is ranked so much higher than the US though.

I really do wish they'd get these figured out. The US has played two games in the last month--against the teams ranked 21 and 22. We won both, and the net result is.... we go down to places? England have played one, and lost, to the team ranked 10th, but remain 6th while Spain don't move either. Yeah, they're friendlies, but you'd think they'd count for something? Still, I like the ELO ratings. Even if they still rank England at #7. http://www.eloratings.net/world.html

How are Argentina #1?

http://www.stmartin.edu/engineering/faculty.htm

They'll turn us over 2-0 at home and that will be that.

Goofy is a dog too, but he has a bowtie. Because he has clothing, he is above Pluto who does not. That is the honest to God Disney explanation.

Used to use that. Use pinnacle studio now. I've found Pinacle to be clunky, but better than most PC programs. Of course, I now have a dedicated Mac with Final Cut Pro for video editing.

I thought Nobby was very disappointing. Gave the ball away a fair amount and his balls in were no better than Milner's toda.y

0-0 Full time.

Viduka fouled in the centre circle, that'll kill enough time.

Bramble now with a crunching tackle on Euell.

Bramble stumble and handball about 35-40 yards from goal.

Excellent cross from Butt header by Parker, good chance, good save. THa'tll probably do it. 3 minutes added on

Much better ball from N'Zogbia, Woodgate clears for corner. Euell on for Arca

Arca rides down Dyer in the box, and now is injured. Could have been a penalty.

Sibierski on for Milner. I approve.

Dammit. We're going to lose this game.

The amount of publicity that it gets compared with breast cancer is frankly scanalous.

On further reflection, despite his not beign that good any more, Fowler would probably make a decent move for a club like New England. The name recognition of Liverpool is outstanding here (especially in Boston, although Celtic would be better.) That's really what these types of players are about. BUT he'd have to deliver on the pitch also. MLS is a league where a good finisher can do well, but NE already have an excellent poacher forward in Twellman, so if it were to happen, I'd be interested to see what happens to Taylor.

BULLSHIT! Hey, I'll admit I was wrong, but I am shocked that there was nothing on this side of the Atlantic about it. The Soccer community has a lot of insiders who usually would put that information out there.

Why??? If they did get seriously involved (which I have my doubts about) I reckon they'd quickly be one of the best sides in the world. I thought they were already 4th or something daft in the world rankings before the World Cup? Obviously down to differences in the different regions, but still, hardly shite is it? They were top 10 iirc, as were Mexico by virtue of their being in CONCACAF presumably and winning almost all of their 'competitive' matches. I meant they'd be genuine World Cup contenders which, in all honesty, they simply aren't at present. They do pretty well already but they aren't in the class of the likes of Brazil, Italy, Argentina, etc. They would be if it usurped one of the top 3 sports over there I reckon. TBH not even we took that ranking (7th) seriously, though we did appreciate being above Mexico since we pretty much own them. The ranking was swollen not really by CONCACAF games (any CONCACAF game is worth 75% of a UEFA game) but by a series of friendlies agains European opposition where the opponents were using B-squads. We beat Norway B 5-0 with our B squad, but it counts as a full international with MORE rating than a competative CONCACAF game because of the opposition. That coupled with winning the CONCACAF Gold Cup was enough to do it. I think the rankings are a lot better now, but the best ranking system is one that uses the same method as they use to rank Chess Masters. It's called ELO and it ranks the top 20 thusly: Brazil France Italy Argentina Netherlands Germany England Portugal Croatia Spain Czech Republic Denmark Romania Uruguay Switzerland Sweden Turkey Greece Mexico USA http://www.eloratings.net/world.html