Where England ranked overall in the WC
I don't buy any shit about our group being one of the hardest, because I genuinely feel we wouldn't have made a dent in many of the teams who got who finished above us.
Full table
1. Holland +7 (9)
2. Columbia +7 (9)
3. Argentina +3 (9)
4. Belgium +3 (9)
5. France +6 (7)
6. Brazil +5 (7)
7. Germany +5 (7)
8. Costa Rica +3 (7)
9. Mexico +3 (7)
10. Chile +2 (6)
11. Switzerland + 1 (6)
12. Uruguay 0 (6)
13. Algeria +1 (4)
14. Ecuador 0 (4)
15. Nigeria 0 (4)
16. USA 0 (4)
17. Greece -2 (4)
18. Portugal - 3 (4)
19. Croatia 0 3)
20. Bosnia 0 (3)
21. Italy -1 (3)
22. Ivory Coast -1 (3)
23. Spain -3 (3)
24. Russia -1 (2)
25. Ghana - 2 (1)
26. England - 2 (1)
27. Iran - 3 (1)
28. Korea - 3 (1)
29. Japan - 4 (1)
30. Austrailia - 6 (0)
31. Honduras -7 (0)
32. Cameroon -8 (0)
Comments
-
According to the estimable Alan Green on Radio 5 Live, only Honduras - "cynical and negative" - were worse than England.0
-
I have waited years for England to be nearly as good as Spain! (:)5
-
The league table doesn't lie;-)garfield said:I have waited years for England to be nearly as good as Spain! (:)
I guess in the same way I've used the league table to explain how shit we are, I can't then exempt Spain.......
I'll go with Viewfinder's comment, put Honduras bottom and us 31st.
0 -
If you're agreeing with Alan Green then i think we should just close the thread now mate.0
-
Honduras, were dreadful ,Cameroon shamed themselves with their antics on (and possibly off) the pitch and both Russia and South Korea made incredibly heavy weather of a group where they could have shone. I think they are the only ones who I think were really truly worse than us based on performances against expectations0
-
Cameroon were worse than England.
Looks like they are investigating match fixing in the squad. Failing at cheating aswell, even worse.0 -
I don't think you can rank teams on having played three games against completely different opposition. FIFA have a ranking and that is much more complicated that looking at three games. Making any assessment on a sample of three games is ridiculous enough, but based on your logic Man City could lose to Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, get 0 points and then you would assume that if Millwall lost to Wycombe and Torquay and drew with Bristol Rovers they are better than City.
I don't think so!1 -
Which is exactly why the hardness of our group does matter.kings hill addick said:I don't think you can rank teams on having played three games against completely different opposition. FIFA have a ranking and that is much more complicated that looking at three games.
Based on your logic Man City could lose to Barcelona, Real Madrid and Bayern Munich, get 0 points and then you would assume that if Millwall lost to Wycombe and Torquay and drew with Bristol Rovers they are better than City.
I don't think so!
Costa Rica did well, but they were helped massively by the two awful performances by Italy and Uruguay.
If you compare both teams level of performance and effort to their games against us, the difference would be huge.
No doubt i'll be accused of making excuses but i don't think our performances were that bad against two teams with good players and a couple of world class players. The Costa Rica game was a write-off.. I would still fancy us to beat a few teams above us in that table.3 -
Should not the title thread read...
Weren't England rank overall in the WC?3 -
Poor Australia, I actually thought they did pretty well in their first couple of games.0
-
Sponsored links:
-
I didn't see the Costa Rica game, but it was a dead game and doesn't really come into the reckoning. I thought we did OK against Italy and Uruguay. At least we looked like scoring and we played to our strengths. We are in desperate need of a solid defender that can hold the defence together, but lack of nous was arguably our downfall rather than being outplayed. The team looks more like a team than it has done in the last few years. I hope it develops over the next few years.1
-
Those shite teams ...with the 2 highest paid managers.cabbles said:Should we take England on just their group position and where they finished at the end of the group stage on points, goal difference and goals scored etc, we would have finished 26th out of 32. I think that sums up fairly how we rank against those other teams, and I agree that the likes of Costa Rica, Algeria and Nigeria are now better than us.
I don't buy any shit about our group being one of the hardest, because I genuinely feel we wouldn't have made a dent in many of the teams who got who finished above us.
Full table
1. Holland +7 (9)
2. Columbia +7 (9)
3. Argentina +3 (9)
4. Belgium +3 (9)
5. France +6 (7)
6. Brazil +5 (7)
7. Germany +5 (7)
8. Costa Rica +3 (7)
9. Mexico +3 (7)
10. Chile +2 (6)
11. Switzerland + 1 (6)
12. Uruguay 0 (6)
13. Algeria +1 (4)
14. Ecuador 0 (4)
15. Nigeria 0 (4)
16. USA 0 (4)
17. Greece -2 (4)
18. Portugal - 3 (4)
19. Croatia 0 3)
20. Bosnia 0 (3)
21. Italy -1 (3)
22. Ivory Coast -1 (3)
23. Spain -3 (3)
24. Russia -1 (2)
25. Ghana - 2 (1)
26. England - 2 (1)
27. Iran - 3 (1)
28. Korea - 3 (1)
29. Japan - 4 (1)
30. Austrailia - 6 (0)
31. Honduras -7 (0)
32. Cameroon -8 (0)1 -
They may have had better tournaments, but the likes of Nigeria, Algeria and Costa Rica are not "better than us". Not in a million years.0
-
This WC has proved that it's not just about world class players. Well drilled teams with good tactics are having a great deal of success, and then some are being dug out of holes by their Messis and Robbens. Unfortunately for us, we had neither of those this tournament.
Whilst I don't think that the table is entirely accurate, I think the days of us assuming we are better than the likes of USA, Algeria etc are long gone.4 -
Don't want to agree with AG but those teams below us played much better and against good teams too. Except Honduras that is , so I make the guy right, unfortunately.0
-
I watched Algeria against Germany and against Belgium. They played a much more positive brand of football than we ever do. Our WC consisted of 65 minutes against Italy. Everything after that was the same old shit. Of course that league table is extreme in that it was only 3 games, some groups were harder than others etc. However, we've been getting progressively worse as I've got older. I was out in Ibiza this weekend, got talking to a German guy whilst in the queue, he said to me 'what is wrong with English football, you invented the game? I feel sorry for you'cafctom said:They may have had better tournaments, but the likes of Nigeria, Algeria and Costa Rica are not "better than us". Not in a million years.
He wasn't saying it in a condescending way. He genuinely can't believe how shit we are and how irrelevant we have become in tournaments. He reckons that if they're drawn against England, he knows we'll be tough to break down, but in the end we haven't got the talent to worry them. We might have some decent young players coming through, but ultimately, I'm willing to state that's the limit, decent. I reckon our youngsters are so far behind the top top teams (bar maybe Barkley). Then teams like Costa Rica play for the shirt the way Ireland use to, and that pride pushes them on.
That is why I'm so scathing of England. It really is up to them now to prove me wrong. The meekness of the performances in the last few years really do not justify any defence. But no doubt we'll all be lauding Wayne Rooney when he's back scoring hat tricks at the King Power stadium next season.6 -
England finished just 3 places lower than Euro and World Cup holders Spain.
Therefore we must be pretty good, then?
0 -
Hard luck to Colombia, beaten in the final...0
-
I seriously have come to the conclusion it is an age thing. This perception that England's football is anything other than garbage. Optimism of youth and all that and fair play for hanging in there. There is a fundamental malaise in our national game that has me and thousands of other middle aged England fans scratching our heads with no practical answers. By practical I mean anything that is likely in a million years to actually happen with the money, FA and Premier League in the way.2
-
Soapy hitting the nail on the head here. I'm 32 and I've seen enough. Those slightly older are less forgiving. It must be hard if you're a youngster and you're excited about the WC and the chance of seeing your team progress. Then you learn hard way....soapy_jones said:I seriously have come to the conclusion it is an age thing. This perception that England's football is anything other than garbage. Optimism of youth and all that and fair play for hanging in there. There is a fundamental malaise in our national game that has me and thousands of other middle aged England fans scratching our heads with no practical answers. By practical I mean anything that is likely in a million years to actually happen with the money, FA and Premier League in the way.
0 -
Sponsored links:
-
People may think I am harsh on England and English football but I am just exasperated.
I honestly think the most thrilling moment in my life (and I have just had a grandchild...) was as a 19 year old standing in Bilbao when Bryan Robson put us one up against France in the 82 WC. That is what supporting England abroad is all about. I shall remember that moment, that game till the end of my days and I didn't even have a ticket to the game, was watching in a local bar.
This lot and anyone else coming up into the team just do not do it for me. The English game is dead or near to it. Killed by greed, unfairness and lack of will due to self interest and insanity.
0 -
Ridiculous table, means very little.
People have been banging on about Algeria suddenly being this great emerging team - have they looked at their actual results?
Lost to the Belgians, drew with the dire Russians and got through thanks to a spanking of the dire South Koreans - they then met Germany and could and should have lost comfortably in 90 mins.
You could say exactly the same about Nigeria who progressed thanks to a 1-0 win against the mighty Bosnia and then got dealt with by the French.
I make no excuses for the state of English football at all but the group was clearly a very difficult one - probably only Groups B and G were as hard.1 -
The more successful teams have a couple of world class players, good organisation and a bit of experience. We are a bit short on two of these. You can't magic two world class players by having Premier League B teams playing Gateshead or any other formula and experience comes from, er, experience. I don't think we are doing too much wrong. If we can just produce a Bobby Moore and a Gary Lineker it will all be solved.0
-
Keep banging that drum about "clearly a very difficult group"...Ormiston Addick said:Ridiculous table, means very little.
People have been banging on about Algeria suddenly being this great emerging team - have they looked at their actual results?
Lost to the Belgians, drew with the dire Russians and got through thanks to a spanking of the dire South Koreans - they then met Germany and could and should have lost comfortably in 90 mins.
You could say exactly the same about Nigeria who progressed thanks to a 1-0 win against the mighty Bosnia and then got dealt with by the French.
I make no excuses for the state of English football at all but the group was clearly a very difficult one - probably only Groups B and G were as hard.
The two difficult teams have been knocked out by Colombia and Costa Rica. I suppose you reckon they will play each other in the final.
The other team took penalties to get past Greece.
'dire Russians', 'mighty Bosnia'... time to accept England failed to get through a group that looked tougher on paper than it actually was.0 -
But on the other hand some people are so pumped up full of crap by the tabloids about how crap England are and how Hodgson should be sacked that their judgement ends up too far in the other direction.IA said:
Keep banging that drum about "clearly a very difficult group"...Ormiston Addick said:Ridiculous table, means very little.
People have been banging on about Algeria suddenly being this great emerging team - have they looked at their actual results?
Lost to the Belgians, drew with the dire Russians and got through thanks to a spanking of the dire South Koreans - they then met Germany and could and should have lost comfortably in 90 mins.
You could say exactly the same about Nigeria who progressed thanks to a 1-0 win against the mighty Bosnia and then got dealt with by the French.
I make no excuses for the state of English football at all but the group was clearly a very difficult one - probably only Groups B and G were as hard.
The two difficult teams have been knocked out by Colombia and Costa Rica. I suppose you reckon they will play each other in the final.
The other team took penalties to get past Greece.
'dire Russians', 'mighty Bosnia'... time to accept England were crap in a group that looked tougher on paper than it actually was.
Does English football have problems? Yes, it surely does and none of them are easy to fix, some may even be impossible.
However, the knee-jerk, reactionary "England are so crap" argument takes things way too far in the other direction.
England's group, despite your extraordinary protestations to the contrary, WAS a bloody hard one....
Italy - World Cup Winners in 2006 and European Championship Runners-Up in 2012.
Uruguay - Reigning Copa America Champions (you might have heard of that tournament, Brazil, Argentina and Chile play in it)
Costa Rica - Unbeaten in four games now and playing on their own continent in familiar conditions.
Still, don't let the facts get in the way of thinking that England must be somewhere on a footballing par with the Pitcairn Islands.2 -
I've got a funny feeling IA isn't English
I still stand by the opinion that Italy and Uruguay turned in good performances against us and were extremely shit against Costa Rica, so from England's perspective it was a difficult group.
Uruguay went out to a very good Colombia side and were missing their World Class player.0 -
Never said Pitcairn Islands. Maybe a few positions above that table but on performances at this World Cup, wouldn't say ahead of Algeria or Nigeria.
Italy were disappointing at this tournament, as they were four years ago. I have heard of the Copa America, thanks, doesn't mean Uruguay were world beaters. And Costa Rica beat these teams, as you said.
Think Hodgson could be moving in the right direction, but this was not a good tournament.0 -
Accepting that we are not a top team, where we missed out in this world cup were the details - and three basic ones - Firstly the defence was not good enough - poorest England defence for a long while - needed a Terry in there - Secondly Our main striker is not world class - Sturridge is a good player but will miss as many as he scores - at this level you need strikers who tak ethe chance when it comes - and lastly and this is the one that surprised me - the naivity of the manager. Accepting that we are not the best, you have to have a plan for the best of your opponents. That means you put a man on them. And where you see that width is causing problems you get your team to look to it more - I was very disapointed with him.
But, my observations were what was missing in terms of us getting to a quarter final - which is doable because accepeting what is wrong with our football, teams have done better than us with Championship players FFS. If we had addressed those issues better, we still had no chance. Amazed Hodgson has not been sacked though!0 -
I havent seen one team in the R16 that we would have beaten. In fact, I suspect going out early saved us a pasting later on. We added nothing to this world cup, and if I were not English, then as a neutral England is the team I would probably be least interested in watching.0
-
The reality is that there probably five or six sides at the very top of the tree: Brazil, Argentina, Chile, France, Germany and Holland. Most other tournaments you could put Spain and Italy in there as well.
For what its worth England are then located very much in the next group below that along with the mid-tier European and LATAM teams and the better African nations.
The best we can hope for in the medium term is to be snapping at the heels of that top group and being competitive with them, we certainly can't expect to be in that group unless we radically change our structure and put more focus on the national teams.1
