Quote ="El Pac Carnegie"Sorry mate but that's rubbish. The FIFA rankings are a joke. Look at Portugal. Apparently the 3rd best team in the world, yet they finished behind Denmark(36th). Denmark got the better results, as they won the group, yet are placed 33 places below the team they beat to win the group. Bosnia-Herzigovina(51st) are ranked below Turkey(29th) yet finished 4 points above them in qualifying. North Korea "only" lost by 1 goal to Brazil, in a properly competitive match (not a Charity Shield equivalent) so I assume they are world beaters? I don't know how FIFA arrive at these rankings but I'd love to because as far as I can see they are a load of ">twaddle.'" The ranking system is weighted towards recent results. Here’s the calculation FIFA gives us: P = M x I x T x C x 100 And here’s what those things stand for: M = Match — how the match ended. Win (no penalty shootout) 3 Win (penalty shootout) 2 Draw 1 Loss (penalty shootout) 1 Loss (no penalty shootout) 0 I = Importance The more significant the match, the more it counts. The assumption here being that coaches may or may not field the strongest teams in a friendly, but they certainly will in the World Cup. T = Team The strength of the team played. This one is a surprisingly simple weighting system based on relative FIFA ranking. Start with 200. Subtract one point for every place a team lies below first. Then divide by 100. This means that the #1 team is weighted at 2.0, #2 at 1.99, #50 at 1.50, etc. Teams ranked lower than 150th are weighted at .50. C = Confederation. Each confederation is weighted based on how well that confederation did in the three most recent World Cups. Current weights (based on 2006, 2002 and 199icon_cool.gif are: UEFA (Europe) = 1.0 CONMEBOL (South America) = .98 CONCACAF (North and Central America, plus some outliers) = .85 AFC (Asia) = .85 CAF (Africa) = .85 OFC (Oceania) = .85 And that’s it. It’s that simple.

Quote ="El Pac Carnegie"Sorry mate but that's rubbish. The FIFA rankings are a joke. Look at Portugal. Apparently the 3rd best team in the world, yet they finished behind Denmark(36th). Denmark got the better results, as they won the group, yet are placed 33 places below the team they beat to win the group. Bosnia-Herzigovina(51st) are ranked below Turkey(29th) yet finished 4 points above them in qualifying. North Korea "only" lost by 1 goal to Brazil, in a properly competitive match (not a Charity Shield equivalent) so I assume they are world beaters? I don't know how FIFA arrive at these rankings but I'd love to because as far as I can see they are a load of ">twaddle.'" The ranking system is weighted towards recent results. Here’s the calculation FIFA gives us: P = M x I x T x C x 100 And here’s what those things stand for: M = Match — how the match ended. Win (no penalty shootout) 3 Win (penalty shootout) 2 Draw 1 Loss (penalty shootout) 1 Loss (no penalty shootout) 0 I = Importance The more significant the match, the more it counts. The assumption here being that coaches may or may not field the strongest teams in a friendly, but they certainly will in the World Cup. T = Team The strength of the team played. This one is a surprisingly simple weighting system based on relative FIFA ranking. Start with 200. Subtract one point for every place a team lies below first. Then divide by 100. This means that the #1 team is weighted at 2.0, #2 at 1.99, #50 at 1.50, etc. Teams ranked lower than 150th are weighted at .50. C = Confederation. Each confederation is weighted based on how well that confederation did in the three most recent World Cups. Current weights (based on 2006, 2002 and 199icon_cool.gif are: UEFA (Europe) = 1.0 CONMEBOL (South America) = .98 CONCACAF (North and Central America, plus some outliers) = .85 AFC (Asia) = .85 CAF (Africa) = .85 OFC (Oceania) = .85 And that’s it. It’s that simple.

Quote ="Dead Man Walking"Roll on Euro 2012 in Poland and The Ukraine. Germany and Spain must be favourites for that one ">already.'" The French will be back with a bang. Easily the second best side in Europe on paper, with an actual manager in charge now and the old heads gone, I think (if the draw's possible) they'll be against Spain in the final.

Quote ="Dead Man Walking"Roll on Euro 2012 in Poland and The Ukraine. Germany and Spain must be favourites for that one ">already.'" The French will be back with a bang. Easily the second best side in Europe on paper, with an actual manager in charge now and the old heads gone, I think (if the draw's possible) they'll be against Spain in the final.

As a football fan the fascinating thing for me now is who are the team that come along and replace Spain as the number one team in the world, and how they do it.



Thankfully the tactics of the likes of Portugal (defend defend defend and hope for penalties) and Holland's attempts to foul them into submission haven't worked, and they were able to see them both off eventually.



History would suggest it is unlikely Spain will retain the European Championships, nevermind the next World Cup, it is just to be hoped that the team who eventually do work out the way to beat them when it matters do it by playing a bit more football than the likes of Portugal and Holland attempted.

But unlike Eurovision it makes a truckload of money to offset that, TBF. And the prospect of repeat tournaments would make it quite appealing, as there wouldn't be the high set-up costs again.

Quote ="GCM1980"It would have been decided much earlier if the Dutch had been reduced to 10 men in the first half, as they should have been. How it took so long I'll never know. The Dutch tried to spoil it and deserved to lose regardless of the ">circumstances.'" Realy ugly game. I thought Webb should have booked Van Persie for the first challenge and sent off De Jong and Van Bommel in the first half. That might have calmed things down but equally the attitude of the players was such that the match could have completely degenerated. Does the rule that there must be at least 8 players per side apply to the WC? It would have been interesting if they'd had to abandon WC final.

Quote ="GCM1980"It would have been decided much earlier if the Dutch had been reduced to 10 men in the first half, as they should have been. How it took so long I'll never know. The Dutch tried to spoil it and deserved to lose regardless of the ">circumstances.'" Realy ugly game. I thought Webb should have booked Van Persie for the first challenge and sent off De Jong and Van Bommel in the first half. That might have calmed things down but equally the attitude of the players was such that the match could have completely degenerated. Does the rule that there must be at least 8 players per side apply to the WC? It would have been interesting if they'd had to abandon WC final.

Quote ="Dally"Shame the biggest football match in 4 years was effectively decided by a major refereeing ">blunder.'" It wasnt really tho just a load of kerfuffle from the dutch who are sore loosers. after that minor blunder the game carried on for 3 or 4 mins and 20 odd passes later they score. if the dutch wanna talk about errors look at the mistakes they made in the match not other peoples they should have been down to 9 by half time

Quote ="Dally"Shame the biggest football match in 4 years was effectively decided by a major refereeing ">blunder.'" It wasnt really tho just a load of kerfuffle from the dutch who are sore loosers. after that minor blunder the game carried on for 3 or 4 mins and 20 odd passes later they score. if the dutch wanna talk about errors look at the mistakes they made in the match not other peoples they should have been down to 9 by half time