Originally Posted by Doodler
a quality counter attacking team would have the wins though...over a long time...nobody is saying to ignore the results...just augment them so that teams like england 2012...a shit counter attacking team that wasnt best in even one of its last tournament games...isnt flattered
you can always find individual games to show why any system would be unfair...but you might get a different answer over time..and it still seems to me that any system that thinks england are the 4th best team in the world..and on the up...can only be improved upon
The current system already puts people high up if they have a lot of wins over a long time though, thats the reason why England are still ahead of Italy (because they lost a few friendlies pre tournament whilst England beat Spain and a couple of others etc) but the fact that Italy did better than England at Euro 2012 is why England have only climbed a couple of places (ahead of a Holland side who lost every game which is fair enough and ahead of Brazil who, due to already being qualified for the world cup, havent been playing any important games) whilst Italy have jumped 6 places. Before long if Italy are so much better than England they'll no doubt go ahead of us having beaten us in Switzerland in August.
Its fair enough as it is, no need to change it just because someone thinks that maybe a team are higher up than they deserve to be. Basing it on results over the last four years with most emphasis on the most recent results and taking into consideration the standard of opponent and tournament is a fair way of doing it and, largely, it works well enough for a rankings system that everyone knows doesnt actually prove who the best team is