I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
All Whites v Kenya | Sun 3rd June | 2:30am
We were probably a bit lucky against Kenya, that the rain cooled down the oven.
If it's more an oppressive heat against India, I'd say will struggle and a loss by say 2 goals on the cards.
Kiwis just ain't used to playing in these tough conditions. All good experience in the bank though.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
Given that both teams were playing basically their 3rd choice squads, I'm not sure anyone knew what to expect. The AW's played better football and had the Kenyan's pegged back in their own half most of the game. I think a lack of a real goal-scoring threat was identified by many people when the squad was announced and I guess it showed.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
Stick your English heritage thing up your arse, a shark load of us arent of English descent.
I watched the first half and on that alone we should have won by 3.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I think it's three fold:
- We are relatively well resourced
- We actually do have some decent players
- Not long ago we were a 60/70 ranked team (on merit) so we see ourselves at that level
One thing that interests me is that we have got a lot more kiwis going through NZ academies, the US college system, coaching has improved, team is more professional, A-League has started, our junior teams are playing in World Cups but we are doing worse at internalization level. Quite similar to what has happened to Australia as well...I can't quite put my finger on why that is
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I think it's three fold:
- We are relatively well resourced
- We actually do have some decent players
- Not long ago we were a 60/70 ranked team (on merit) so we see ourselves at that level
I'm not sure that any of this is actually true JD.
1) Sure, we're better resourced than the other OFC nations. But that's not saying much - if you look at to what we actually aspire to (let's say, top 50-60), we're actually very poorly resurced in comparison.
2) I think there's a degree of insularity here - we tend to look at our players strictly in the NZ context, and from that point of view, it does look like we have a decent squad (because we're comparing it with previous NZ squads). But look at it from a truly global perspective, and you realise we have 2 genuine international players, a couple who are maybe marginally there as well, and bunch of guys who are really not much more than dime a dozen even in middling footballing nations, let alone the top ones. I think this is one area that Journeyfan was pointing to where we overestimate where the All Whites are in the grand scheme of things.
3) And with that in mind, I reckon we're low 70s at best (with our very best team, and a few others around the world at a lower ebb in their cycle). Realistically, I think that most of the time we'd be somewhere around 80.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I think it's three fold:
- We are relatively well resourced
- We actually do have some decent players
- Not long ago we were a 60/70 ranked team (on merit) so we see ourselves at that level
One thing that interests me is that we have got a lot more kiwis going through NZ academies, the US college system, coaching has improved, team is more professional, A-League has started, our junior teams are playing in World Cups but we are doing worse at internalization level. Quite similar to what has happened to Australia as well...I can't quite put my finger on why that is
Because our full strength side only ever plays about 5-10 games together max, over a 4 year WC cycle.
Last cycle that would have been US tour (Mexico & USA), Confeds Cup (Russia, Mexico & Portugal), Japan friendly and Peru x2. That's 8 games of which Reid played in 5 (missed Confeds Cup) from memory. You could probably add the Nth Ireland and Belarus (pre Confeds Cup) games also. From those ten games, 8 losses & 2 draws.
All those teams on paper bar Belarus are better than us. Only 1 game (Peru in Welly) with home advantage.
The FIFA rankings mean squat. If we consistently played other sides around our level (eg Belarus), with half those games at home (as would be fair), with a full strength squad, our ranking would better reflect our standing. We should lie somewhere around 60-80.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I think it's three fold:
- We are relatively well resourced
- We actually do have some decent players
- Not long ago we were a 60/70 ranked team (on merit) so we see ourselves at that level
One thing that interests me is that we have got a lot more kiwis going through NZ academies, the US college system, coaching has improved, team is more professional, A-League has started, our junior teams are playing in World Cups but we are doing worse at internalization level. Quite similar to what has happened to Australia as well...I can't quite put my finger on why that is
So its reverse not simular.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I think it's three fold:
- We are relatively well resourced
- We actually do have some decent players
- Not long ago we were a 60/70 ranked team (on merit) so we see ourselves at that level
One thing that interests me is that we have got a lot more kiwis going through NZ academies, the US college system, coaching has improved, team is more professional, A-League has started, our junior teams are playing in World Cups but we are doing worse at internalization level. Quite similar to what has happened to Australia as well...I can't quite put my finger on why that is
Because our full strength side only ever plays about 5-10 games together max, over a 4 year WC cycle.
Last cycle that would have been US tour (Mexico & USA), Confeds Cup (Russia, Mexico & Portugal), Japan friendly and Peru x2. That's 8 games of which Reid played in 5 (missed Confeds Cup) from memory. You could probably add the Nth Ireland and Belarus (pre Confeds Cup) games also. From those ten games, 8 losses & 2 draws.
All those teams on paper bar Belarus are better than us. Only 1 game (Peru in Welly) with home advantage.
The FIFA rankings mean squat. If we consistently played other sides around our level (eg Belarus), with half those games at home (as would be fair), with a full strength squad, our ranking would better reflect our standing. We should lie somewhere around 60-80.
Who was thrashed by Thailand? NZ? Belarus? Australia?
Not sure at all what you are on about.
Who was thrashed by Thailand? NZ? Belarus? Australia?
Not sure at all what you are on about.
I think it's a reference to the All Whites' loss to Thailand under Hudson a couple of years ago. Though to be fair we lost to them under Ricki too.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I think it's three fold:
- We are relatively well resourced
- We actually do have some decent players
- Not long ago we were a 60/70 ranked team (on merit) so we see ourselves at that level
I'm not sure that any of this is actually true JD.
1) Sure, we're better resourced than the other OFC nations. But that's not saying much - if you look at to what we actually aspire to (let's say, top 50-60), we're actually very poorly resurced in comparison.
2) I think there's a degree of insularity here - we tend to look at our players strictly in the NZ context, and from that point of view, it does look like we have a decent squad (because we're comparing it with previous NZ squads). But look at it from a truly global perspective, and you realise we have 2 genuine international players, a couple who are maybe marginally there as well, and bunch of guys who are really not much more than dime a dozen even in middling footballing nations, let alone the top ones. I think this is one area that Journeyfan was pointing to where we overestimate where the All Whites are in the grand scheme of things.
3) And with that in mind, I reckon we're low 70s at best (with our very best team, and a few others around the world at a lower ebb in their cycle). Realistically, I think that most of the time we'd be somewhere around 80.
I think we are comfortably outside the top 100 at the moment on merit. A few years ago we were a genuine 60-70, yet now we are more organised and better resourced but we are a worse team. My answer was really to the question of why do we think we should beat Kenya - I don't think the team we put out the other day is a good side, but I suppose the above is an answer to that question.
Who was thrashed by Thailand? NZ? Belarus? Australia?
Not sure at all what you are on about.
I think it's a reference to the All Whites' loss to Thailand under Hudson a couple of years ago. Though to be fair we lost to them under Ricki too.
Yeah but my agrument was that we very rarely play our full strength team, nor almost never play at home - so for NZ esp the FIFA rankings mean squat.
I see we lost to Thailand 2-0 (not really a thrashing) in November 2014. If anyone can list who was in the AWs team, for that game I'd love to know.
Socceroos actually only drew in Thailand in the last WC cycle out of interest.
I say we are a 60-80 ranking side for reasons I noted earlier, when at full strength. As a minimum within the top 100.
From memory the high ranking we had a few years ago was on back of beating Serbia, and 3 draws at the 2010 WC.
I see we lost to Thailand 2-0 (not really a thrashing) in November 2014. If anyone can list who was in the AWs team, for that game I'd love to know
http://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/NZRepSoccer/2014_.htm
I see we lost to Thailand 2-0 (not really a thrashing) in November 2014. If anyone can list who was in the AWs team, for that game I'd love to know
http://www.ultimatenzsoccer.com/NZRepSoccer/2014_....
Cheers. To be fair not the worst side that Hudson picked at all. Whole starting eleven are still current AWs, or at least still playing at a good level. Though obviously all less experienced than now 3.5 years later. Gleeson's last game for NZ?
But yeah my point ad nauseum is, the fair way to assess AWs world ranking would be them playing half their games, with home advantage and at full strength against teams in a 60-100 ranking range (who would also be at full strength). This just never happens.
The creation of FIFA's proposed Nations League, could create more that sort of scenario, ie regular meaningful games home & away for AWs in FIFA windows.
Who was thrashed by Thailand? NZ? Belarus? Australia?
Not sure at all what you are on about.
I think it's a reference to the All Whites' loss to Thailand under Hudson a couple of years ago. Though to be fair we lost to them under Ricki too.
Yeah but my agrument was that we very rarely play our full strength team, nor almost never play at home - so for NZ esp the FIFA rankings mean squat.
I see we lost to Thailand 2-0 (not really a thrashing) in November 2014. If anyone can list who was in the AWs team, for that game I'd love to know.
Socceroos actually only drew in Thailand in the last WC cycle out of interest.
I say we are a 60-80 ranking side for reasons I noted earlier, when at full strength. As a minimum within the top 100.
From memory the high ranking we had a few years ago was on back of beating Serbia, and 3 draws at the 2010 WC.
NZ current ranking of 133 is justifiable at this point of time.
No Smith, Thomas or Wood against Myanmar. Also was yet another away game, in foreign conditions, no doubt in toasty temperatures.
Play them in Christchurch on a fridge like night in September (as this game was) - and maybe we win 4-0.
Always playing away is a huge disadvantage. The rankings are a nothing.
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Swaziland, and Andorra, a country 2/3 the size of Lake Taupo and about the same population? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia, Iceland and Scotland this year, each by two goals. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere around 60-80 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
Games against competitive teams in non-sweltering conditions that we're not disadvantaged in include:
NZ 1-2 Mexico
NZ 1-2 Japan
NZ 0-0 Peru
NZ 1-1 USA
NZ 1-2 Mexico (again)
All very respectable.
I think we need to accept that we can not operate a national team in the same way that many other countries are able to do - ie: play a number of meaningful games with all of our best players available for selection, and therefore any FIFA rating we have is not actually comparing apples with apples on most occasions. We need to look at other measures to determine how well we are performing. I'd suggest measures along the lines of performance in world cup qualifying at senior level [I know subjective when determining if we did well against Peru or not], our youth team performances at world cups, the number of players playing professionally in established leagues and competitions etc.
I'm not sure why anyone expected us to beat Kenya? Overestimation of us, or underestimation of them? We'll beat Chinese Taipei two or three nil, and then draw with India I reckon (0-0 or 1-1). Kenya v India final, NZ enjoying watching Avengers Infinity War on their flight home.
because thanks to our english heritage we have an over inflated idea of where we actually are in the grand scheme of things
I think it's three fold:
- We are relatively well resourced
- We actually do have some decent players
- Not long ago we were a 60/70 ranked team (on merit) so we see ourselves at that level
I'm not sure that any of this is actually true JD.
1) Sure, we're better resourced than the other OFC nations. But that's not saying much - if you look at to what we actually aspire to (let's say, top 50-60), we're actually very poorly resurced in comparison.
2) I think there's a degree of insularity here - we tend to look at our players strictly in the NZ context, and from that point of view, it does look like we have a decent squad (because we're comparing it with previous NZ squads). But look at it from a truly global perspective, and you realise we have 2 genuine international players, a couple who are maybe marginally there as well, and bunch of guys who are really not much more than dime a dozen even in middling footballing nations, let alone the top ones. I think this is one area that Journeyfan was pointing to where we overestimate where the All Whites are in the grand scheme of things.
3) And with that in mind, I reckon we're low 70s at best (with our very best team, and a few others around the world at a lower ebb in their cycle). Realistically, I think that most of the time we'd be somewhere around 80.
I think we are comfortably outside the top 100 at the moment on merit. A few years ago we were a genuine 60-70, yet now we are more organised and better resourced but we are a worse team. My answer was really to the question of why do we think we should beat Kenya - I don't think the team we put out the other day is a good side, but I suppose the above is an answer to that question.
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Andorra and Swaziland? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia recently. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere in the realm of 60-90 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
It's also playing away from home 90% of time. We often have to swelter in unfamilar conditions, but never get chance to show some reciprocal hospitality against say the SE Asians teams with a taste of our old.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
I think we need to accept that we can not operate a national team in the same way that many other countries are able to do - ie: play a number of meaningful games with all of our best players available for selection, and therefore any FIFA rating we have is not actually comparing apples with apples on most occasions. We need to look at other measures to determine how well we are performing. I'd suggest measures along the lines of performance in world cup qualifying at senior level [I know subjective when determining if we did well against Peru or not], our youth team performances at world cups, the number of players playing professionally in established leagues and competitions etc.
We undoubtedly did well against Peru. More so that our main (almost only) scoring threat was sadly on one leg.
Folks were predicting we were going to get slaughtered by no 5 team in South America.
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Andorra and Swaziland? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia recently. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere in the realm of 60-90 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
It's also playing away from home 90% of time. We often have to swelter in unfamilar conditions, but never get chance to show some reciprocal hospitality against say the SE Asians teams with a taste of our old.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
Exactly! Playing Kenya in 40C heat in a monsoon, you'd actually be surprised we did so well with such a weakened team (and dominated the first half), but people are taking this as a definitive measure that we're worse than Kenya and deserve to be where we are.
Rankings are an indicator of recent performance, but there's so many caveats attached to how they're calculated that they lose quite a bit of meaning, especially for sides like us (the facts that we don't play very often, play in a weak confederation, etc, are things that will always go against us in the calculations).
On the other hand, there's also the tendency here to wildly overestimate the All Whites standing internationally at times, so guess people like to adopt maximalist positions in general.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
Of course, the flipside of that, in the context of this discussion, is that no-one truly believes that Peru are the 10th best team in the world - but that's where you can up if you go on a decent run in meaningful matches in a strong confederation :-)
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Andorra and Swaziland? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia recently. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere in the realm of 60-90 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
It's also playing away from home 90% of time. We often have to swelter in unfamilar conditions, but never get chance to show some reciprocal hospitality against say the SE Asians teams with a taste of our old.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
Exactly! Playing Kenya in 40C heat in a monsoon, you'd actually be surprised we did so well with such a weakened team (and dominated the first half), but people are taking this as a definitive measure that we're worse than Kenya and deserve to be where we are.
Why is the heat only a factor for us?
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Andorra and Swaziland? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia recently. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere in the realm of 60-90 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
It's also playing away from home 90% of time. We often have to swelter in unfamilar conditions, but never get chance to show some reciprocal hospitality against say the SE Asians teams with a taste of our old.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
Exactly! Playing Kenya in 40C heat in a monsoon, you'd actually be surprised we did so well with such a weakened team (and dominated the first half), but people are taking this as a definitive measure that we're worse than Kenya and deserve to be where we are.
Why is the heat only a factor for us?
Because we're playing away to teams that are used to it, train in it, and play in it. In this case Kenya is hot and humid so players are used to the conditions (their whole squad is Africa-based)
Sometimes common sense ain't that common I guess.
If you live and grow up, and play sport in a hot country with high humidity etc you have an obvious advantage over someone who has never left Glasgow.
And vice versa if you are born & bred in Iceland or Invercargill, and get to play at home against a team from Mumbai.
Have memories of 1999 U17 WC, and kids from some African team laughing as the tried to kick a football around a rain sodden Carisbrook. It was obvious that they had never ever seen such weather. Quite funny
NZ ranks 76 in list of countries by size, but only about 120 or 125 (United Nations) by population.
Say x in 1000 footballers is top class, 2x are next level, 5x next level below etc, expected ranking can be extrapolated.
Lots of other variables of course; history of football in country, whether football is tier 1, 2 or 3 sport (eg, India has never been big on football and more into cricket, so not expected to be top despite one of largest populations). And some nations don't play much or don't have the infrastructure. We are Rugby dominant, Uruguay football dominant, so they are likely to do better despite a slightly smaller population. PNG have twice our population but likely to be lower due to their history/environment etc.
FIFA rankings are up and down a lot depending on what games you've been playing - and IF you've been playing. E.g. When we do a bunch of qualifiers against PI nations and win them all we shot up 30, 40, 50 places. When we don,t play much we slide down.
Pick a number between 80 and 120, and anything above that we are punching above out weight. I would put that number around the 80-100 range.
Interestingly our ELO rating http://www.eloratings.net/ has us at 83. ELO rating gives a much longer term and less volatile view.
NZ ranks 76 in list of countries by size, but only about 120 or 125 (United Nations) by population.
Say x in 1000 footballers is top class, 2x are next level, 5x next level below etc, expected ranking can be extrapolated.
Lots of other variables of course; history of football in country, whether football is tier 1, 2 or 3 sport (eg, India has never been big on football and more into cricket, so not expected to be top despite one of largest populations). And some nations don't play much or don't have the infrastructure. We are Rugby dominant, Uruguay football dominant, so they are likely to do better despite a slightly smaller population. PNG have twice our population but likely to be lower due to their history/environment etc.
FIFA rankings are up and down a lot depending on what games you've been playing - and IF you've been playing. E.g. When we do a bunch of qualifiers against PI nations and win them all we shot up 30, 40, 50 places. When we don,t play much we slide down.
Pick a number between 80 and 120, and anything above that we are punching above out weight. I would put that number around the 80-100 range.
Interestingly our ELO rating http://www.eloratings.net/ has us at 83. ELO rating gives a much longer term and less volatile view.
Gave you a 'This' for bringing up ELO. This is what we should be using to rank ourselves definitely as it's far more accurate, though there are a few strange placements (Algeria 80, Northern Cyprus 92, Oman 71)
NZ ranks 76 in list of countries by size, but only about 120 or 125 (United Nations) by population.
Say x in 1000 footballers is top class, 2x are next level, 5x next level below etc, expected ranking can be extrapolated.
Lots of other variables of course; history of football in country, whether football is tier 1, 2 or 3 sport (eg, India has never been big on football and more into cricket, so not expected to be top despite one of largest populations). And some nations don't play much or don't have the infrastructure. We are Rugby dominant, Uruguay football dominant, so they are likely to do better despite a slightly smaller population. PNG have twice our population but likely to be lower due to their history/environment etc.
FIFA rankings are up and down a lot depending on what games you've been playing - and IF you've been playing. E.g. When we do a bunch of qualifiers against PI nations and win them all we shot up 30, 40, 50 places. When we don,t play much we slide down.
Pick a number between 80 and 120, and anything above that we are punching above out weight. I would put that number around the 80-100 range.
Interestingly our ELO rating http://www.eloratings.net/ has us at 83. ELO rating gives a much longer term and less volatile view.
Gave you a 'This' for bringing up ELO. This is what we should be using to rank ourselves definitely as it's far more accurate, though there are a few strange placements (Algeria 80, Northern Cyprus 92, Oman 71)
Weird how they have Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, and Zanzibar in there.
NZ ranks 76 in list of countries by size, but only about 120 or 125 (United Nations) by population.
Say x in 1000 footballers is top class, 2x are next level, 5x next level below etc, expected ranking can be extrapolated.
Lots of other variables of course; history of football in country, whether football is tier 1, 2 or 3 sport (eg, India has never been big on football and more into cricket, so not expected to be top despite one of largest populations). And some nations don't play much or don't have the infrastructure. We are Rugby dominant, Uruguay football dominant, so they are likely to do better despite a slightly smaller population. PNG have twice our population but likely to be lower due to their history/environment etc.
FIFA rankings are up and down a lot depending on what games you've been playing - and IF you've been playing. E.g. When we do a bunch of qualifiers against PI nations and win them all we shot up 30, 40, 50 places. When we don,t play much we slide down.
Pick a number between 80 and 120, and anything above that we are punching above out weight. I would put that number around the 80-100 range.
Interestingly our ELO rating http://www.eloratings.net/ has us at 83. ELO rating gives a much longer term and less volatile view.
Gave you a 'This' for bringing up ELO. This is what we should be using to rank ourselves definitely as it's far more accurate, though there are a few strange placements (Algeria 80, Northern Cyprus 92, Oman 71)
Weird how they have Northern Cyprus, Kurdistan, and Zanzibar in there.
they have quite a few non FIFA nations in there - the list is 238 long, whereas FIFA only has 207 members, Tuvalu, Niue, Palau and Eastern Samoa (?) are in there as well
I'm happy if we have a coach and play some games
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Andorra and Swaziland? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia recently. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere in the realm of 60-90 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
It's also playing away from home 90% of time. We often have to swelter in unfamilar conditions, but never get chance to show some reciprocal hospitality against say the SE Asians teams with a taste of our old.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
Exactly! Playing Kenya in 40C heat in a monsoon, you'd actually be surprised we did so well with such a weakened team (and dominated the first half), but people are taking this as a definitive measure that we're worse than Kenya and deserve to be where we are.
Why is the heat only a factor for us?
Because we're playing away to teams that are used to it, train in it, and play in it. In this case Kenya is hot and humid so players are used to the conditions (their whole squad is Africa-based)
Unless Kenya are playing at the coast it is not hot and humid in most other places, apart from the north and they don't train or play there.
I think we can all agree, we wish we were better!
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Andorra and Swaziland? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia recently. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere in the realm of 60-90 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
It's also playing away from home 90% of time. We often have to swelter in unfamilar conditions, but never get chance to show some reciprocal hospitality against say the SE Asians teams with a taste of our old.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
Exactly! Playing Kenya in 40C heat in a monsoon, you'd actually be surprised we did so well with such a weakened team (and dominated the first half), but people are taking this as a definitive measure that we're worse than Kenya and deserve to be where we are.
We deserve to be where we are because we don't win games. Until they factor in excuses, the only way to improve our ranking is to win some football matches, regardless of conditions, player availability etc
Jesus people are defeatist on here. We are absolutely nowhere close to the realm of 133rd, to suggest so is mental. Do people really think we’re worse than Antigua & Barbuda, St Kitts and Nevis, Andorra and Swaziland? There are two reasons our ranking is so low:
1) We only play island teams, which do jack shark to improve our ranking;
2) Every time we do play a big team, it’s in a friendly and always experimental so we never try, hence we lose over and over with terrible squads without our best players. Look how we did against Peru in a game that actually mattered, conceding just 2 goals in 2 games, while Saudi Arabia lost to them 3-0 yesterday and Peru’s beaten other big teams like Croatia recently. Against Japan recently, where we had Wood and others playing and we actually tried, we were unlucky to lose 2-1 with Japan scoring a late winner
If we were in AFC for example, we’d be where we deserve, which is somewhere in the realm of 60-90 roughly. Enough proper competitive games to play where we’ll actually try to win instead of being experimental. Apart from Peru and the confeds, when have we not been experimental?
It's also playing away from home 90% of time. We often have to swelter in unfamilar conditions, but never get chance to show some reciprocal hospitality against say the SE Asians teams with a taste of our old.
Look what happened when we played a big team (Peru) at home. Managed a draw against numero 10 in the mundo.
Exactly! Playing Kenya in 40C heat in a monsoon, you'd actually be surprised we did so well with such a weakened team (and dominated the first half), but people are taking this as a definitive measure that we're worse than Kenya and deserve to be where we are.
We deserve to be where we are because we don't win games. Until they factor in excuses, the only way to improve our ranking is to win some football matches, regardless of conditions, player availability etc
I'd say if we lost games we'd deserve to be where we are. If Brazil didn't play for a year I wouldn't say their talent deserves to be 50th
Gave you a 'This' for bringing up ELO. This is what we should be using to rank ourselves definitely as it's far more accurate, though there are a few strange placements (Algeria 80, Northern Cyprus 92, Oman 71)
Algeria not so strange. Went to last World Cup, done well in African Cup of Nations generally last few time. Oman has had decent mix of results over last several years too. N.Cyprus have only played 17 games and they say that any less than 20 ELO ranking is 'provisional'. The more games, the better aligned.
If you click a team it will show all there results...
Gave you a 'This' for bringing up ELO. This is what we should be using to rank ourselves definitely as it's far more accurate, though there are a few strange placements (Algeria 80, Northern Cyprus 92, Oman 71)
Algeria not so strange. Went to last World Cup, done well in African Cup of Nations generally last few time. Oman has had decent mix of results over last several years too. N.Cyprus have only played 17 games and they say that any less than 20 ELO ranking is 'provisional'. The more games, the better aligned.
If you click a team it will show all there results...
Nah I was meaning how low they are :)