Zathras

Is it? Is it really? The UEFA championships or World Cup are every 2 years. The Copa America is every two years. The Gold Cup is every two years. The African Cup of Nations is every 2 years. I dont' know about the Asian championship. Apart from the World Cup and UEFA championships, everythings is 2 years.

Allthough the US can't really complain imho. Mexico got seeded because of their involvement in the Confederations Cup 2005 (although this is a shit competition) and did well. All what the US (as they are the better team) had to do was to qualify instead of Mexico there. I don't think either deserved a seed. I'm not complaining that Mexico got a seed and the US didn't; I'm simply complaining that Mexico got a seed. So what do you want? First you are complaining about "the formula" that means that European results do have more weight than Concacaf ones. Then you are complaining that Mexico (despite being a Concacaf team) getting seeded at the World Cup as as a reflection of their past success in friendlies, the Gold Cup (and as a result of this in the Confederations Cup). You have totally lost me, really. I would be happy if the rankings (and seeding formula) made as much sense as the ELO ratings (like they do for chess masters) http://www.eloratings.net/system.html or if the rankings were based a little more on recent results instead of 4 year old results. I can see the idea of using the last two or three world cup performances in the formula for seeds, but not so much for the rankings which I would argue are more likely to be in flux from year to year. Maybe there's not too much movement at the top 5 places, but beyond that it's a bit wishy-washy. Most of the time, I'd argue that the teams from 10-25 are pretty evenly matched. Putting Scotland, Greece and Romania above Ghana, Ivory Coast and USA doesn't read right to me. However, them all being in the 15-35 range does.

Allthough the US can't really complain imho. Mexico got seeded because of their involvement in the Confederations Cup 2005 (although this is a shit competition) and did well. All what the US (as they are the better team) had to do was to qualify instead of Mexico there. I don't think either deserved a seed. I'm not complaining that Mexico got a seed and the US didn't; I'm simply complaining that Mexico got a seed.

Depends on the game/atmosphere/location. When Bellamy scored against Feyenoord, I was in my aunt's house in India and screamed my head off to the point that everyone came to see if I was alright. Most of the time, a brief shout and then settle back down. Pisses me off and ruins my day if not week/weekend. My wife gets very irritated with it sometimes. Certainly helps my mood.

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. I appreciate that, their routes to the finals are easier imo, which was more my point. Performing once you get there isn't made easier by the logistics of getting squads together etc. I just meant that USA gets the chance to play in the World Cup so they shouldn't be too bothered about the rankings. I'm not particlarly bothered about where the US is ranked in them because they're meaningless. I wish they had more meaning and could actually be used as some sort of a yardstick, though. They did enter into the seeding decisions for the 2006 World Cup, though, and I feel it was a travesty that Mexico got a seed. The US is a better team than Mexico, and so were several other non-seeded teams. e.g. Czech Republic, Portugal, Netherlands (who lost out b/c they missed 2002), and arguably Ghana and the Ivory Coast. If they're going to be used for such an important thing (mexico would NEVER have gotten to the 2nd round without a seed) then they should be fixed. That being said, I think a great way to alleviate part of the problem would be to lump the CONCACAF and CONMEBOL federations together into one big qualifying group. It's a financial thing though, since teams like Grenada can hardly afford to go to Canada and Argentina for qualifying matches.

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.