Welcome to Kerrydale Street. We hope you enjoy your visit.
You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use.
If you decide to register, please be aware that we don't accept email addresses from free web accounts like gmail, Hotmail, live.co.uk etc. Sorry, but almost all of the abuse and spam that we get is from free web accounts. The software on the forum will automatically block any requests using a free email account.
Upon Registration, you will be given access to all our varied Forums, and you will be expected to comply with our fairly stringent Rules and Regulations. Meantime, enjoy your visit
If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:
That's the way to sort those big heads out. Wonder if it would have helped stars like Gazza, Balotelli or any of the "older characters" that the game has thrown up?
Australia star told to solve ‘humility’ problem after axe by club and country
Fans will no doubt believe that many top sports stars need to address “humility” issues, but it is rare for an individual to be openly labelled in such disparaging terms.
Australia back James O'Connor has been exiled very publicly following numerous disciplinary problems and for reportedly alienating senior players – something that in a roundabout way equates to explaining why he requires "humility" training.
This is the man who was adamant that he was “a brand” during much-publicised contract negotiations, and who made what at the time were described as "astonishing" demands in talks.
Spoiler: click to toggle
It's the man who failed to turn up for the bus to training with the Wallabies ahead of the first Test against the British & Irish Lions this summer, then led the team to a defeat so bad that the coach got fired and O'Connor himself lost his contract with his club side, Melbourne Rebels.
He kept his spot in the Australia set-up, but just ahead of the second Test against the Lions decided to decided to head out to a burger bar at 4 o'clock in the morning, where he gleefully posed for photos with a British fan.
Australia still kept faith with a player considered the most talented Australian of his generation.
He decided to push his nation's patience just a little more, however, as he was marched out of Perth Airport by police a few weeks ago after reportedly being so drunk that airline staff had refused to let him board a plane to Bali, where he was heading with his girlfriend after a Test match against Argentina.
That incident saw the Australian Rugby Union snap at last, and they released the 23-year-old from his contract, "for failing to demontrate and uphold the behavioural and cultural standards expected."
It seems incredible that Australia's best player should be without a shirt either for club or country, but that is how far O'Connor has fallen.
It's been coming for a while, however. These incidents were just part of a string of disciplinary issues that had infuriated senior Wallabies and helped scare off any potential suitors among other Super Rugby franchises after his release by the Melbourne Rebels.
The Perth-based Western Force, for whom O'Connor made his debut as a 17-year-old in 2008, urged him to go away and think about his future after the ARU ban but coach Michael Foley hinted that the star still had a lot of work to do.
"Obviously there was an incident here at Perth Airport which tended to send things south a little bit," he told reporters. "But we've continued to talk to James and we're definitely open minded there."
So what is rugby to do with a problem like O’Connor?
"There's a plan to get the best out of him both on and off the field," Foley said.
"We're very keen to work towards the humility side of things and also the generosity of spirit that James displays in some of the other areas of his life, particularly with some of the charities he's involved in."
O'Connor has been widely pilloried for describing himself as a "brand" as well as demanding "key performance indicators" be fulfilled during ultimately fruitless negotiations with the Force over a new contract in 2011.
O’Connor, as a supremely talented fly-half, turned out for all three Tests against the British and Irish Lions earlier this year and can also play at full-back, centre or on the wing.
Once considered the future of Australian rugby, O’Connor clearly still thinks of himself in the same way while others believe that he is managing to squander the promise he showed through his attitude and approach to life.
As for other influences on O’Connor’s rocky career?
Australia coach Ewen McKenzie told a news conference in Sydney on Monday that he had been in touch with O'Connor but the onus remained on the player to sort himself out.
"We've had some contact. He's obviously working on his end of things," McKenzie said. "I'll continue to have contact but contact's a two-way thing. We've been concentrating on playing footy but I spoke to him from Argentina.
"I'm interested in improving him as a person so I'm happy to help in that process."
Australia captain James Horwill, meanwhile, was quick to remind everyone how far the star still has to go to repair broken bridges.
"He needs to make the decision of what he wants to do with his future and it's a personal decision for him and that's something that no one else can make for him," the lock said.
"No one can ever question his ability, he's a freak of a talent and he's got so much upside to him.
"He needs to find out what's important to him and then I guess work from there."
O’Connor still has everything set before him and a world of promise to enjoy, but if he does not manage to haul himself back on track soon then he could have a lifetime full of regrets.
Sid Lowe begins his history of Barcelona and Real Madrid's rivalry at a cemetery within sight of Camp Nou, FC Barcelona's 99,000-seater stadium. On the morning of matches between Spain's two great football clubs, fans congregate to pay their respects to the entombed remains of former Barça players such as László Kubala and Paulino Alcántara, the club's leading scorer (for now as 26-year-old Lionel Messi will likely surpass him sometime next year). Flowers and pennants lay strewn around their graves, while prayers are offered up in the hope they'll intercede for a favourable result for the home side later that day. On the other side of Camp Nou, there's a maternity hospital. That's the way it is in Spain when it comes to football, notes Lowe – on one side, life, on the other, death. Lowe is a Spanish football correspondent for the Guardian newspaper and other magazines such as Sports Illustrated. He also earned a PhD in history for a book on the Juventud de Acción Popular, a youth organisation that fostered fascism in Spain during the 1930s, which means he mixes galáctico interviews with pivotal players in the saga such as Alfredo Di Stéfano, Johan Cruyff, Michael Laudrup and Luís Figo, with a historian's rigour.
Civil war His use of primary sources – including files that shed new light on Real Madrid's controversial signing of Di Stéfano in 1953 – and ability to debunk myths results in a fascinating, detailed read, particularly in addressing some misconceptions about the role of the Spanish Civil War in the clubs' rivalry. "People allow themselves to be informed by the assumption that the civil war was somehow Catalonia against Castile," says Lowe. "It's just complete and utter rubbish. Probably the only bit of the book where I get close to going on a rant is that civil war bit. This isn't about shades of grey: it's black and white. It's the wrong way around. The idea that the city of Madrid was somehow the aggressor is pretty grotesque. Madrid and Barcelona were fighting on the same side for the majority of the civil war. There has been a blurring of the lines between Madrid, the city, and Real Madrid, the football club, and a blurring of the lines between Barcelona, the city, and Barcelona, the football club. "Another reason is a blurring of the timescale – things that happened subsequently to the two clubs are transported onto their civil war experience. For example, the Franco regime was more suspicious of Barcelona than it was about Madrid. "It treated Barcelona with a sense of 'we don't trust these guys' in a way it didn't do with Real Madrid, despite handpicking presidents [AT BOTH CLUBS], and in the late '60s and early '70s Barcelona start to construct an identity, which is founded on the idea that they are anti-Francoist. These are transported back to the civil war. What frustrates me is that the civil war was a different era in which, under very different circumstances, different processes were being played out.
"There might be three words which sum up why this happened: 'Homage to Catalonia.' The fact that the most famous book on the Spanish Civil War, in Britain at least, is specifically about Barcelona, that [GEORGE]Orwell paints his picture about revolution in Barcelona, that has cemented in the collective conscience this idea: 'Homage to Catalonia, freedom fighters, anti-Francoists, Catalonia.' It's created a portrait of the war on a populist level that is all about Barcelona. Almost by Madrid's absence from that picture the assumption then becomes: 'Ah, Madrid must be the other side then.' "To be fair to Orwell, he makes the point that the people who came to Barcelona from Madrid couldn't believe how laidback they were in the city about the war because the city was so far from the front, apart from some street-fighting at the start and the fight in May 1937. The book accidentally created this idea that Barcelona is the home of resistance, and Madrid isn't." After the Spanish Civil War, Barça provided a refuge for Catalan separatists, particularly towards the end of the Franco dictatorship, a time when the Catalan language was banned in Spain. The club delights in a romantic telling of its history. Far more books have been published on Barça compared to Real Madrid, a club that seems less self-absorbed and more interested in winning trophies than in myth making. Barça won the propaganda war when it comes to the clubs' identities, says Lowe.
Created 'story' "Barcelona have been really successful in creating what [Spanish football writer] Ramón Besa calls 'relato', in creating this 'story' around the club, and Real Madrid have failed. You do start to wonder, and people in Catalonia will tell you one of the reasons Madrid don't want to investigate their history is because it's true. That's only partly the case. Madrid have always only tried to make it about the football. Politically, some of its people haven't been automatically embracing of liberalism and democracy in the way that Barcelona have." Lowe unravels other interesting myths, among them the flaws at the heart of their narratives. For a team that is supposedly anti-Spain, Barça has supplied more internationals to the national team than Real Madrid, including seven starters for the World Cup final in 2010. Two Catalan brothers founded Real Madrid. Two of Real Madrid's presidents during the Spanish Civil War period were anti-Franco – Rafael Sánchez Guerra was a Republican and Colonel Antonio Ortega a communist stooge for the Soviet Union. From 1939 until Di Stéfano's arrival at Real Madrid in '53, which was the most repressive period of the Franco regime, Real Madrid failed to win the league while Barça racked up five titles. In one sense, the clubs share more similarities than differences – they are the two behemoths of La Liga. Their earning power dwarfs other Spanish clubs. This is not, of course, to say their fans don't despise each other. In a poll conducted in 1999, more than 50 per cent of Barça's supporters said they prefer a Real Madrid loss to a Barcelona win.
There is a gulf, however, between the vitriol on the terraces and the feelings shared amongst the players on the field. Their teams are stocked with mercenaries, the latest of whom the Brazilian Neymar Jr (Barça) and Welshman Gareth Bale (Real Madrid) presumably knew little about the cultural and historical nuances of the rivalry before arriving in Spain this summer. As former Real Madrid midfielder Santi Solari says: "All players think about is football, not politics." "I've just done an interview with Gerard Piqué for World Soccer, which doesn't appear in the book," says Lowe. "He said, 'It's impossible to completely withdraw yourself from what goes on around you,' and when things are particularly tense as they were, of course, during that run of clásicos in 2011 (four in 18 days), he said 'you start to take on some of those characteristics. "You do start to think, Oh, those guys over there: what a bunch of arseholes, but you also see it from the professional footballers' point of view, and a lot of footballers will look at fans and think, God, they're completely losing their heads.' "Maybe the Luís Figo case is a good example. (The Portuguese left Barça for Real Madrid in 2000.) One former Barcelona player said to me, 'Of course he left. I'd have left for that money.' Equally, there was another Barcelona player who said to me, 'I'd never have done that' not so much because he was too committed to Barcelona but rather, 'I can't believe he put himself in that position with the fans'. Players don't live divorced from it but their perspective is very different.
Manufactured hatred "I had a conversation with one of the Real Madrid players just before that run of four clásicos in 2011 and he said: 'It's weird. You play for the Spanish national team and you've got all these Barcelona players there and fundamentally they are alright, but you sometimes feel with everything going on around you that you're almost obliged to hate them.'" Lowe says that José Mourinho brought the players into that manufactured hatred during his three years as Real manager. It was a motivational ploy that backfired, as it led to the collapse in his relationship with team captain Iker Casillas. His rein ended last summer. The Real Madrid job was too demanding even for The Special One.
Tried to fix some of the formatting, if it doesn't work then follow the link
I'm sure someone will buy one, but it won't be me.
The Neymar doll is the only gift you’ll want this year
Just in time for the holidays, Neymar has partnered with toy manufacturer Cosmokids to produce the Neymar doll you have been waiting for all your life. Standing the 16.5 inches tall, the Neymar doll is now available on his official website with an initial production run of just 12,000.
With a fauxhawk, big toothy grin and popped collar, the doll looks more like the personal trainer that Barbie has been seeing behind Ken's back than Neymar himself.
Every Neymar doll comes with a change kit and boots, but in addition to that it can also say and do a number of other exciting things that kids will love. Like:
-Spring loaded legs for real diving action!
-Scratch and sniff for a powerful scent that will make Pele and Maradona bicker no matter where they are in the world!
-Press its earrings to hear 12 realistic Neymar phrases like, "Let's score the sixth goal together, Leo!" and "Gareth Bale appears to be broken!"
If you wondered why Switzerland were ranked above Italy, this will explain it all. You may not understand it but this is hope they come about the FIFA rankings.
Are Switzerland really better than Italy? FIFA’s ‘insane’ ranking system explained
When FIFA's latest official world rankings were released on Thursday, and there was widespread amazement that Italy got bumped out of the top seven by Switzerland - who beat the Azzurri to the final seeded berth in December's draw for Brazil 2014.
We're talking about a team who won the World Cup in 2006, and more to the point a side good enough to get to the final of the European Championships just 15 months ago.
Since then, the Italians have enjoyed an unbeaten qualifying campaign to make it to the World Cup with two games to spare.
Switzerland, by contrast, didn't even qualify for Euro 2012 - and while they also enjoyed an unbeaten qualifying campaign, they did so in a group so weak that Iceland made it into the play-off spot. On their way to that top spot, they were held 0-0 by Cyprus.
Italy's group, by contrast, included respected teams such as Denmark and Norway, both of whom were ranked higher than any of the other sides in Switzerland's group.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Despite all that Switzerland somehow picked up enough points to leap into the top seven of the rankings and therefore grab a seeding spot for the World Cup. This means that they are spared a potential group stage draw that would pit them against (the hosts, who are seeded despite being outside the top 10), Spain, Germany, Argentina, Colombia, Belgium or Uruguay (assuming that the latter beat Jordan in their play-off).
Surely a team with the calibre, and the recent success, of Italy must be worthy of one of those spots at the expense of the Swiss? FIFA's rankings say it ain't so, however.
How it works
The formula is relatively simple, in theory: each team is awarded three points for a win. Those three points are then multiplied according to these formulas:
- Importance of the match (World Cup games 4.0, Continental/Confederations Cup such as the Euros 3.0, Qualifiers 2.5, Friendlies 1.0)
- Strength of the opposing team (200 minus the team's ranking at the time of the game, so Spain's multiplier is 199, while 100th ranked Georgia's is 100). There's a minimum 50 in this category, even if you're playing 207th-ranked San Marino.
- Strength of the Confederation (Europe or South America 1.00, North/Central America 0.88, Asia or Africa 0.86, Oceania 0.85)
In other words, if England beat top-ranked Spain in a World Cup match, they'll get three for the win, multiplied by four for the match importance, multiplied by 199 for the opposition, multiplied by one for the Confederation). That's 3x4x199x1=2,388. England's game against Poland, by contrast, landed them 1012.5 points (3x2.5x135x1).
All your points per match are averaged out for each calendar are year, and average results from the past four years are tallied up, with results longer ago counting less. Your score is then your average points this year plus 50% of your average points from the previous year, plus 30% of your average points from two years ago, plus 20% of your average points from three years ago.
Thus England have 1080: that's their average of 485 points a year in 2013, plus 310 from 2012 (when they averaged 620), plus 147 from 2011 (when they averaged 491) plus 137 from 2010 (when they averaged 686).
A little complicated, sure, but it seems fair enough. Until you start digging deeper, and you see that Switzerland, ranked seventh, have a ranking of 1,138, while Italy and Netherlands both have 1,136.
If you think that seems like a tiny margin dividing the teams, you'd be right. And that's brought up all sorts of anomalies.
Italy did too well, too quickly, in World Cup qualifying
The Italians won six of their first eight matches in qualifying for the World Cup, and in a tough-fought group that was enough for them to book a place in Brazil with two matches to spare. With that in mind, they used the final two matches - against Denmark and Armenia - to try out different players and tactics, not particularly caring what happened.
They didn't even have Gianluigi Buffon in goal against Armenia, for example, with Federico Marchetti instead getting only his second cap in a World Cup qualifying match. Marchetti, lest you forget, is the man who conceded four goals from just five shots against him at the 2010 World Cup when Buffon was injured.
The result of that tinkering was draws against Denmark and Armenia. A win against either side would have boosted Italy's points average for 2013 by around 50 points, which would have left them ranked fourth in the world instead of eighth.
Is that sensible-sounding system still looking fair to you?
Switzerland rewarded for being flat-track bullies
Italy's results in those last few matches are only one part of the equation. What about Switzerland?
The Swiss were nowhere near the top eight of the rankings a few weeks back, but won their last three qualifiers in a row - against Norway, Albania and Slovenia - to give themselves a huge boost. A nil-nil draw against Cyprus and a 4-4 draw against Iceland were their only slip-ups in the last 18 months, and since then they've been unbeaten in 14 matches.
Their qualifying matches, however, are against. As you may have spotted with the rankings system, the multipliers are such that there's very little difference, for example, between playing top-ranked Spain and 10th-ranked England: you'd get 2,388 to beat Spain at a World Cup, but 2,268 to beat England. Once you divide that 120-point difference by the dozen or so matches (at least) that most teams might have played in a given year, you'll see it's only 10 points here or there on the final ranking points.
Thus, Switzerland's easy World Cup qualifying group helped them immeasurably. They collected 1,162 points for beating Albania, while Italy picked up a relatively few extra (1,298) for beating a far, far tougher Czech Republic team this year.
Everyone wants to play Italy in friendlies - and it's hurt them
High-profile friendlies against the sexiest teams in world football are great for the FA's bank balance - but usually bad news for the team's ranking. Friendlies aren't taken seriously, lead to freak results, and hammer your multiplier.
Switerzland have played only two friendlies this year: one against Greece (a 0-0 draw) and the other against Brazil, which they won 1-0. That was impressive.
Italy, by contrast, have played five. They earned draws with the Netherlands and Brazil, hammered San Marino, and lost to Argentina. As you can see from the formula, even a win in a friendly against Spain will earn you under 600 points, which is roughly the same as winning a qualifier against Luxembourg.
Then there was the charity match against Haiti, in which they played a young and inexperienced side, switched off while 2-0 up with five minutes left and conceded two late goals (one from the spot) to draw 2-2. Huge amounts of money were raised for earthquake relief and the fans went home happy - but Italy's ranking average took a pounding as they picked up just over 100 points for a draw with the 80th-best team in the world.
Not only is that bad itself, but each friendly they play means that the relative effect of their big-points wins in qualifying is lessened. By playing three extra friendlies, each of Italy's qualifying wins is diluted since average points per match are averaged out: you pick up 100 points against Haiti, but you're now dividing your sum total of points for the year by 16 instead of 15.
The same goes for the Confederations Cup. Italy picked up some nice points by beating Mexico and Japan, but had their averages pounded by losing to Brazil and Spain - neither of which was exactly a disgrace. All they basically did was increase the number of games that their overall points tally has to be divided by, though they did get some credit for only losing on penalties to Spain.
With all that taken into account, Italy have played 16 matches in 2013, compared to Switzerland's eight. If you crunch all the numbers, dividing down and so on, each of the Swiss's World Cup qualifying wins will each have boosted their final ranking tally score by about 120 points, while each of Italy's qualifying wins will only have added around 60 to their score.
And remember, the ranking table has just two points between the sides.
The answer?
The easiest way, by far, for teams to be ranked would be by a panel of humans. Anyone with even a vague knowledge of international football can say instinctively that a team that finished second in one of the world's toughest tournaments just 15 months ago is better than one which failed to qualify for that tournament.
But where do you draw the line? It seems okay that talent-rich Belgium, who soared through qualifying, should be ranked ahead of the Dutch or English, but should they be above or below Colombia? That's why boiling games down into rankings points is a good idea.
There will always be problems, with this. What do you do about defeats, for example? At the moment losing 3-2 to Spain in extra time at a World Cup match is worth 0 points, while needing a late penalty to beat Turks and Caicos Islands in a friendly is worth 132 points.
But the biggest flaws in the current system are self-evidently to do with the points available in friendlies, and the score for the strength of your opponent.
Brazil's case shows this perfectly. They are ranked an insanely-low 11th, simply because their automatic qualification as World Cup hosts mean they don't have the same number of chances to score points.
We're using the word 'insane' advisedly: they have won 11 of their last 12 matches (the blip against Switzerland being their only defeat). Their scalps in that run include Spain, France, Mexico, Italy, Uruguay and Portugal, yet they're not in the top 10 in the world.
Crazy? Absolutely. But not quite as crazy as Switzerland being seeded ahead of Italy for the World Cup next year.
If you wondered why Switzerland were ranked above Italy, this will explain it all. You may not understand it but this is hope they come about the FIFA rankings.
Are Switzerland really better than Italy? FIFA’s ‘insane’ ranking system explained
When FIFA's latest official world rankings were released on Thursday, and there was widespread amazement that Italy got bumped out of the top seven by Switzerland - who beat the Azzurri to the final seeded berth in December's draw for Brazil 2014.
We're talking about a team who won the World Cup in 2006, and more to the point a side good enough to get to the final of the European Championships just 15 months ago.
Since then, the Italians have enjoyed an unbeaten qualifying campaign to make it to the World Cup with two games to spare.
Switzerland, by contrast, didn't even qualify for Euro 2012 - and while they also enjoyed an unbeaten qualifying campaign, they did so in a group so weak that Iceland made it into the play-off spot. On their way to that top spot, they were held 0-0 by Cyprus.
Italy's group, by contrast, included respected teams such as Denmark and Norway, both of whom were ranked higher than any of the other sides in Switzerland's group.
Spoiler: click to toggle
Despite all that Switzerland somehow picked up enough points to leap into the top seven of the rankings and therefore grab a seeding spot for the World Cup. This means that they are spared a potential group stage draw that would pit them against (the hosts, who are seeded despite being outside the top 10), Spain, Germany, Argentina, Colombia, Belgium or Uruguay (assuming that the latter beat Jordan in their play-off).
Surely a team with the calibre, and the recent success, of Italy must be worthy of one of those spots at the expense of the Swiss? FIFA's rankings say it ain't so, however.
How it works
The formula is relatively simple, in theory: each team is awarded three points for a win. Those three points are then multiplied according to these formulas:
- Importance of the match (World Cup games 4.0, Continental/Confederations Cup such as the Euros 3.0, Qualifiers 2.5, Friendlies 1.0)
- Strength of the opposing team (200 minus the team's ranking at the time of the game, so Spain's multiplier is 199, while 100th ranked Georgia's is 100). There's a minimum 50 in this category, even if you're playing 207th-ranked San Marino.
- Strength of the Confederation (Europe or South America 1.00, North/Central America 0.88, Asia or Africa 0.86, Oceania 0.85)
In other words, if England beat top-ranked Spain in a World Cup match, they'll get three for the win, multiplied by four for the match importance, multiplied by 199 for the opposition, multiplied by one for the Confederation). That's 3x4x199x1=2,388. England's game against Poland, by contrast, landed them 1012.5 points (3x2.5x135x1).
All your points per match are averaged out for each calendar are year, and average results from the past four years are tallied up, with results longer ago counting less. Your score is then your average points this year plus 50% of your average points from the previous year, plus 30% of your average points from two years ago, plus 20% of your average points from three years ago.
Thus England have 1080: that's their average of 485 points a year in 2013, plus 310 from 2012 (when they averaged 620), plus 147 from 2011 (when they averaged 491) plus 137 from 2010 (when they averaged 686).
A little complicated, sure, but it seems fair enough. Until you start digging deeper, and you see that Switzerland, ranked seventh, have a ranking of 1,138, while Italy and Netherlands both have 1,136.
If you think that seems like a tiny margin dividing the teams, you'd be right. And that's brought up all sorts of anomalies.
Italy did too well, too quickly, in World Cup qualifying
The Italians won six of their first eight matches in qualifying for the World Cup, and in a tough-fought group that was enough for them to book a place in Brazil with two matches to spare. With that in mind, they used the final two matches - against Denmark and Armenia - to try out different players and tactics, not particularly caring what happened.
They didn't even have Gianluigi Buffon in goal against Armenia, for example, with Federico Marchetti instead getting only his second cap in a World Cup qualifying match. Marchetti, lest you forget, is the man who conceded four goals from just five shots against him at the 2010 World Cup when Buffon was injured.
The result of that tinkering was draws against Denmark and Armenia. A win against either side would have boosted Italy's points average for 2013 by around 50 points, which would have left them ranked fourth in the world instead of eighth.
Is that sensible-sounding system still looking fair to you?
Switzerland rewarded for being flat-track bullies
Italy's results in those last few matches are only one part of the equation. What about Switzerland?
The Swiss were nowhere near the top eight of the rankings a few weeks back, but won their last three qualifiers in a row - against Norway, Albania and Slovenia - to give themselves a huge boost. A nil-nil draw against Cyprus and a 4-4 draw against Iceland were their only slip-ups in the last 18 months, and since then they've been unbeaten in 14 matches.
Their qualifying matches, however, are against. As you may have spotted with the rankings system, the multipliers are such that there's very little difference, for example, between playing top-ranked Spain and 10th-ranked England: you'd get 2,388 to beat Spain at a World Cup, but 2,268 to beat England. Once you divide that 120-point difference by the dozen or so matches (at least) that most teams might have played in a given year, you'll see it's only 10 points here or there on the final ranking points.
Thus, Switzerland's easy World Cup qualifying group helped them immeasurably. They collected 1,162 points for beating Albania, while Italy picked up a relatively few extra (1,298) for beating a far, far tougher Czech Republic team this year.
Everyone wants to play Italy in friendlies - and it's hurt them
High-profile friendlies against the sexiest teams in world football are great for the FA's bank balance - but usually bad news for the team's ranking. Friendlies aren't taken seriously, lead to freak results, and hammer your multiplier.
Switerzland have played only two friendlies this year: one against Greece (a 0-0 draw) and the other against Brazil, which they won 1-0. That was impressive.
Italy, by contrast, have played five. They earned draws with the Netherlands and Brazil, hammered San Marino, and lost to Argentina. As you can see from the formula, even a win in a friendly against Spain will earn you under 600 points, which is roughly the same as winning a qualifier against Luxembourg.
Then there was the charity match against Haiti, in which they played a young and inexperienced side, switched off while 2-0 up with five minutes left and conceded two late goals (one from the spot) to draw 2-2. Huge amounts of money were raised for earthquake relief and the fans went home happy - but Italy's ranking average took a pounding as they picked up just over 100 points for a draw with the 80th-best team in the world.
Not only is that bad itself, but each friendly they play means that the relative effect of their big-points wins in qualifying is lessened. By playing three extra friendlies, each of Italy's qualifying wins is diluted since average points per match are averaged out: you pick up 100 points against Haiti, but you're now dividing your sum total of points for the year by 16 instead of 15.
The same goes for the Confederations Cup. Italy picked up some nice points by beating Mexico and Japan, but had their averages pounded by losing to Brazil and Spain - neither of which was exactly a disgrace. All they basically did was increase the number of games that their overall points tally has to be divided by, though they did get some credit for only losing on penalties to Spain.
With all that taken into account, Italy have played 16 matches in 2013, compared to Switzerland's eight. If you crunch all the numbers, dividing down and so on, each of the Swiss's World Cup qualifying wins will each have boosted their final ranking tally score by about 120 points, while each of Italy's qualifying wins will only have added around 60 to their score.
And remember, the ranking table has just two points between the sides.
The answer?
The easiest way, by far, for teams to be ranked would be by a panel of humans. Anyone with even a vague knowledge of international football can say instinctively that a team that finished second in one of the world's toughest tournaments just 15 months ago is better than one which failed to qualify for that tournament.
But where do you draw the line? It seems okay that talent-rich Belgium, who soared through qualifying, should be ranked ahead of the Dutch or English, but should they be above or below Colombia? That's why boiling games down into rankings points is a good idea.
There will always be problems, with this. What do you do about defeats, for example? At the moment losing 3-2 to Spain in extra time at a World Cup match is worth 0 points, while needing a late penalty to beat Turks and Caicos Islands in a friendly is worth 132 points.
But the biggest flaws in the current system are self-evidently to do with the points available in friendlies, and the score for the strength of your opponent.
Brazil's case shows this perfectly. They are ranked an insanely-low 11th, simply because their automatic qualification as World Cup hosts mean they don't have the same number of chances to score points.
We're using the word 'insane' advisedly: they have won 11 of their last 12 matches (the blip against Switzerland being their only defeat). Their scalps in that run include Spain, France, Mexico, Italy, Uruguay and Portugal, yet they're not in the top 10 in the world.
Crazy? Absolutely. But not quite as crazy as Switzerland being seeded ahead of Italy for the World Cup next year.
The analysis is very good but the incredibly simplistic conclusion kind of ruins it.
Quote:
Anyone with even a vague knowledge of international football can say instinctively that a team that finished second in one of the world's toughest tournaments just 15 months ago is better than one which failed to qualify for that tournament.
Really? Because Belgium didn't qualify for the Euros either and they've just romped a group containing a Croatia team that did (and drew with Italy once they got there). Once you start getting into 'Morton beat Celtic and Celtic beat Barcelona, so Morton would definitely beat Barcelona' territory you're on shaky ground.
Good man and a great player. Wish there were more like him.
Paul Scholes has been secretly taking charge of Stalybridge Celtic training for the last week, it has emerged.
The Manchester United legend, who is now coach of the Manchester United U19s, stepped in for a week after Jim Harvey left the Conference North club by mutual consent.
Scholes volunteered to help but asked Stalybridge not to leak the news to avoid a media circus.