WeeNix
600
·
920
·
almost 9 years

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.

Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

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.

First Team Squad
1.2K
·
1.6K
·
over 14 years

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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.

Starting XI
1.3K
·
2.7K
·
almost 9 years

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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

WeeNix
760
·
750
·
over 9 years

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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.

Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
about 17 years

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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  

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
over 16 years

james dean wrote:

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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.

Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

james dean wrote:

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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.

Starting XI
550
·
2.4K
·
over 14 years

james dean wrote:

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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  

Australia has Qualified for 4 straight world cups so there national team has not really dropped much, Unlike NZ there juniors have failed to qlfy for Olympic/U20/U17 World Cups now for a long time. 

So its reverse not simular.

Starting XI
550
·
2.4K
·
over 14 years

coochiee wrote:

james dean wrote:

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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.

Thrashed by Thailand and they are rated? Your national team is only as good as your national league which is amateur at best. 
Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

Who was thrashed by Thailand? NZ? Belarus? Australia?

Not sure at all what you are on about.

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
over 16 years

coochiee wrote:

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.

Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
about 17 years

el grapadura wrote:

james dean wrote:

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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.

Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

el grapadura wrote:

coochiee wrote:

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.

WeeNix
890
·
960
·
about 7 years

coochiee wrote:

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

Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

ClubOranje wrote:

coochiee wrote:

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.

Starting XI
550
·
2.4K
·
over 14 years

coochiee wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

coochiee wrote:

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.

Draw with Myanmar at full strength who are ranked 135. The All Whites as talented as some players are just don't gel to well as a winning team, And the FIFA ranking is fair in showing that. 

NZ current ranking of 133 is justifiable at this point of time.

Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

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.

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

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.

Life and death
2.4K
·
5.5K
·
almost 17 years

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.

Marquee
1.3K
·
5.3K
·
over 16 years

james dean wrote:

el grapadura wrote:

james dean wrote:

Rusty Dunks wrote:

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.

It's almost you expect no other nation to also be improving their coaching and development structures.
Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

mrsmiis wrote:

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.

Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

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.

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

coochiee wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

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.

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
over 16 years

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.

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
over 16 years

coochiee wrote:
 

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 :-)

Marquee
2.1K
·
8.2K
·
about 17 years

mrsmiis wrote:

coochiee wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

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?  

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

james dean wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

coochiee wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

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)

Legend
11K
·
21K
·
almost 9 years

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

WeeNix
890
·
960
·
about 7 years

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.

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

ClubOranje wrote:

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)

Woof Woof
2.7K
·
19K
·
over 16 years

mrsmiis wrote:

ClubOranje wrote:

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.

Starting XI
1.3K
·
2.7K
·
almost 9 years

el grapadura wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

ClubOranje wrote:

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

Legend
6.8K
·
14K
·
over 16 years

I'm happy if we have a coach and play some games 

tradition and history
1.5K
·
9.9K
·
almost 17 years

mrsmiis wrote:

james dean wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

coochiee wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

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.

Marquee
3.7K
·
5.4K
·
over 11 years

I think we can all agree, we wish we were better!

Phoenix Academy
240
·
360
·
over 10 years

mrsmiis wrote:

coochiee wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

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

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

happydays wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

coochiee wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

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

WeeNix
890
·
960
·
about 7 years

mrsmiis wrote:

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...

Starting XI
3K
·
3K
·
almost 7 years

ClubOranje wrote:

mrsmiis wrote:

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 :)

You’ll need an account to join the conversation!

Sign in Sign up