which of our managers have gained the most points & climbed the highest places ? since we last qualified for a toury ?
World Ranking Places
Started by FANDABBYDOZZY, Jun 24 2012 10:06 AM
25 replies to this topic
#1
FANDABBYDOZZY
-
- Member
- 420 posts
#2
northernscum
-
- Member
- 4,062 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:13 AM
Without checking i would assume it was big eck, we reached 14 in the world at one point under him
Times like these will make the good times all the sweeter 
#3
FANDABBYDOZZY
-
- Member
- 420 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:17 AM
peaked at 14 but what did he leave us on
the Tartan Army from the capital
www.churchofmaradona-ta.co.uk
www.churchofmaradona-ta.co.uk
#4
Cove_Sheep
-
- Member
- 25,687 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:19 AM
Walter Smith will likely have seen the highest rise.
However, it should be noted that a large part of that climb was down to FIFA changing the ranking periods from 8 years to 4 years.
However, it should be noted that a large part of that climb was down to FIFA changing the ranking periods from 8 years to 4 years.
Vote No and forever lose the right to complain about a UK Govt that does not represent Scotland
Vote Yes in 2014 and get the government we want, every single time
#5
bossman4
-
- Member
- 483 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 03:53 PM
We were 80th when Smith took over and Big Eck got us to 13th. We were 14th when Burley took over, 46th by the time Levein took over. Think that shows the damage that Burley really done to us.
SCOTLAND FOREVER
#6
silverbear
-
- Member
- 1,160 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:08 PM
Smith took Scotland up 70 places while national manager from 2004-2007.
"If they played on the street then we would support from the pavement"
#7
silverbear
-
- Member
- 1,160 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 05:16 PM
As Cove says - FIFA changed the ranking system after the 2006 WC & the evaluation period changed to four years from 8 years.
However we were rated 86th in 2004 & had reached 25 in 2006 so it's not strictly accurate to say a large part was due to the change in rankings.
We were rated 14 in 2007.
However we were rated 86th in 2004 & had reached 25 in 2006 so it's not strictly accurate to say a large part was due to the change in rankings.
We were rated 14 in 2007.
"If they played on the street then we would support from the pavement"
#8
DC92
-
- Member
- 747 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 06:19 PM
I'm certain we were as high as 13th at one point.
#9
northernscum
-
- Member
- 4,062 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 10:52 PM
Correct, in October 2007I'm certain we were as high as 13th at one point.
http://www.fifa.com/...able/index.html
Times like these will make the good times all the sweeter
#10
morrie21
-
- Member
- 827 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 11:08 PM
the rankings are a farce anyway so why worry about it ?
Edited by morrie21, 24 June 2012 - 11:08 PM.
#11
northernscum
-
- Member
- 4,062 posts
Posted 24 June 2012 - 11:12 PM
Absolutely agree, i don't think the rankings should be issued until there is a draw for a championship, that is the only time they are of any relevence at all.the rankings are a farce anyway so why worry about it ?
Times like these will make the good times all the sweeter
#12
silverbear
-
- Member
- 1,160 posts
Posted 25 June 2012 - 08:59 AM
Fair enough 13th or 14th, I think my 2007 figure must have been an average.Correct, in October 2007
http://www.fifa.com/...able/index.html
http://www.google.co...DPrpiaAgDCHMwiA
The point I was making was, it wasn't strictly accurate to say that a large part of the rise during Smith's regime was due to change in the rankings system.
"If they played on the street then we would support from the pavement"
#13
Tartacus
-
- Member
- 954 posts
Posted 26 June 2012 - 01:31 PM
The ranking are stupid. Some banal pundit was whittling on about about England being 'well behind your Germanys, Yer Spains, yer Italy's etc' and yet England will remain in the top ten 
and so they will continue to get easy groups and so will continue to do OK. They were garbage to watch and if thats a top ten side in the world then football is doomed. I would say England are closer to Scotland's mediocrity than Germany and Spains excellence and yet the rankings dont reflect this.
and so they will continue to get easy groups and so will continue to do OK. They were garbage to watch and if thats a top ten side in the world then football is doomed. I would say England are closer to Scotland's mediocrity than Germany and Spains excellence and yet the rankings dont reflect this.
Yorkshire born, Scottish bred - Strong in arm, strong in head.
#14
ReekySporran
-
- Member
- 16,901 posts
Posted 26 June 2012 - 02:59 PM
The ranking are stupid. Some banal pundit was whittling on about about England being 'well behind your Germanys, Yer Spains, yer Italy's etc' and yet England will remain in the top ten
England are a top 8 European side, and that is fairly well reflected in the rankings. If you only look at the rankings of the UEFA nations and all other nations taken out, you can't really argue with them too much.
Tickets wanted: USA 98, Colombia 96, Malta 97, Denmark 96, Sweden 95, Greece 94, Estonia 93, Norway 92. http://www.scotlandprogrammes.co.uk
#15
big_matt
-
- Member
- 2,864 posts
Posted 26 June 2012 - 03:07 PM
England are a top 8 European side, and that is fairly well reflected in the rankings. If you only look at the rankings of the UEFA nations and all other nations taken out, you can't really argue with them too much.
Apart from the european side who just absolutely played them off the park being significantly below them in the rankings?
