So France beat Iceland 5-2 and Iceland beat England 2-1. By using logic we can assume that England wouldn't have scored against France not once and also they would've conceded between 8 to 12 goals. This makes England the worst team in the tournament.
Literally cannot prove me wrong. Also dubs.
That kind of reasoning is faulty, because the better team (or individual) doesn't always win. They merely have a higher chance to win (although, as the disparity between their skill level increases, this chance approaches 100%).
Rating systems like Elo and Glicko offer the most educated estimate into this intangible "true" skill level and indeed have high degree of predictive power (for example, if a player/team with Elo rating of 2100 plays against a team with rating of 2000, it's expected for them to win 64% of the time, and given high enough sample size, real results match the predictions fairly accurately).
Wikipedia seems to have a list of ratings of each team: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings
>>69223807
>life on autism
>>69223130
England are like Belgium.
Good in meme friendlies and terrible in actual competition
Maybe they will get gud once they stop praising meme players like Kane or Rooney
>>69223807
Yes, yes.
HOWEVER
>>69223807
>elo
>accurate
>>69224082
It's not even the best rating system (for example. Glicko is better) but certainly beats looking at the results of several matches and after a quick look at it, probably the official FIFA rankings as well
Sweden beat Wales in a friendly right before the euros. By this logic we can assume that Sweden should, in fact, be in the semi finals. Anti-nordic referees paid off by the french are probably to blame.
>>69224082
Poor Albania
>>69224221
I agree.
I assume you have already proceeded by contacting the corresponding UEFA authorities on this pressing matter?
>>69223130
England Beat Wales 2-1
