trueviking Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 i dont know a lot about the fifa world ranking system, but how is it possible that the u.s. could be ahead of football powers such as italy and portugal and and only one spot behind england? their national team is made up almost exclusively from the mls, whose best team would have its hands full winning the second division in england as far as i can tell. canada's team looks more impressive on paper with players scattered through the higher leagues in england, scotland, germany and throughout europe. yet we are outclassed in the rankings by powerhouse nations like burkina faso, mali and qatar. i look at australia's line up and they appear to be very strong, but they are 50th in the table, 41 spots behind the u.s. how is this possible? costa rica did not look like they could possibly be the 18th best national side in the world. better than sweden and russia? i cant believe that a group of players from the mls could even step out on the same pitch as the best 11 english or italian players. what am i missing? does george bush have anything to do with this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziv2002 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 trueviking, first off all HEY! and welcome to the boared!(I see its you only seconed post...) anyway, the first thing you need to remember about FIFA world ranking that its only about the national team,for the FC clubs thare is a diffrent ranking (Im not sure but I dont think that the US has even one team at the first 100 FC clubs ranking), the seconde thing is that Im also dont really get it, with all the respect to USA but I can give you atleast 20 other countres that can kick thare ass so...its also strange too me. Israel are on their way to... Euro 2004!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 quote:Originally posted by trueviking what am i missing? What you are missing is that, in short, the rankings are based on actual results, not on who looks better on paper. Results in some games are worth more than results in other games: World Cup games count more than continental championship games which count more than friendlies, games against higher-ranked teams are worth more than games against lower-ranked teams, games away from home are worth more than games at home, scoring more goals (to a certain limit, anyway) is worth more than scoring less goals, etc., etc. And if you don't play you can't get any points (but you can lose points because older games are dropped or are worth less than recent games), so Canada often suffers in this way. For a full explanation see http://www.fifa.com/en/rank/procedures.html. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Look at the the performance of the US in the most recent World Cup. That carries some weight in world rankings. Free the banana cream 3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 it also puts into account the performances of your youth national teams. there ain't gonna be any middle any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziv2002 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 Ed I think you are wrong,becouse look at Holland,thare 5th and they wornt even at the last world cup! Costa Rica got only 1 point at the last world cup, and they are 18th! Korea did alot beter then USA at the world cup and they are more then 10 places behinde them, so I don't really think that after 7 monthes (I think...) the world cup preformence counts soo much that its ok to put a team like USA at 7th place... =-=-=-=EdIt=-=-=-=-= now that I look at the ranking, Egypt,Iran,Tunisia,Honduras, they are ahead of Israel,but if they well have a 5 games playoff against Israel well they beat Israel??-hell no!! Israel are on their way to... Euro 2004!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleD Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 quote:Originally posted by ziv2002 Ed I think you are wrong,becouse look at Holland,thare 5th and they wornt even at the last world cup! Costa Rica got only 1 point at the last world cup, and they are 18th! Korea did alot beter then USA at the world cup and they are more then 10 places behinde them, so I don't really think that after 7 monthes (I think...) the world cup preformence counts soo much that its ok to put a team like USA at 7th place... It's not just based on one World Cup. USA has been in the last 4 World Cups. Sure, one was as host, but they still had to win to qualify the other 3 times. Twice in those 4 times, they made it past the group stage. Also, they started with a lower ranking than some of the "bigger" teams, which means they could jump higher. A team like Italy, who had a high ranking, then started slowly in WC 02 qualifying, then lost 2 of 4 games at the 02 WC, then had bad results in early Euro 04 qualifying, which didn't help there ranking. Holland, while not qualifying for 2002, made it to the semi-finals of 98, the semi-finals of Euro 2000, and are doing well in Euro 2004 qualifying. Anyways, most people think the FIFA rankings are quite useless. There is no real good rankings of nations going. Some people look to the ELO ratings, but that system had Holland ranked first during the last WC based on the losses big teams like Argentina and France had. Still, USA can't really be looked at as a pushover for traditional big teams, but they still will be. Oh, and Costa Rica had 4 points at the last World Cup. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziv2002 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 littleD you are right, but if USA were at the UEFA qualifting groups for the world cup-I dont think they would have made it... Israel are on their way to... Euro 2004!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bettermirror Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 usa would not qualify out of europe. probably not africa either. there ain't gonna be any middle any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littleD Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 quote:Originally posted by ziv2002 littleD you are right, but if USA were at the UEFA qualifting groups for the world cup-I dont think they would have made it... That's not important. They aren't part of Europe, would never have to qualify out of Europe. Maybe suggest to Blatter to just put all 204 teams from the rankings into a big hat, draw off 102 pairings, and playoff until you reach a certain amount of teams for a World Cup. [8D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJT Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 quote:Originally posted by bettermirror it also puts into account the performances of your youth national teams. Do you mean that it also takes into account the performances of youth national teams? That is not true, only the full (senior) national teams are considered. quote:Originally posted by littleD It's not just based on one World Cup. USA has been in the last 4 World Cups. You're right that it's not based on just one World Cup, but it doesn't go as far back as four World Cups. The rankings take into consideration only those matches played in the last 8 years (so the most current rankings do not take into consideration any match played before July 1996). Therefore only two World Cups are used. quote:Originally posted by ziv2002 so I don't really think that after 7 monthes (I think...) the world cup preformence counts soo much Actually, generally speaking, the points obtained in World Cup matches played within the last 12 months are worth more than any other match. The most current ranking is from June 2003, so last year's World Cup actually counts more than any match played between July 2002 and June 2003. In the next ranking (July 30, 2003), last year's World Cup matches will be worth less. May I kindly suggest that anyone who is interested in finding out how the rankings work please read the document at the link I posted above? Here it is again: http://www.fifa.com/en/rank/procedures.html. Every time this discussion takes place on here or other boards there is a lot of false information passed around because people don't take the time to read the real explanation as provided by FIFA. BTW, I've moved this topic to the General Discussion section because it's not about Canadian national teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ziv2002 Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 thank you DJT, well,I see that the north york astros arn't doing so good so you are trying to put you ming in other things? :-) Israel are on their way to... Euro 2004!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trueviking Posted July 14, 2003 Author Share Posted July 14, 2003 DJT...if it is results that i am missing, then please explain this..in the last 70 matches that the american team has played they have beaten only 3 teams ranked in the top 20. excluding mexico, who they seem to play every month and beat about half the time, they have only managed one win against ireland (14th) and one win against portugal (15th). those are the best results they have had in 70 matches (almost 5 years!)...how could that possibly warrant a 9th place ranking in the world? it makes no sense. they rarely play and almost never beat any team in the top ranks. Most american games are with teams ranked in the 30 to 60 range. they certainly play these teams a lot, but beating middle of the road central american countries is hardly justification to be ranked with the likes of england and italy. imagine the results they would have playing jamaica and el salvador 3 times a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ed Posted July 14, 2003 Share Posted July 14, 2003 And the US team has world class keepers. England doesn't. Man U just acquired USA's 3rd string (at best) keeper from the MLS. Free the banana cream 3! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loud Mouth Soup Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 And the US team has world class keepers. England doesn't. Man U just acquired USA's 3rd string (at best) keeper from the MLS. I'm gonna excuse myself while I laugh out loud at you. Apart from Friedel and MAYBE Keller...US keepers can't touch English keepers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoyleG Posted July 15, 2003 Share Posted July 15, 2003 quote:Originally posted by trueviking DJT...if it is results that i am missing, then please explain this..in the last 70 matches that the american team has played they have beaten only 3 teams ranked in the top 20. excluding mexico, who they seem to play every month and beat about half the time, they have only managed one win against ireland (14th) and one win against portugal (15th). those are the best results they have had in 70 matches (almost 5 years!)...how could that possibly warrant a 9th place ranking in the world? it makes no sense. they rarely play and almost never beat any team in the top ranks. Most american games are with teams ranked in the 30 to 60 range. they certainly play these teams a lot, but beating middle of the road central american countries is hardly justification to be ranked with the likes of england and italy. imagine the results they would have playing jamaica and el salvador 3 times a year. If you can pump out the number of friendlies as the Americans have, you are bound to keep your place in the rankings. Many of this mid-ranked teams can go pound-for-pound with the higher ups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.