Start fan in exile Posted June 23, 2006 Share Posted June 23, 2006 Norwegian broadcaster NRK is reporting that Sepp Blatter has annouced that the FIFA ranking system will be overhauled and a new ranking system announced on July 6; the new system will only include results of the past 4 years, not 8 years like the present system. Apparently Blatter used the US as an example of a team that is too highly rated under the present system. http://www.nrk.no/sport/meisterskap/fotball_vm_2006/5723446.html For those who are wondering about the CONCACAF reference (Med dagens system er Mexico og USA fra den svake CONCACAF-regionen nummer fire og fem på FIFA-rankingen.), the translation is "Under the present system, Mexico and the US from the weak CONCACAF region are number 4 and 5 on the FIFA ranking". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and White Army Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 Guess Warner isn't putting out for The Bladder anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolando Posted June 24, 2006 Share Posted June 24, 2006 I doubt that the rankings of the US and Mexico would change all that much. No matter if you look at 5-8 years ago, or only the past four years, they have been qualifying without trouble for the WC and winning most of their preliminary WCQ games without trouble(just as now), which is the main reason why their rankings are so high. If they want to make the rankings of the Czechs and the Yanks and the Mexicans drop down to appropriate levels (and they should- this is a frequently-mentioned point when editorials in places like the States laugh at what's wrong with the game) , they have to put more consideration into the ranking of the teams these countries play against (so that it awards teams much more for beating strong competition that for continually pummelling minnows),and perhaps add exponentially increasing points for each stage a country completes in the World Cup. Even if a Greece or a Korea squeaks through in a tournament, the four-year rule will make them ancient history in the rankings before too long if they can't follow up a surprise string of results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fireman451 Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Maybe the US will be correctly ranked . . . somewhere in the mid 20's to mid 30's. I wish that wasn't true, but the proof is in the pudding. We need a coach that will use our youth and see the World Cup for what it really is . . . a 3 game group stage that's all about scoring. You need at least 2 up top, if not 3. The 4-5-1 is playing to lose, telling your boys they're not good enough to win . . . too bad for Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrennanFan Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 quote:Originally posted by fireman451 Maybe the US will be correctly ranked . . . somewhere in the mid 20's to mid 30's. I wish that wasn't true, but the proof is in the pudding. We need a coach that will use our youth and see the World Cup for what it really is . . . a 3 game group stage that's all about scoring. You need at least 2 up top, if not 3. The 4-5-1 is playing to lose, telling your boys they're not good enough to win . . . too bad for Bruce. Portugal, England, and France all played a 4-5-1, and they werent playing to lose. the problem with the USA is that they suck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 The thing is, only people in small-time footballing nations give the FIFA rankings any thought whatsoever. In all the time I've spent in Europe, I swear I've never heard any mention of the FIFA rankings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winnipeg Fury Posted July 6, 2006 Share Posted July 6, 2006 Revised ranking system to follow World Cup BERLIN (AP) -- Italy should be the big mover when FIFA releases its revised ranking system after the World Cup final. Brazil, already well clear using the old format, is expected to remain atop the FIFA rankings when the new formula is released next Wednesday. Italy plays France in Sunday's World Cup final. Marius Schneider, FIFA's head of information services, said Thursday that Italy could move into the top three depending on the final outcome. He expected Brazil to remain No. 1 regardless. If the new method for calculating rankings was applied before the World Cup, Brazil would have led Czech Republic, Argentina, England and Spain, with France sixth and Italy 10th. "Italy and Germany will move well," he said. "The teams that lose the most will be the ones like Cameroon and Nigeria, that would have been in the Top 10 under the new system but didn't qualify for the World Cup. "The United States, which had good results at the 2002 World Cup, will lose those points and drop back." Under the new system, results will be counted over a four-year period, with weight given to the strength of opponents and the calibre of the tournament. The existing system, introduced in August 1993, calculates results across eight years and factors in the number of goals scored and conceded. It has long been criticized for being too complicated. From now, every result will count, with three points given for a win, one point for a draw and nothing for a loss. Various factors like tournament level and standard of regional competitions also are accounted for. Points from all matches will lose half their value after 12 months, meaning if Italy gained the maximum points for winning the World Cup, it would lose 50 per cent of those by July 2007. The system is designed to give maximum weight to the most recent matches. "It's a change, we can certainly expect there to be some surprises, but don't expect a massive revolution," Schneider said. "The teams that will benefit most are the ones that win important matches against higher-ranked teams." FIFA president Sepp Blatter said the new system was more simple. "We have acknowledged the need for a substantial revision. I am convinced our experts have come up with a satisfactory solution for a new way of calculating rankings," Blatter said in a statement. "It is difficult to meet everybody's expectations, but we are confident that the new system will provide an accurate measure of the strength of each member association." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 Going back four years instead of eight is not going to correct the discrepacies that everyone is complaining about. In fact it will make the rankings far more volatile and less representative. Excellence is achieved in my opinion over the longer term rather than short term and in the span of four years, you will skew the rankings in favour of the "Flash in the pan" sides that caught the wind in their sails rather than the sides that have been consistantly solid. Remember that just four years ago, you had Turkey in the WC semi-finals. A side that barely escaped out of their group due to goal differential as a result of Cost Rica's sillyness. Cmponding this problem is that there will be a bigger discrepancy in games played when you factor in only four instaed of eight years. I see the point regarding the controversy over the US ranking. It is a prime example of what is wrong with the current ranking system. But that is not due to the fact that you go back eight rather than four. It has everything to do with regional discrepancies in relative strenght. That is what should be addressed rather than the lenght of time you go back to factor in the results. The downside, its not going to help Canada's ranking either way. Because, unlike Korea/Japan 2002, this hasn't been a strong WC for Concacaf. Though, for the first time ever, mexico caught my attention with their play at this WC compared to past WC's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 quote:Originally posted by BrennanFan Portugal, England, and France all played a 4-5-1, and they werent playing to lose. the problem with the USA is that they suck. Yes, that has been one of the revelations for me as well in this WC. The 4-5-1 is not the one-eyed monster that I thought it was ever since I watched our loan strikers run out of gas and getting staved up front while playing in Azteca during WCQ 98. It was likely the quality of players that made us look bad in 98 and not Lennaduzzi's 4-5-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free kick Posted July 10, 2006 Share Posted July 10, 2006 quote:Originally posted by amacpher The thing is, only people in small-time footballing nations give the FIFA rankings any thought whatsoever. In all the time I've spent in Europe, I swear I've never heard any mention of the FIFA rankings. Well, in about six weeks, Euro qualifying starts up. In that region, there are international competitions that count for someting going on all the time. So why would they care about a fifa ranking when there are on-going competitions to prove something. They have, by far, the largest number of participants only only the fittest survive. No wonder they, don't give a rats ass about the Fifa rankings, they just need to check the latests group standings. But the rest of world, doesn't get to play in UEFA. So its nice to have something that tells you are faring andthat sustains interest in the years between World Cups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
john tv Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 Finally some fair rankings and yes sir, we are now 54,even ahead of Belgium. Some amazing changes and I am sure happy guys at the CSA and MNT.The best ratings ever for Canada! Congratulations guys! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marktci Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 quote:Originally posted by john tv Finally some fair rankings and yes sir, we are now 54,even ahead of Belgium. Some amazing changes and I am sure happy guys at the CSA and MNT.The best ratings ever for Canada! Congratulations guys! I am curious as to who you are congratulating. FIFA? The men's national team moved up 29 spots without having played a match. They are the same team as they were yesterday, just the accounting is different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted July 12, 2006 Share Posted July 12, 2006 quote:Originally posted by john tv Finally some fair rankings and yes sir, we are now 54,even ahead of Belgium. Some amazing changes and I am sure happy guys at the CSA and MNT.The best ratings ever for Canada! Congratulations guys! We were ranked 40th in the 1990's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Man Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 quote:Originally posted by john tv Finally some fair rankings and yes sir, we are now 54,even ahead of Belgium. Some amazing changes and I am sure happy guys at the CSA and MNT.The best ratings ever for Canada! Congratulations guys! And considering we haven't played a game in months.....I personally blame the pro soccer media in this county. How about this theory. FIFA would be a laughing stock if Canada was ranked 96th and hosted a major tournament. At 56, things don't look so bad and FIFA doesn't look like twats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Yes, of course! FIFA changed the ratings so that Canada wouldn't look bad hosting a U20 World Cup, which, as we know, is always hosted by powerhouses. See 2003, 1997 and 1995 for recent examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.