FIFA Rankings - July [R]

Duane Rollins1555362254 · July 12, 2006

Are the ranking bunk?

For many teams...likely. For Canada...no, I think it's about right.

As others have stated, this is great news for Canada. Draws in tournaments and work permits aside, we won't have to read that Canada is ranked 80-whatever in the world between this small, poor country and this small, poor country again anytime soon. The fact that the old FIFA ranking were bunk and that Canada wasn't really the 80-whatever best team in the world was lost to a casual observer. The media picked up on the only think it had to pick up on...the actual rankings and reported what they were. We all knew they weren't right, but sounded like crackpots when defending the team..."no, really, I swear, we aren't that bad. Really. Trust me. We beat Switzerland once, you know."

I've always said that we need to improve that ranking, regardless of whether we thought the system was fair or not. A higher ranking provides all the pre-mentioned on-the-pitch advantages and it provides a bunch of R-E-S-P-E-C-T advantages too.

It's a new WC cycle. We can forget phantom penalties and AWOL managers and focus on the positives for a while. This is one of them. It will be Gold Cup time soon enough and we will have something to bitch about.

nolando · July 12, 2006

Yeah, Guineau popped out at me too...WTF??

dbailey62 · July 12, 2006

quote:Originally posted by MediaGuy

Are the ranking bunk?

For many teams...likely. For Canada...no, I think it's about right.

As others have stated, this is great news for Canada. Draws in tournaments and work permits aside, we won't have to read that Canada is ranked 80-whatever in the world between this small, poor country and this small, poor country again anytime soon. The fact that the old FIFA ranking were bunk and that Canada wasn't really the 80-whatever best team in the world was lost to a casual observer. The media picked up on the only think it had to pick up on...the actual rankings and reported what they were. We all knew they weren't right, but sounded like crackpots when defending the team..."no, really, I swear, we aren't that bad. Really. Trust me. We beat Switzerland once, you know."

I've always said that we need to improve that ranking, regardless of whether we thought the system was fair or not. A higher ranking provides all the pre-mentioned on-the-pitch advantages and it provides a bunch of R-E-S-P-E-C-T advantages too.

Exactly what I feel. Public perception is much better for 54 than 83. We look like we're in the same ballpark. We can actually see the pot of gold (way off in the distance). Before, others had to tell us about it.

It sure looks better in print too!

db

RS · July 12, 2006

Just wanted to add that the following CP report that this is Canada's highest ranking is incorrect. Canada was 40th in January 1997.

Source

Canada best-ever 54th in FIFA ranks

Jul. 12, 2006. 02:52 PM

ZURICH, Switzerland (CP-AP) — Canada jumped a whopping 29 spots in FIFA's redesigned world soccer rankings to a best-ever 54th place.

Brazil remained No. 1 with World Cup champion Italy moving up to No. 2 in the rankings released Wednesday.

Canada made up huge ground on its May ranking of 83rd without playing a single game in the three-month span and without having an entry in the World Cup.

But Kevan Pipe, the Canadian Soccer Association's deputy chief operating officer, wasn't overly thrilled by the news.

"We've always said we didn't believe we were an 83rd-ranked team, neither do we know we're a top-10 team, but we always felt we were in that area of 50-ish," Pipe said in a phone interview from Ottawa. "So this kind of reaffirms where we thought. At the same time, we've just improved 29 spots overnight, no-one's excited by this, life hasn't changed."

Canada is sandwiched between No. 53 Guatemala and 54th-ranked Angola, which played in the World Cup.

The team's previous best was No. 55 in 2000 when Canada won the Gold Cup and earned a berth in the Confederations Cup.

"We never got terribly excited when we were improving in the rankings, and we were never terribly bothered when we were not improving in the rankings," said Pipe. "It's mainly a statistician's dream."

Under the new ranking system, which changes the criteria for rating the world's top teams, Argentina moved into third place with France No. 4 and England No. 5.

Except for Brazil, the other top teams all moved up several places from the rankings published before the World Cup. Italy improved 10 places, Argentina six, France four and England improved five.

Rounding out the top 10 were: the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany and the Czech Republic.

The new system takes into account games played over the last four years instead of the last eight. It also changes the weighting system, with more importance given to World Cup games vs. friendly games. Regional strength is also considered, as are opponents, goals scored and conceded, and home or away venues.

The United States and Mexico were two of the biggest losers.

The United States, knocked out in the first round of the World Cup, dropped from No. 5 to 16. Mexico, which reached the second round, fell from No. 4 to 18.

The United States reached No. 4 in FIFA's April ranking, which drew attention to the inequity in FIFA's old ranking system.

Both teams play in CONCACAF — the North American and Caribbean region — which is one of world soccer's weakest areas.

Making up the second 10 in the rankings were: Nigeria, Cameroon, Switzerland, Uruguay, Ukraine, United States, Denmark, Mexico, Paraguay and Ivory Coast.

Germany, which finished third in the World Cup and was the host nation, moved up 10 spots from 19 to No. 9. Germany suffered under the old system because, as host nation, it played no qualifying games.

Ukraine was another big mover, jumping 30 places to 15 thanks to its quarter-final appearance. Ghana, which reached the second round, also took a big jump going from 48 to 25.

RS · July 12, 2006