Forza_Italia Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Italy have jumped over Brazil to lead the FIFA World Rankings for the first time since November 1993. The Azzurri have brought the Selecao’s 55-month run as leaders to an end after the South American nation lost 2-0 to Portugal last week. The World Cup winners were scheduled to play a friendly with Romania seven days ago, but the match was cancelled after rioting fans in Catania killed a policeman following a Serie A match. There are no other changes in the top five with Argentina, France and Germany all trailing Brazil in second. Spain have returned to the top 10 for the first time since October last year. The next FIFA World Rankings will be published on March 14, 2007. Top 10 1 (2) Italy – 1,562 points 2 (1) Brazil – 1,540 3 (3) Argentina – 1,535 4 (4) France – 1,496 5 (5) Germany – 1,359 6 (6) England – 1,330 7 (7) Netherlands – 1,312 8 (9) Portugal – 1,262 9 (10) Czech Republic – 1,193 10 (12) Spain – 1,161 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJB Posted February 14, 2007 Share Posted February 14, 2007 Interesting. Scotland at number 20? Cameroon at 17? Otherwise I think it's pretty reflective of world football, especially when you look at the top 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forza_Italia Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 I guess Scotland being 20 for the defeat angainst France and being second in their qualifying group. Not so sure about Cameroon unless that played an african cup or something similiar as the big tourneys give more points for wins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 The new ranking system is worse then the old one. And the old one wasn't good to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Forza_Italia I guess Scotland being 20 for the defeat angainst France and being second in their qualifying group. Not so sure about Cameroon unless that played an african cup or something similiar as the big tourneys give more points for wins You can't really be skeptical about Cameroon's ranking if you don't even know that there was an African Nations Cup within the last 12 months, can you now? [^] In that tournament, Cameroon played 3 world cup teams winning 2 and drawing the other. Hence, their ranking explained. Scotland at #20 doesn't seem that ridiculous either. Overall the rankings seem decent/realistic to me. There will always be a couple of question-marks no matter what formula they use (for me, its Czech Republic at #9?? [)]) since different confederations have their championship at different times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forza_Italia Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 Nobody Is ever completly happy with the rankings. what can ya do Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forza_Italia Posted February 15, 2007 Author Share Posted February 15, 2007 quote:Originally posted by amacpher You can't really be skeptical about Cameroon's ranking if you don't even know that there was an African Nations Cup within the last 12 months, can you now? [^] In that tournament, Cameroon played 3 world cup teams winning 2 and drawing the other. Hence, their ranking explained. Scotland at #20 doesn't seem that ridiculous either. Overall the rankings seem decent/realistic to me. There will always be a couple of question-marks no matter what formula they use (for me, its Czech Republic at #9?? [)]) since different confederations have their championship at different times. Thats what I said for cameroon. When Euro 2008 hits all euro teams will get a boost and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuff Zed Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack The new ranking system is worse then the old one. And the old one wasn't good to begin with. What would you suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Nuff Zed What would you suggest? The ELO ratings (scroll down): http://eloratings.net/ The main reason the current system sucks is because the swings are too wild. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuff Zed Posted February 15, 2007 Share Posted February 15, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack The ELO ratings (scroll down): http://eloratings.net/ The main reason the current system sucks is because the swings are too wild. The ELO ranks Canada at 61, while FIFA places us at 87. I wonder why there's such a spread between the two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 The reason there is such a spread is because the FIFA rankings are mathematically designed to make the UEFA teams look better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack The reason there is such a spread is because the FIFA rankings are mathematically designed to make the UEFA teams look better. Well... they are better. [:I] The previous FIFA ranking system was really really poor. Wasn't Mexico and the USA both in the top 5?? *LOL* Granted this new formula hasn't been put to the test yet. A World Cup year is probably the easiest year for a formula to spit-out a semi-decent ranking (As this one currently is). IT will be interesting to see how (un)realistic this ranking will be a year from now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted February 16, 2007 Share Posted February 16, 2007 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Well... they are better. [:I] The previous FIFA ranking system was really really poor. Wasn't Mexico and the USA both in the top 5?? *LOL* Granted this new formula hasn't been put to the test yet. A World Cup year is probably the easiest year for a formula to spit-out a semi-decent ranking (As this one currently is). IT will be interesting to see how (un)realistic this ranking will be a year from now. It's true that UEFA is better. But the formula for the ranking gives an unfair bias towards Europe in the way it is calculated. For example. If Canada beat England they would get less points in the ranking than if Georgia beat England. That's just plain unfair. And I'm not lying about this, I'm just too lazy to dig up the links that prove this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nuff Zed Posted February 20, 2007 Share Posted February 20, 2007 Given that this is the case, how did Mexico and the United States attain such high positions in the FIFA rankings? If Canada beat Mexico, do they get more points than if Georgia beat Mexico? Would FIFA not be able to provide the most informed national rankings, as they control the world's game and organize the only qualifying and final tournaments? All ranking systems are subjective to a degree. Unless rankings give some type of competitive benefits, the only position that really matters is number one. Who is the best? In my opinion whoever is the current world champion, in this case Italy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Massive Attack It's true that UEFA is better. But the formula for the ranking gives an unfair bias towards Europe in the way it is calculated. For example. If Canada beat England they would get less points in the ranking than if Georgia beat England. That's just plain unfair. And I'm not lying about this, I'm just too lazy to dig up the links that prove this. I don't really know how it all works, but wouldn't those Georgia points be because Georgia has more of an opportunity to play England in an official qualifying tournament for the Eurocup or World Cup, and those tournaments are weighted more heavily than a friendly? If we were to get a result vs. England in a World Cup, would that mean the same points for us as if Georgia were to do so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massive Attack Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 Say for instance Canada defeated England 1-0 in the World Cup. Later Georgia beats England 1-0 in the World Cup as well. Georgia would get more points for that. That's why the ranking is biased and bullsh.it. Edit: Here is a much better explanation of the bias that FIFA has in the rankings. Thanks to mosesmalone at Maxxed. The link will only work if you are a member of their forum: http://fbtz.com/forum/showpost.php?p=469347&postcount=26 Here are the big problems with regional strength in the new system: 1. Oceania, as a confederation, has played four games in the last three World Cups, all by one team - Australia. Meanwhile, African teams have played in 49 games during the last three World Cups. For some reason, FIFA seem to think that a four game sample is equivilent to a 49-game sample. It's not. Sample size needs to be balanced to get an accurate rating. Previously, FIFA took the top 25% (or five teams in the case of OFC) of a confederation to determine strength. Now, over a paltry three games, one, three, or four teams can reflect on an entire continent. 2. FIFA now use regional strength averages to determine points. Example: Germany beats England - 3 (win) x 1.00 (friendly) x 1.95 (England's strength) x 1.00 (regional strength - 1.00 + 1.00 / 2) x 100 (multiplication factor) = 585. Grenada beats England - 3 (win) x 1.00 (friendly) x 1.95 (England's strength) x 0.925 (regional strength - 0.85 + 1.00 / 2) x 100 (multiplication factor) = 541. As you can see, Grenada, because of CONCACAF's poor regional strength, are actually punished for beating England. Basically, a team from a lesser confederation - CONCACAF, CAF, AFC, or OFC - will get 7.5% fewer points for beating a UEFA opponent than a neighboring European country will. If that's not the most corrupt, retarded mathematical system ever, then I don't know what is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 I thought alot of this was changed a few months ago when the revamped the system and that saw Canada jump up to 55 for one month? (which was strange in itself as the slipped "back to normal" the next month). Could somebody tell me what exactly was changed? I only recall the amount of years changing now. I also heard that theres no automatic points for an away team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted February 21, 2007 Share Posted February 21, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Nuff Zed All ranking systems are subjective to a degree. Unless rankings give some type of competitive benefits, the only position that really matters is number one. Actually even that doesn't matter. The rankings don't matter, period. Only people living in small-time footballing nations even follow them. BTW, Italy weren't ranked #1 after they won the World Cup. They only climbed to #1 after Portugal beat Brasil in a friendly earlier this month. [:I] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Forza_Italia Posted February 26, 2007 Author Share Posted February 26, 2007 They put themselves in that position because of the World cup win. I think Italy winning the world cup pushed them higher than Brazil losing, that was just the icing on the cake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by amacpher Actually even that doesn't matter. The rankings don't matter, period. Only people living in small-time footballing nations even follow them. BTW, Italy weren't ranked #1 after they won the World Cup. They only climbed to #1 after Portugal beat Brasil in a friendly earlier this month. [:I] Rankings can affect seedings so they do matter. They matter in Concacaf world cup qualifying for example. Also for qualifying for the Gold Cup, for those that have to go through it. They matter for other qualifying tournaments with group play, though I am not sure if UEFA uses their own coefficients or Fifa's. They have a huge impact on club competitions, such as Uefa and Champions, as well as Libertadores. They even matter in such weird things as promotion and relegation in Argentina, a very odd case. So it is worth having a system that could be relatively reliable: if Canada is unfairly ranked too low that would mean we could be getting semi-final groups in WC qualifying that are too hard for our quality. Say the US gets unfairly dropped in rankings, and ends up in a semi-final group with Mexico: so there is some merit in calculating them in a serious way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. Rankings matter for other qualifying tournaments with group play, though I am not sure if UEFA uses their own coefficients or Fifa's. UEFA seeding is based purely on match results (ie. team's W/D/L record in meaningful matches). quote: They have a huge impact on club competitions, such as Uefa and Champions, as well as Libertadores. hmmm... no, FIFA rankings are not used for club competitions in any way, shape or form. quote: They even matter in such weird things as promotion and relegation in Argentina, a very odd case. okay, you must be thinking about something else. Promotion and relegation in Argentina is based purely on Won-draw-loss record or points per match average. Its no different than promotion/relegation in any other league, other than its based on results over 3 years rather than 1 year. quote: So it is worth having a system that could be relatively reliable: if Canada is unfairly ranked too low that would mean we could be getting semi-final groups in WC qualifying that are too hard for our quality. Say the US gets unfairly dropped in rankings, and ends up in a semi-final group with Mexico: so there is some merit in calculating them in a serious way. Not sure exactly how seeding is done at the semifinal CONCACAF qualifying stage. If they base it on FIFA rankings then that is just bat-sh!t crazy, not to mention completely unnecessary! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by amacpher UEFA seeding is based purely on match results (ie. team's W/D/L record in meaningful matches). hmmm... no, FIFA rankings are not used for club competitions in any way, shape or form. okay, you must be thinking about something else. Promotion and relegation in Argentina is based purely on Won-draw-loss record or points per match average. Its no different than promotion/relegation in any other league, other than its based on results over 3 years rather than 1 year. Not sure exactly how seeding is done at the semifinal CONCACAF qualifying stage. If they base it on FIFA rankings then that is just bat-sh!t crazy, not to mention completely unnecessary! What the jist of my post is: rankings can and do matter in many contexts. For national teams and for club competitions. Whether FIFA or UEFA or local rankings. And they do influence seedings in Concacaf qualifying tournaments, I am surprised you did not know that. There is no separate system for ranking in Concacaf, we take the Fifa rankings directly. To decide who does the preliminary playoffs, like ours vs. Belize. To decide the groups for the semis. After that there is no seeding, the HEX is not skewed by rankings. The only real exception to all this is Canada having a free ticket to the Gold Cup, as a past winner, which I think we do not deserve in any case. As for Argentina, saying their system is no different from any other system while admitting the three year averaging is like saying you have long curly red hair except for the fact that you are totally bald. Yes, relegation is decided by a system that includes average results from the previous three years. The two worst teams in the season do not descend, it is those that have the worst average in points of the previous three years that do so, with the teams that are 17th and 18th going into a playoff vs. the teams not promotiong directly from the lower divisions. Thus two will always go down and sometimes three or four. The system of averaging past results is quite criticized, as it is designed to protect stronger, traditional teams in top flight form going down due to one bad year, and punishes the weaker sides who may have actually beaten out a traditional side in league play. A criticism that we would hear in the rest of the "no different" systems you cite if it were really, as you say, no different. Which we do not. Because it is based on what is effectively a system that privileges on the basis of ranking beyond the simple question of results in the competition in question. When you deal with promo-releg in lower divisions in Argentina, if your club is officially affiliated with the national association you in fact get privileges over non-affiliated clubs, it is like a guild almost. Editing again just to say this: if the FIFA rankings had been taken seriously and used in the last World Cup the group the US was in would have been a lot different. If your saying rankings don't matter has anything to do with FIFA unfairly ignoring them and screwing the US with those group play opponents, then I would agree with you. Who cares about FIFA rankings if FIFA itself can't respect them when putting World Cup groups together and ends up unfairly placing a high-ranked team with undeservedly tough opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amacpher Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Jeffrey S. What the jist of my post is: rankings can and do matter in many contexts. Okay, well I was just talking about FIFA rankings, not rankings in general. I mean, the current EPL table is a "ranking" too. And the EPL table determines the English champions. So ,yes, rankings matter. But not the FIFA rankings. quote: And they do influence seedings in Concacaf qualifying tournaments, I am surprised you did not know that. There is no separate system for ranking in Concacaf, we take the Fifa rankings directly. To decide who does the preliminary playoffs, like ours vs. Belize. To decide the groups for the semis. After that there is no seeding, the HEX is not skewed by rankings. That is madness! Why they don't just use results in previous CONCACAF competitions is beyond me. I guess I didn't know about that because it doesn't really affect Canada. They are in no danger of ever not being seeded for the preliminary qualifiers and drawing someone like the USA or Mexico. quote: As for Argentina, saying their system is no different from any other system while admitting the three year averaging is like saying you have long curly red hair except for the fact that you are totally bald. Yes, relegation is decided by a system that includes average results from the previous three years. The two worst teams in the season do not descend, it is those that have the worst average in points of the previous three years that do so, with the teams that are 17th and 18th going into a playoff vs. the teams not promotiong directly from the lower divisions. Thus two will always go down and sometimes three or four. Right! But their relegation is based on a "table". It's misleading to compare that to something like the FIFA rankings which is a formula. quote: Editing again just to say this: if the FIFA rankings had been taken seriously and used in the last World Cup the group the US was in would have been a lot different. If your saying rankings don't matter has anything to do with FIFA unfairly ignoring them and screwing the US with those group play opponents, then I would agree with you. Who cares about FIFA rankings if FIFA itself can't respect them when putting World Cup groups together and ends up unfairly placing a high-ranked team with undeservedly tough opposition. Personally, I don't think any seeding should be used for the World Cup other than a geographical one. But I don't have a huge problem with the way its done now since only 8 teams are seeded (and the USA is nowhere near top 8 material, so I wouldn't say they got "screwed") Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 World Cup Qualifying in CONCACAF is based on the results in the last qualifying tournament. There are 4 pots - A being the top three from the hex, B being the bottom three, C being the 6 semi-finalist who did not advance and D being the remainder. For the Intial round, Pots A & B & C are pooled and 12 groups (10 of 3 and 1 of 2) with nations in the D pot filling out he second and third spots(i.e. Canada vs. Belieze). The winners advance to the Semi-finals. The 3 semi-final groups consist of no more than one team from the A pot, no more than one from the B pot and the remaining from the c/d pots. So if there are upsets, it will not necessarily be A,B,C,C. Our semi final group was C/R (A), Honduras(, Guatemala © and Canada ©. The top two from each group advances toteh Hex. For the next qualifying tournament, Jamiaca & Honduras will drop from the B Pot to the C Pot, while Guatemala and Panama move up a pot. Cuba, despite its 3rd in CONCACAF ranking, will stay in the D pot, behind, for example, St. Kitts. It is a ridiculously complicated system that gets tweaked every go around. For 2010, Cuba and Haiti lurk in the D Pot (one of them - Cuba I think - nearly ousting Costa Rica last go around). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeffery S. Posted February 26, 2007 Share Posted February 26, 2007 quote:Originally posted by Gordon World Cup Qualifying in CONCACAF is based on the results in the last qualifying tournament. There are 4 pots - A being the top three from the hex, B being the bottom three, C being the 6 semi-finalist who did not advance and D being the remainder. For the Intial round, Pots A & B & C are pooled and 12 groups (10 of 3 and 1 of 2) with nations in the D pot filling out he second and third spots(i.e. Canada vs. Belieze). The winners advance to the Semi-finals. The 3 semi-final groups consist of no more than one team from the A pot, no more than one from the B pot and the remaining from the c/d pots. So if there are upsets, it will not necessarily be A,B,C,C. Our semi final group was C/R (A), Honduras(, Guatemala © and Canada ©. The top two from each group advances toteh Hex. For the next qualifying tournament, Jamiaca & Honduras will drop from the B Pot to the C Pot, while Guatemala and Panama move up a pot. Cuba, despite its 3rd in CONCACAF ranking, will stay in the D pot, behind, for example, St. Kitts. It is a ridiculously complicated system that gets tweaked every go around. For 2010, Cuba and Haiti lurk in the D Pot (one of them - Cuba I think - nearly ousting Costa Rica last go around). So I stand corrected, I was wrong. You can be a hot side on the way up and still get a terrible qualifying set-up, forcing you to start from square one and still prove you deserve to be up there. Or you can be pure crap since making the last World Cup and still get a spot in the A pool on the basis of having previously done so. I think it a pretty unfair system as well, it favours tradition and inertia and makes it hard to break into a higher pot from below. I never knew that we are in fact qualifying for a future qualification four years down the road with our current qualification results in Concacaf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.