We are #9

[tmcmurph]

http://www.canadasoccer.com/eng/media/viewArtical.asp?Press_ID=3457

We are now 9th in CONCACAF

FIFA : CONCACAF : Country : Points

22 1 USA 853

26 2 Mexico 811

40 3 Honduras 689

53 4 Costa Rica 578

65 5 Jamaica 487

77 6 Trinidad and Tobago 459

79 7 Cuba 439

88 8 Panama 413

90 9 Canada 410

102 10 Haiti 357

[squizz1402635577]

I chuckle a little bit every time I see a link to a CSA story, because they still haven't figured out how to spell "Article" (see the URL). It's tragically appropriate.

[Guest speedmonk42]

That is he file name of the page that displays the article in the database, so it will remain that way till someone changes it. They are not spelling it wrong over and over again.

[squizz1402635577]

I realize you're technically correct, but quit spoiling my fun!

[Daniel]

quote:Originally posted by speedmonk42

That is he file name of the page that displays the article in the database, so it will remain that way till someone changes it. They are not spelling it wrong over and over again.

Someone should have caught that early on.

[tmcmurph]

Too funny about the spelling. I totally missed it. Back on topic, would it gain us any rankings to play those near us?

77 6 Trinidad and Tobago 459

79 7 Cuba 439

88 8 Panama 413

102 10 Haiti 357

If we played those 4 twice each over the next 3 years and then worked our way up to Jamaica, CR, Hon etc? Would that pad our stats enough to get us back up the rankings before the next WCQ?

Assuming we win all 8 games of course. Not a given but should be doable.

[Mazha]

Canada --- 9th

Haiti --- 10th

And the U20s just spanked theirs!

Hope that means something!

[Mazha]

Canada --- 9th

Haiti --- 10th

And the U20s just spanked theirs!

Hope that means something!

[Toronto Ruffrider]

quote:Originally posted by tmcmurph

Too funny about the spelling. I totally missed it. Back on topic, would it gain us any rankings to play those near us?

77 6 Trinidad and Tobago 459

79 7 Cuba 439

88 8 Panama 413

102 10 Haiti 357

If we played those 4 twice each over the next 3 years and then worked our way up to Jamaica, CR, Hon etc? Would that pad our stats enough to get us back up the rankings before the next WCQ?

Assuming we win all 8 games of course. Not a given but should be doable.

It would certainly help. Our lack of matches against semi-decent opposition outside of the Gold Cup and WCQ doesn't help our standing in CONCACAF. The only way to avoid being drawn into another group of death is to get our regional ranking to stay consistently in the top 6; I don't think that can be accomplished without playing those types of friendlies.

[Toronto Ruffrider]

quote:Originally posted by Mazha

Canada --- 9th

Haiti --- 10th

And the U20s just spanked theirs!

Hope that means something!

Sadly, I think Canada's ranking will continue to drop, at least until after the next Gold Cup. I'm not saying we're worse than Haiti, but being largely idle for the next several months will not improve our standing.

[Edgar]

quote:Originally posted by Toronto Ruffrider

It would certainly help. Our lack of matches against semi-decent opposition outside of the Gold Cup and WCQ doesn't help our standing in CONCACAF. The only way to avoid being drawn into another group of death is to get our regional ranking to stay consistently in the top 6; I don't think that can be accomplished without playing those types of friendlies.

It would be better to be in the top 3 actually, because this means you'll avoid Mexico and the US.

4th is not enough. If CONCACAF had chosen the November 2007 ranking for seeding (with Canada 4th) instead of the May 2007 ranking (Canada in 11th), this is how the first group stage would have looked like:

Group 1: USA, Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti, Cuba

Group 2: Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, Guatemala

Group 3: Honduras, Jamaica, El Salvador, St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Only a slight improvement.

You'll probably remain 90th in the next http://www.football-rankings.info/2008/12/fifa-ranking-january-2009-probable.html.

It's not worth playing against CONCACAF teams (based on the FIFA ranking points you'd get for a win). You should look for opponents from UEFA, CONMEBOL or CAF.

[tmcmurph]

Our ELO rating has also dropped but not as much. A bit more accurate to where I think we really are.

http://www.eloratings.net/america.html

1) Mexico ------- 1814

2) USA ---------- 1790

3) Honduras ----- 1706

4) Costa Rica --- 1683

5) Jamaica ------ 1622

6) T & T -------- 1552

7) Canada ------- 1548

8) Panama ------- 1527

9) Cuba --------- 1440

10)Haiti -------- 1401

[Mazha]

Does any know if U20 results actually have any effects on our men's overall ranking within CONCAF or even the world?

[youllneverwalkalone]

I don't think these ranking are necessarily unfair. I feel pretty good about us against Haiti or Cuba, but recent results show we've had a lot of problems with all the other nations above us. They have all improved a lot, and I'd wager to say they all -save Cuba & Haiti- spend more on their men's program than we do. I'm not even sure we can say we have better players on paper. Maybe than Panama and Costa Rica, but both those teams have given us a lot of trouble in recent meetings. We need to bring in a manager who knows what he's doing and find a way to fill all the international dates. Nothing's going to get better in the short term until this happens.

[Toronto Ruffrider]

quote:Originally posted by Mazha

Does any know if U20 results actually have any effects on our men's overall ranking within CONCAF or even the world?

No, those are separate.

[Toronto Ruffrider]

quote:Originally posted by youllneverwalkalone

I don't think these ranking are necessarily unfair. I feel pretty good about us against Haiti or Cuba, but recent results show we've had a lot of problems with all the other nations above us. They have all improved a lot, and I'd wager to say they all -save Cuba & Haiti- spend more on their men's program than we do. I'm not even sure we can say we have better players on paper. Maybe than Panama and Costa Rica, but both those teams have given us a lot of trouble in recent meetings. We need to bring in a manager who knows what he's doing and find a way to fill all the international dates. Nothing's going to get better in the short term until this happens.

I agree. I used to think we were almost always under-ranked, but our string of disappointing results over the past year has led me to question my original assumption. I'm of the opinion that actions speak louder than words, and it doesn't matter how well we stack up against other nations on paper when we can only beat the likes of St. VAG in crucial games. Until we bring in a manager that can squeeze more juice out of our players, we fully deserve to be ranked 9th or worse in CONCACAF.

[Toronto Ruffrider]

quote:Originally posted by _Edgar_

It would be better to be in the top 3 actually, because this means you'll avoid Mexico and the US.

4th is not enough. If CONCACAF had chosen the November 2007 ranking for seeding (with Canada 4th) instead of the May 2007 ranking (Canada in 11th), this is how the first group stage would have looked like:

Group 1: USA, Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti, Cuba

Group 2: Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, Guatemala

Group 3: Honduras, Jamaica, El Salvador, St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Only a slight improvement.

You'll probably remain 90th in the next http://www.football-rankings.info/2008/12/fifa-ranking-january-2009-probable.html.

It's not worth playing against CONCACAF teams (based on the FIFA ranking points you'd get for a win). You should look for opponents from UEFA, CONMEBOL or CAF.

Actually, according to the November 2007 rankings, the fourth team in our group would have been Guyana (or Suriname, since it upset Guyana in Round 2) and not Guatemala - the latter team was ranked 13th in that month. That change would have pretty much guaranteed that we would've finished no worse than 3rd in our group. Of course, we would have been in tough to get past Mexico and Costa Rica, what with how we played this summer and fall, but at least we would have been spared Jamaica.

Getting into the top 3 would benefit us tremendously come draw time, but we have to be realistic about our chances of holding that kind of ranking for any length of time. If we can consistently stay in the top 6, then chances are we will end up in a semi-final group which isn't much tougher than the other two groups.

[RJB]

We are deservedly in 9th place in CONCACAF. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that that is generous. We played awfully in World Cup Qualifying, and this ranking is indicative of that.

[The Ref]

It would be nice if gains and loses in FIFA rankings were tied to the coach's salary and players' bonuses.

[Guest Ed]

^ That's clever. Deduct money from the players and coach when they don't play?

[Edgar]

quote:Originally posted by Toronto Ruffrider

Actually, according to the November 2007 rankings, the fourth team in our group would have been Guyana (or Suriname, since it upset Guyana in Round 2) and not Guatemala - the latter team was ranked 13th in that month. That change would have pretty much guaranteed that we would've finished no worse than 3rd in our group. Of course, we would have been in tough to get past Mexico and Costa Rica, what with how we played this summer and fall, but at least we would have been spared Jamaica.

Getting into the top 3 would benefit us tremendously come draw time, but we have to be realistic about our chances of holding that kind of ranking for any length of time. If we can consistently stay in the top 6, then chances are we will end up in a semi-final group which isn't much tougher than the other two groups.

Here's an excerpt from an e-mail sent to Mr. Maestracci

How would the groups have looked like with the November 2007 ranking?

The pots:

Pot A (byes to 2nd round)

Mexico

USA

Honduras

Pot B (byes to 2nd round)

Canada

Panama

Haiti

Pot C (byes to 2nd round)

Costa Rica

Cuba

St. Vincent and the Grenadines

Trinidad and Tobago

Guyana

Jamaica

Pot D (byes to 2nd round)

Guatemala

Pot E (1st round)

Barbados

Bermuda

El Salvador

Dominican Republic

Suriname

Antigua and Barbuda

St. Kitts and Nevis

Nicaragua

Grenada

Bahamas

St. Lucia

Pot F (1st round)

British Virgin Islands

Turks and Caicos Islands

Netherlands Antilles

Dominica

Cayman Islands

Puerto Rico

Anguilla

Belize

Aruba

US Virgin Islands

Montserrat

The first round fixtures would have stayed the same, but here's how the second round fixtures would have looked like:

USA - Barbados

Trinidad and Tobago - St. Lucia

Haiti - Bermuda

Antigua and Barbuda - Cuba

Belize - Mexico

Costa Rica - Bahamas

Canada - Puerto Rico

Guatemala - Guyana

Grenada - Honduras

Suriname - Jamaica

Panama - El Salvador

St. Vincent and the Grenadines - Netherlands Antilles

Based on actual results and ranking, this is how the first group stage would have looked like:

Group 1: USA, Trinidad and Tobago, Haiti, Cuba

Group 2: Mexico, Costa Rica, Canada, Guatemala

Group 3: Honduras, Jamaica, El Salvador, St. Vincent and the Grenadines

I'm not sure if that would have been easier for you...

Anyway, why was Canada 11th in May 2007?

Simply put - bad management. You had only 4 matches in the most recent 12 month period, all friendlies. Two wins and two defeats. FIFA's ranking algorithm punishes teams that play less than 5 matches per 12 month period. Basically, it adds a virtual defeat to your record. With a friendly win in February 2007 against a team of Jamaica's rating at that time, you would have been ranked 9th taking Haiti's place. Not bad, is it?

End of excerpt.

It's Guatemala (IMO) because they would have won against Guyana, while Surinam would have played (and lost) against Jamaica. Well, at least on paper...