FIFA rankings - why they are important and how to beat the system

[SthMelbRed]

2 hours ago, Free kick said:

You guys have to look at the history of the WC.   I have alluded to this before but,  having to play the tournament host is a terrible proposition at the group stage.  And I say that irrespective of the host stature, pedigree and ranking.   Its always in the tournaments/FIFA advantage to have the hosts at least advance.  Add to that you the home crowd advantage and you have a situation whereby you would be better off facing any of the top seven ranked sides in the world because those teams will always pick their spots in the group stage.  The tops sides will use the group stage to experiment and will focus their training and planning to peak at the knockout stage.  Hence you can steal points against them in the group stage but that wont happen with the tournament hosts.  

Briefly,  getting into the same group as Qatar would be the worst of the group we would want to get into.  

Qatar is unlike any previous tournament host. They don't have real supporters. Their team isn't necessarily any good. The success of the tournament is not contingent on engaged and passionate local fans turning up. 

[Sal333]

I'm looking at the FIFA rankings and I'm questioning the validity of those rankings. At the start of this round we were 40th, the states 11th and Mexico 14th. We drew the first game and won the second from both those teams. And our wins were solid wins. We didn't luck in.

So if the USA is 11th and Mexico is 14th doesn't that tell you that we can be very competitive with teams ranked from 15th to 39th?

I think the problem with those FIFA rankings is that they're not a snap shot of the present day national team but rather a video clip of the team over the past years. For example take Canada. If we assume that the states and Mexico are properly slotted then with the results of this WC qualifying competition we should be ranked around the 11th to 14th position but we're not because our results of two, three, four years ago are still being considered in our ranking. This team has nothing in common with the Canadian team of 4-5 years ago.

So I wouldn't worry too much about Pot 3 or Pot 4. It would be great if we got into Pot 3 but  it ain't a killer. I really feel  this team is superior to many of the teams ranked between us and the states or Mexico.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Sal333

[Sal333]

34 minutes ago, baulderdash77 said:

Wasn’t the US a top 10 team when we played them?

Yesterday's game they were 13th, I believe.

[kacbru]

5 minutes ago, Sal333 said:

I'm looking at the FIFA rankings and I'm wondering how valid are those rankings. At the start of this round we were 40th, the states 11th and Mexico 14th. We drew the first game and won the second from both those teams. And our wins were solid wins. We didn't luck in.

So if the USA is 11th and Mexico is 14th doesn't that tell you that we can be very competitive with teams ranked from 15th to 39th?

I think the problem with those FIFA rankings is that they're not a snap shot of the present day national team but rather a video clip of the team over the past years. For example take Canada. If we assume that the states and Mexico are properly slotted then with the results of this WC qualifying competition we should be ranked around the 11th to 14th position but we're not because our results of two, three, four years ago are still being considered in our ranking. This team has nothing in common with the Canadian team of 4-5 years ago.

So I wouldn't worry too much about Pot 3 or Pot 4. It would be great if we got into Pot 3 but  it ain't a killer. I really feel  this team is superior to many of the teams ranked between us and the states or Mexico.

I agree. Pot 3 or pot 4, doesn't matter. Our group will be the group of death. Teams from pot 1 and 2 will be crossing their fingers and toes that they don't get drawn with us. 

[theaub]

8 minutes ago, Sal333 said:

I'm looking at the FIFA rankings and I'm questioning the validity of those rankings. At the start of this round we were 40th, the states 11th and Mexico 14th. We drew the first game and won the second from both those teams. And our wins were solid wins. We didn't luck in.

So if the USA is 11th and Mexico is 14th doesn't that tell you that we can be very competitive with teams ranked from 15th to 39th?

I think the problem with those FIFA rankings is that they're not a snap shot of the present day national team but rather a video clip of the team over the past years. For example take Canada. If we assume that the states and Mexico are properly slotted then with the results of this WC qualifying competition we should be ranked around the 11th to 14th position but we're not because our results of two, three, four years ago are still being considered in our ranking. This team has nothing in common with the Canadian team of 4-5 years ago.

So I wouldn't worry too much about Pot 3 or Pot 4. It would be great if we got into Pot 3 but  it ain't a killer. I really feel  this team is superior to many of the teams ranked between us and the states or Mexico.

Yeah the ELO is far superior to the FIFA rankings (although the FIFA ones are better than 5 years ago or so).  The thing is I don't think the US/Mexico are top 15 countries either.  They're too high and Canada is too low.  The ELO has all three countries jammed into the 20-25 range which seems about right to me.

[archer21]

What month’s ranking do they use for placing teams in pots? Any chance we see some late friendlies if we need like 10 points to move into pot 3?

[IT20062021]

3 hours ago, Free kick said:

You guys have to look at the history of the WC.   I have alluded to this before but,  having to play the tournament host is a terrible proposition at the group stage.  And I say that irrespective of the host stature, pedigree and ranking.   Its always in the tournaments/FIFA advantage to have the hosts at least advance.  Add to that you the home crowd advantage and you have a situation whereby you would be better off facing any of the top seven ranked sides in the world because those teams will always pick their spots in the group stage.  The tops sides will use the group stage to experiment and will focus their training and planning to peak at the knockout stage.  Hence you can steal points against them in the group stage but that wont happen with the tournament hosts.  

Briefly,  getting into the same group as Qatar would be the worst of the group we would want to get into.  

Valid points, can’t deny that. I still think they’d be an advantage of facing Qatar instead of the top-7. Some of the same reasons you outline could also apply to some of them.

Anyway this all subjective speculation, but if there’s no advantage in catching Qatar, then there certainly isn’t any advantage of facing South Korea, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia (pot4), rather then Morocco, Iran, Peru (pot3), to name a few. At least in my view 

 

 

[Lansdude]

3 minutes ago, archer21 said:

What month’s ranking do they use for placing teams in pots? Any chance we see some late friendlies if we need like 10 points to move into pot 3?

The draw is in April so it looks like there won't be any time for that.

[Lansdude]

4 minutes ago, IT20062021 said:

Valid points, can’t deny that. I still think they’d be an advantage of facing Qatar instead of the top-7. Some of the same reasons you outline could also apply to some of them.

Anyway this all subjective speculation, but if there’s no advantage in catching Qatar, then there certainly isn’t any advantage of facing South Korea, Ecuador, Saudi Arabia (pot4), rather then Morocco, Iran, Peru (pot3), to name a few. At least in my view 

 

 

The difference is clearer when you look at the top of Pot 3 vs. bottom of Pot 4. I'd rather face Saudi Arabia than Sweden, e.g.

[Kyle_The_Hill]

4 minutes ago, archer21 said:

What month’s ranking do they use for placing teams in pots? Any chance we see some late friendlies if we need like 10 points to move into pot 3?

The final draw is scheduled to take place in Doha, Qatar on 3 April 2022, prior to the completion of qualification. The two winners of the inter-confederation play-offs will not be known at the time of the draw.

So no, since it would be right after the March window. As someone mentioned though, inter-confederation play-offs winners likely locked in as pot 4.

[Neil R.]

6 hours ago, Miche said:

Currently (w/ some assumptions):

Pot 1		Pot 2		Pot 3		Pot 4
Qatar	1437	Denmark	1654	Sweden	1588	South Korea	1516
Belgium	1828	Netherlands	1653	Wales	1578	Nigeria	1509
Brazil	1818	Germany	1648	Senegal	1566	Tunisia	1489
France	1786	Switzerland	1642	Peru	1566	Canada	1488
Argentina	1758	Mexico	1641	Iran	1565	Cameroon	1472
England	1755	USA	1637	Serbia	1547	Ecuador	1456
Italy	1740	Croatia	1620	Morocco	1547	Saudi Arabia	1444
Spain	1704	Uruguay	1605	Japan	1539	Panama	1382

So unless we get Qatar's group or someone like Senegal makes Pot 2, we're going to get either 2 European teams from Pot 1 and 2 or 1 South American and 1 European.

If the intercontinental playoff teams get Pot 4 and we make Pot 3, it would suck to get 2 very strong European teams and then Peru, or whoever the CONMEBOL rep is in Pot 4, should they win their playoff.

[Kyle_The_Hill]

23 minutes ago, Neil R. said:

So unless we get Qatar's group or someone like Senegal makes Pot 2, we're going to get either 2 European teams from Pot 1 and 2 or 1 South American and 1 European.

If the intercontinental playoff teams get Pot 4 and we make Pot 3, it would suck to get 2 very strong European teams and then Peru, or whoever the CONMEBOL rep is in Pot 4, should they win their playoff.

Oh yeah, I didn't even think of that. I mean pot 3 is still better but not ideal that there will likely be 2 CONMEBOL pot 4 teams.

I guess we're cheering for Australia in inter-continental playoffs then.

[Daniel]

In the past, I remember they've at least once just threw teams into continental groups and distributed them without intra-confederation seeding. Like the 5 Asian teams with the 3 Concacaf teams across 8 groups, for example.

Has the draw method been confirmed?

[Kyle_The_Hill]

2 minutes ago, Daniel said:

In the past, I remember they've at least once just threw teams into continental groups and distributed them without intra-confederation seeding. Like the 5 Asian teams with the 3 Concacaf teams across 8 groups, for example.

Has the draw method been confirmed?

We're assuming same as 2018.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_FIFA_World_Cup_seeding

@Olympique_de_Marseille can you find something?

[Unnamed Trialist]

For those wondering about rankings:

First, we have risen because we are getting results against superior rivals in the rankings. 

Next, if you really want to rise in FIFA rankings, win your confederation championship. The US and Mexico share this honour, and that is the key factor keeping their rankings high. For the US, not even missing the last WC put a serious dent in their ranking.

Finally, Nations League is an added prize. Instead of teams playing friendlies in these windows, they are now official matches and I believe more ranking points are at stake. 

Conclusion:

-beat or draw in official competitions the rivals in your region who are above you, namely the US and Mexico. 

-beat or draw them consistently

-beat them, especially, in the Gold Cup. 

-once you are high in the rankings, do not lose or draw teams below you, consistently beat them and at worse, draw them. 

-repeat this over a few Gold Cups and WC qualifying cyles.

Edited January 31, 2022 by Unnamed Trialist

[Kyle_The_Hill]

Ignore, out of date chart

Edited January 31, 2022 by Kyle_The_Hill

[theaub]

If its that pool of teams we'd be in Pot 3 with a win on Wednesday.

[youllneverwalkalone]

Personally, I'd like England, Croatia, Japan for maximum divided loyalties amongst my friends & family. There are a few recent Canada plastics in that group that I want to submit to our inevitable world domination. I'd also love to see AD ruin Germany's chances, but it's never a bad idea to avoid them if you have any hope of the round of 16. 

[theaub]

Beating England and torpedoing their WC campaign would be the optimal move until it results in them poaching Herdman.

[youllneverwalkalone]

[rydermike]

If we beat El Salvador we rise above Russia into 33rd (unless the African teams are able to rise as well). Egypt (#37) plays Cameroon (#39) in the AFCON semis. They can't lose points for losing, but I think they can win points

 

The Live rankings have us at 1488.45 and a W of ES gives us another 9.37 points = 1497.82

https://football-ranking.com/fifa_rankings

https://football-ranking.com/calculate?match=20220203_SLV_CAN

 

Edited February 1, 2022 by rydermike

[Sal333]

1 hour ago, theaub said:

Beating England and torpedoing their WC campaign would be the optimal move until it results in them poaching Herdman.

Herdman is under contract till 2026. I don't follow the business side of this sport but has any club ever paid for a manager? If one of the rich EPL teams offered CSA 100 M pounds for Herdman how many would take the money and have Herdman go? 100 million pounds would pay for a lot of U23s, U20s U17s camps but I wonder if John isn't more important to us.

Edited February 1, 2022 by Sal333

[SthMelbRed]

Just now, Sal333 said:

Herdman is under contract till 2026. I don't follow the business side of this sport but has any club ever paid for a manager? If one of the rich EPL teams offered CSA 100 M pounds for Herdman how many would do it. 100 million pounds would pay for a lot of U23s, U20s U17s camps but I wonder if John isn't more important to us.

Yes. Clubs pay all the time to release managers from existing contracts. However, the figure you're suggesting is ridiculous.

[rydermike]

7 minutes ago, Sal333 said:

Herdman is under contract till 2026. I don't follow the business side of this sport but has any club ever paid for a manager? If one of the rich EPL teams offered CSA 100 M pounds for Herdman how many would do it. 100 million pounds would pay for a lot of U23s, U20s U17s camps but I wonder if John isn't more important to us.

The highest transfer fee for a manager ever was Julian Nagelsmann for 25 million euros and that nearly doubled the previous record

Herdman won't cost anywhere near 100 million pounds.  Maybe 5 at the  max

Here's the top 5 all time

https://www.sportbible.com/football/football-news-the-top-five-manager-transfer-fees-as-bayern-munich-smash-record-20210427

Edited February 1, 2022 by rydermike

[theaub]

Time for Newcastle to splash the cash.