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

[Kent]

6 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Thanks, very good analysis and I get your points. The idea that we should try to drive a broader core of Concacaf nations higher up into the rankings is quite interesting, never thought about that before. 

I have posted that I thought if a third team, or fourth even, could win the Gold Cup, and now Nations League, with certain regularity, which would be logical (really the US and Mexico sharing it is abnormal, in a short tournament surprises should happen), then we would see those 4 teams in the top 25-30 perhaps. Maybe not seeing top 10 teams, but from 10-30. Which would give us pot 2 and 3 teams.

 

It's hard to say how it would work out without making some sort of model... which is beyond my abilities. But yeah, if 3 or 4 CONCACAF teams get out of the group stage in the World Cup and a couple win at least one knockout round game, that's a step in the right direction.

I am really interested in seeing how the pool of points changes after the World Cup for each confederation. I'll probably lose my interest if Canada loses all 3 of it's games though.

[narduch]

The live rankings have us dropping to 43rd

[narduch]

Officially 43rd now.

 

[Unnamed Trialist]

Would one of the wizzes on the board like to give us a breakdown of what getting results vs. Qatar, Uruguay and even Japan might mean for our ranking?

I am curious to see what we might be at when the WC begins.

[InglewoodJack]

22 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

Would one of the wizzes on the board like to give us a breakdown of what getting results vs. Qatar, Uruguay and even Japan might mean for our ranking?

I am curious to see what we might be at when the WC begins.

According to this site, if we win both games next week, not on PKs, we would gain a little over 11 points (they don't have the Japan match up yet), barring any changes in rankings, that would take us from 43rd, to 38th, just above Australia.

That obviously changes a ton depending on how other teams do. Quick glance and you have teams like Hungary (#37) with two nations league matches against Italy and Germany who could drop a decent amount, and you have Scotland (#45) who is playing Ukraine twice and Ireland, who could jump up a decent amount.

[hodgkiss]

I like being ranked higher -  it will be sweeter when those who underestimate us get thrashed. Bring it!

[Kent]

On 5/27/2022 at 10:28 PM, Kent said:

 

On the topic of confederations gaining points (total of all their nations ranking points) by playing inter-confederation friendlies, there are 4 such friendlies today for CONCACAF.

Costa Rica vs South Korea, USA vs Japan, Honduras vs Argentina, and of course Canada vs Qatar.

If CONCACAF teams win all 4 games they would gain 22.77 points as a confederation. However, Costa Rica already tied South Korea, so the new maximum is 17.77. The minimum possible if Costa Rica had lost their game would have been -17.23 but now stands at -12.23 if the 3 remaining games end in CONCACAF losses.

That theoretical maximum of 17.77 will be very hard to hit. First of all, USA is already losing to Japan 1-0 at half time. Secondly, Honduras beating Argentina would obviously be a massive upset and is very unlikely. Hopefully Canada can at least do it's part, that's the most important game anyways .

[narduch]

Canada up to 41 in the latest FIFA rankings.

[Free kick]

4 hours ago, narduch said:

Canada up to 41 in the latest FIFA rankings.

I saw and read that on the news screen on the elevator today.   First thought was:  How can a 2-0 win against Qatar and a 2-0 loss to Uruguay move us up in the rankings?   

It's kind of beating a dead horse for me to say that these rankings (whether its FIFA or FIBA) don't really make any sense.  FIBA rankings even much worse than the FIFA rankings.  

Edited October 7, 2022 by Free kick

[maplebanana]

4 minutes ago, Free kick said:

I saw and read that on the news screen on the elevator today.   First thought was:  How can a 2-0 win against Qatar and a 2-0 loss to Uruguay move us up in the rankings?   

The score doesn't actually affect the rankings points, only W/L/D and the relative strength of our opponent. In this case, we beat a team ranked slightly lower than us and lost to a team ranked much higher, so the net is mostly a wash but slightly positive (+1.18 pts).

But the real reason we moved up 2 spots is that Norway and Cameroon lost both games, Turkey lost and drew to 2 much worse teams, and Scotland won both their games against good opponents. So 3 down, 1 up all around us = us 2 up.

[Free kick]

42 minutes ago, maplebanana said:

The score doesn't actually affect the rankings points, only W/L/D and the relative strength of our opponent. In this case, we beat a team ranked slightly lower than us and lost to a team ranked much higher, so the net is mostly a wash but slightly positive (+1.18 pts).

But the real reason we moved up 2 spots is that Norway and Cameroon lost both games, Turkey lost and drew to 2 much worse teams, and Scotland won both their games against good opponents. So 3 down, 1 up all around us = us 2 up.

Yeah.  I see what you are getting at and that is, ultimately, exactly what I imagined.   But it still doesnt make sense when look from the bigger picture perspective.  When I honestly look at those ranking, I see a few teams below us that I think are better than us and I see a few teams above us that are in no way better than us.   

Again, beating a dead horse here, but I just believe you can't have a ranking system at the global level that is purely objective for any sport.    They work only for Europe and for European sides because they have many similar sized teams/countries for their sample size and they play each other on an on-going basis every single year multiple times and year after year.  The rest of the world can't do that.  For geographical reasons.  So everyone outside Europe has to suffer.

The mere fact that these kinds ranking system exist and the importance that is placed on them is reflective of the myopic euro centric (and Euro-biased) view of these international organizations like FIFA and FIBA.

 

Edited October 7, 2022 by Free kick

[Unnamed Trialist]

6 minutes ago, Free kick said:

Yeah.  I see what you are getting at and that is, ultimately, exactly what I imagined.   But it still doesnt make sense when look from the bigger picture perspective.  When I honestly look at those ranking, I see a few teams below us that I think are better than us and I see a few teams above us that are in no way better than us.   

Again, beating a dead horse here, but I just believe you can't have a ranking system at the global level that purely objective for any sport.    They work only for Europe and for European sides because they have many similar sized teams/countries for their sample size and they play each other on an on-going basis every single year multiple times and year after year.   

The mere fact that these kinds ranking system exist and the importance that is placed on them is reflective of the myopic euro centric (and Euro-biased) view of these international organizations like FIFA and FIBA.

 

We lost against Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama in recent memory, but our rating slip is Eurocentric and ....help me here a bit, do pray.

[Free kick]

43 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

We lost against Costa Rica, Honduras and Panama in recent memory, but our rating slip is Eurocentric and ....help me here a bit, do pray.

I didnt say anything about our ranking and whether its right or wrong.  or whether i agreed or disagreed with it.  My comment was related to the point of having such a system.   Plus, we didnt slip, we went up.

The last time we played Scotland may have been 20 years ago and yet we have a system that places them one spot ahead us.  Based on what?  the players who played 20 years ago are all long ago retired.  Want to rank Scotland against Europeans side?  yeah, this system will work.  But it won't work if you want to rank Scotland against CRC, Japan, Aus, Can, CMR... etc.   For all I know, they be better all those sides, or worst than all those sides,  I don't know.  None of us know

Edited October 7, 2022 by Free kick

[Unnamed Trialist]

4 hours ago, Free kick said:

I didnt say anything about our ranking and whether its right or wrong.  or whether i agreed or disagreed with it.  My comment was related to the point of having such a system.   Plus, we didnt slip, we went up.

The last time we played Scotland may have been 20 years ago and yet we have a system that places them one spot ahead us.  Based on what?  the players who played 20 years ago are all long ago retired.  Want to rank Scotland against Europeans side?  yeah, this system will work.  But it won't work if you want to rank Scotland against CRC, Japan, Aus, Can, CMR... etc.   For all I know, they be better all those sides, or worst than all those sides,  I don't know.  None of us know

We slipped overall since May because our results are mediocre. We haven't beaten a team better than us in the ranking since the US in Hamilton. We're not punching above our weight lately, not for 9 months.

I treat it that way, and regardless, if in late December we've risen, we know what that will mean.

[Scottie]

5 hours ago, Free kick said:

I didnt say anything about our ranking and whether its right or wrong.  or whether i agreed or disagreed with it.  My comment was related to the point of having such a system.   Plus, we didnt slip, we went up.

The last time we played Scotland may have been 20 years ago and yet we have a system that places them one spot ahead us.  Based on what?  the players who played 20 years ago are all long ago retired.  Want to rank Scotland against Europeans side?  yeah, this system will work.  But it won't work if you want to rank Scotland against CRC, Japan, Aus, Can, CMR... etc.   For all I know, they be better all those sides, or worst than all those sides,  I don't know.  None of us know

Sorry to nitpick because it's not really the point you're making, but...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPqszAD8tJY

[WestHamCanadianinOxford]

11 hours ago, Free kick said:

I didnt say anything about our ranking and whether its right or wrong.  or whether i agreed or disagreed with it.  My comment was related to the point of having such a system.   Plus, we didnt slip, we went up.

The last time we played Scotland may have been 20 years ago and yet we have a system that places them one spot ahead us.  Based on what?  the players who played 20 years ago are all long ago retired.  Want to rank Scotland against Europeans side?  yeah, this system will work.  But it won't work if you want to rank Scotland against CRC, Japan, Aus, Can, CMR... etc.   For all I know, they be better all those sides, or worst than all those sides,  I don't know.  None of us know

Not sure anyone says the system is super accurate (maybe someone inside FIFA does) especially directly comparing one team to another.  

However, Scotland were a couple goals  (off the top of my head) away from being in the same tournament as Canada in less 2 months. You need some measuring stick to help put those teams into your tournament format.  It is impossible for them all to have played recently. As long as the use of rankings is know well in advance (obviously not always been the case) you need them.

 

 Of all the silliness and worse that FIFA participates in,  this is well down list for me.

[Sal333]

13 hours ago, Free kick said:

I saw and read that on the news screen on the elevator today.   First thought was:  How can a 2-0 win against Qatar and a 2-0 loss to Uruguay move us up in the rankings?   

It's kind of beating a dead horse for me to say that these rankings (whether its FIFA or FIBA) don't really make any sense.  FIBA rankings even much worse than the FIFA rankings.  

The two (or was it three) teams ahead of us lost points.

[Kent]

@Free kick, if you are looking for the rankings to mean anyone lower on the list will lose to someone higher that is your own failing. You can’t have a perfect ordering of teams. Even within a league with standings based on results between that group of teams you still end up with upsets.

Besides, what would you suggest to do instead of rankings? Just a straight up draw for the World Cup? If we keep geographic restrictions you could end up with one group having Brazil, France, Germany, and Mexico. Then another group with Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Ghana and Poland. Is this an improvement over the current system?

[Free kick]

On 10/8/2022 at 10:34 AM, Kent said:

@Free kick, if you are looking for the rankings to mean anyone lower on the list will lose to someone higher that is your own failing. You can’t have a perfect ordering of teams. Even within a league with standings based on results between that group of teams you still end up with upsets.

Besides, what would you suggest to do instead of rankings? Just a straight up draw for the World Cup? If we keep geographic restrictions you could end up with one group having Brazil, France, Germany, and Mexico. Then another group with Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Ghana and Poland. Is this an improvement over the current system?

There isn't a perfect system.  We all can acknowledge that. 

[Kent]

I went to this site to see what kind of ranking points we could get in our upcoming friendlies.

http://football-ranking.com/calculate

However, they seem to be missing a lot of friendlies in their schedule, including both of ours. So, instead of that, I thought I'd try to get a sense of what kind of points are at stake in the World Cup for us. Here are 3 extreme scenarios.

Win all 3 group games:
Belgium -> 39.39
Croatia -> 32.91
Morocco -> 29.21
Total -> 101.51 which if everyone stayed on the same points would move us up to 19th in the world rankings.

Tie all 3 group games:
Belgium -> 14.39
Croatia -> 7.91
Morocco -> 4.21
Total -> 26.51 which if everyone stayed on the same points would move us up to 32nd in the world rankings.

Lose all 3 group games:
Belgium -> -10.61
Croatia -> -17.09
Morocco -> -20.79
Total -> -48.49 which if everyone stayed on the same points would move us down to 55th in the world rankings.

One more for good measure, which is maybe blurring the lines between realistic and optimistic.
Belgium loss -> -10.61
Croatia draw -> 7.91
Morocco win -> 29.21
Total -> 26.51 which if everyone stayed on the same points would move us up to 32nd in the world rankings (exactly the same as the all 3 draws scenario).

Note that these scenarios don't account for cumulative results (meaning if we beat Belgium, the points we get for beating Croatia would be slightly less than if we had lost to Belgium) but I figure these are just ballpark figures anyways. The bigger assumption is that everyone else in the world stays exactly static.

[Unnamed Trialist]

So with the Bahrain tie, where I guess we lost a bit, and with the Japan win, where we gained points, how are we sitting?

Thanks for those who know how to do this.

[rydermike]

8 minutes ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

So with the Bahrain tie, where I guess we lost a bit, and with the Japan win, where we gained points, how are we sitting?

Thanks for those who know how to do this.

Hasn't been updated with Japan yet

https://football-ranking.com/fifa_rankings

[InglewoodJack]

The ELO rankings have also gone up:

https://www.eloratings.net
 

We got 11 points for this game and Japan lost 11. I don’t believe that affected our standing- we’re still #30 as we’re now 13 points ahead of Russia, and interestingly enough, 11 points behind Japan. 

[Unnamed Trialist]

I think we'll get just 3 points for the win, we'd still be behind Scotland.

But what do I know?

[Kent]

6 hours ago, Unnamed Trialist said:

I think we'll get just 3 points for the win, we'd still be behind Scotland.

But what do I know?

I hadn't done these calculations for a while since that website started doing it, but since it didn't have the friendlies I did eventually calculate the Bahrain and Japan possibilities. I got a -0.89 for a draw with Bahrain, which the website seems to agree with, and I got about +5.8 for beating Japan.

That's nice for a friendly win, but of course it's basically nothing compared to the points that will be on the table in our next 3(+?) games.