maplebanana

sorry to spam the board with more math, but in case I don't have time to calculate the points, I made a plot that you can look it up: I limited it to -500 ... +500 because there are no teams 500 better or 500 worse than us right now. As you can see, the plot asymptotically approaches 0 for beating really bad teams, and approaches the multiplier value for beating really good teams. The multipliers here just scale the whole curve, and the points gained for beating the same rank as you is exactly 0.5 x multiplier. Hope this helps.

Best case, if we win the group via 4 wins, beat CRC in SF and MEX in F, we'd get 26.2 (GS) + 15.8 (CRC SF) + 17.9 (MEX F) = 59.9 pts. That would put us 30 pts ahead of ES. ES has 2 games in hand on us, but they can't get 30 points in those because the teams they're playing are all lower than them. I suppose our most 'likely' way to get in is to make it to the final of CNL, win some decent competitive friendlies in the other 2 windows, and hope that some of the minnows can get results (draws or wins both help) against ES in CNL.

I believe the way they did it was start at something like 1600 for the at-the-time-current FIFA ranking for #1, then #2 gets 1596, #3 gets 1592, etc down to #211. That way by switching the ranking methodology, no one in that instant would get shuffled around and only future changes would be added. So you are right that their simulations may not be entirely accurate, but the difficulty in moving spots is still quite evident. @dyslexic nam if we had beaten Haiti in the GC we would have gotten 16.4 pts which would have put us slightly above Panama and in striking distance of El Salvador, but still out of the Hex and still likely out in the end (because of 6 easy games for ES in CNL).

Damn, you made me make a spreadsheet and everything to calculate this. Weighting = 15 for CNL group stage. USA W/D/L = +10/+2.5/-5 Cuba W/D/L = +3.1/-4.4/-11.9 So for your combinations above: 1) 2 Cuba wins, 2 USA losses = 2*3.1 - 2*5 = -3.8 2) 2 Cuba wins, 1 USA draw, 1 USA loss = 2*3.1 + 2.5 -5 = +3.7 3) 2 Cuba wins, 2 USA draws = 2*3.1 + 2*2.5 = +11.2 4) 2 Cuba wins, 1 USA win, 1 USA loss = 2*3.1 + 10 - 5 = +11.2 5) 2 Cuba wins, 1 USA win, 1 USA draw = 2*3.1 + 10 + 2.5 = 18.7 6) 2 Cuba wins, 2 USA wins = 2*3.1 + 2*10 = 26.2 So if everything goes according to the ranking we'll lose points (scenario 1). If we become suddenly amazing and win all 4 (scenario 6), we'll add only 26 points which puts us still behind El Salvador today, even though they will most certainly add to their points since they have 6 games in CNL against minnows and we have only 4 games. Short of some miracle of us winning friendlies against a bunch of good teams *and* us winning the CNL, we are almost mathematically out of the hex already.

Yes, your math is correct. My assumption is that the *max* points we could have gotten from 7 friendlies with 7 Canada-equivalents was 35. In actuality, it would be less than 35 because after you beat them the first time, your ranking points go up and theirs go down. So with each successive win you get slightly less and less against the same opponent. So to properly do the math you'd have to do some kind of series summation, and it's been too long since I was in math class. The most amazing thing is (and to answer your other question), there is no correction for home/away or margin of victory. So if San Marino (#211) went to Belgium (#1) and beat them 5-0 in a friendly, that would net them 10 points. Which would be good enough to move them from #211 to .... #211 but a bit closer to #210. If San Marino beat Belgium, in Belgium, 19 times in a row, it still wouldn't be enough to get them to the top 100! In @Lofty's link you can see what happens when they did thousands of simulations. No one moves spots. The old FIFA ranking wasn't super accurate but this new one is completely insane.

The new FIFA rankings are unfortunately not simple math: https://img.fifa.com/image/upload/edbm045h0udbwkqew35a.pdf A friendly inside the window has a multiplier of 10, but the points you get for beating a team with the same number of ranking points as you is 5: Points = 10 * (W - We), where W is 1/0.5/0 for win/draw/lose and We = 1 / (10^(opponent pts - canada pts/600) + 1). If Canada played another team with 1314 rankings points, that becomes We = 1/(10^0+1) = 1/(1+1) = 0.5. So... Points = 10 * (1-0.5) = 5. So 7 friendlies against 7 Canada-equivalent teams would have netted us 35 pts, not 70. Unfortunately, the rating system ensures that no one will seemingly ever move. For example, what happens if we beat the #1 team in the world (Belgium, with 1746 pts)? We = 1/(10^((1746-1314)/600)+1) = 0.16, so Points = 8.4. We would have to beat Belgium 25 times in a row to climb ahead of them (not be #1, just climb ahead of them as they fall to around #20 and we get to ~#19). Now, instead, let's go beat up the Dominican Republic: We = 1/(10^((1021-1314)/600)+1) = 0.75, so points = 2.5. In other words, we get the same number of points beating Dominican Republic twice (2.5 x 2) as beating Panama (roughly the same ranking points as us). Coles notes version: a) This WCQ format sucks, b) This FIFA ranking system sucks even more, and c) We should play more friendlies and it doesn't matter really against who. But anyway, I'm sure all this stuff above has not convinced anyone who would be otherwise inclined to *not* bring fire and pitchforks to Herdman's door, so carry on with the extremely productive outrage.

That's not a good reason to say everything is OK. Qualifying is literally in everyone's own hands. Montserrat, if they win every game from now on, can also make it to the world cup. The problem is that this format has set us up with an unjustified huge barrier in comparison to other teams of similar quality. Others have outlined in more detail, but there is no excuse for the cavern of difficulty difference between the #6 seed and the #7 seed. Ultimately, this format benefits the top 2 (USA/mexico no longer have to play prelims) and the bottom 20 (who get to play more WCQ games). This all comes at the expense of the mid tier powers, of which we are one of them.

I for one welcome our new dodeca overlords.

I dunno, I like having two awesome young players! 😀

I live in the US now, and have to watch on FS1. Trust me, anything on TSN is better. I'd rather Bobcat Goldthwait at this point.

It didn't feel great. But that's not the point. JDG2 chose the side that would give him a few caps instead of the one that he could have been a major part of. Roberts (and Welshman) chose the teams that they could play big roles in. The only thing JDG2 and Roberts have in common is that they chose 'not Canada'. To be clear, I'm perfectly OK with Roberts, Welshman, Cantave, & Geffrard picking 'not Canada' because they had no chance at making team Canada. But that doesn't extend to JDG2.

I think the confusion is that, while JDG2 and Roberts both had a big vs little country (soccer-wise) decision, Roberts took the little country and JDG2 took the big country. To me, those two guys are the opposite. I'm not sure if there is any good parallel for Roberts for us, since I'm struggling to think of any player that plays a big role for us but could have gotten 1 or 2 caps for a better soccer nation. Maybe Borjan? Tesho? There are, unfortunately, lots of examples of parallels for JDG2.

Perhaps this is a question for Miki Cantave, Jems Geffrard, and Josue Duverger? Or for that matter, Manjrekar James against Dominica, Scott Arfield against Scotland, ..... Or maybe since it happens all the time, it's not really a question after all?

I know we have made progress in attacking (and probably regressed in defending), but we have so far proved nothing results-wise. Our highest quality result under Herdman was maybe a 1-0 win against New Zealand, and looking impressive beating up minnows. Until we prove we can get results against actually decent teams, we shouldn't be assuming we can beat any of Mex/USA/CR.

I think that's maybe revisionism. This is the first real test in the Herdman era, and whether through lineup selection or poor individual performances, we failed the test.