FIFA World Ranking for the Socceroos

Well USA has higher rated opponents to draw or win against and so the weighting for ELO rating points are more rewarding. Australia has only been in the AFC this year so give it time against the top 5 AFC teams and they would get their rating points. The Asian Cup wasn't near enough points to gain in such a short time. Elo rating takes match by match weighting unlike the FIFA point system and it still takes time.

The FIFA system has moving 4 year accumulation of points. Within those yearly periods, you only need the best 5 matches that the teams produces to be counted in these points, so in the same match the loser teams may not be counted on their point accumulation so it is unbalanced and not relative to other teams. So points may count for one team but may not count for the other team in the same match. Basically it is the system that relies on the best team performances and not counting on the worst team performance. Perform consistently decent 5 ongoing matches for the every year period at every month interval and you gradually raise upwards. To do consistently well on the FIFA ranking system you have to basically play one game per month and win about at least 50%. Look at how the Czech Republic perform in the ranking system, they play heaps of games (22) per years and so have plenty of games to chose their best performed games.

I think you really need to play about 12 games a year to weight in the best games for the points and prevent any sudden drop per month results of the rankings.

But the FIFA points system is silly logic but the Elo rating is best on offer but its no even league system to gets the same opponent but it catches up by a fair weighting system based on the Y=Mx+c line graph mathematics.

The only problem is not getting enough strong enough opponents in the region you are in to gain more points over the shorter time and so you are restricted to the regional/confederation if you continue in that region more. But having said that you will be very well rewarded if you get an odd game against the outside confederation team that happens to be much higher ranked than you are and the match points are huge despite you not having an enough matches.

If you consistent play such a higher rated opponent and won every game the points on offer does get less and less when you are climbing up and they slipping down at the same rate because you will be evening up and then later you pull slowly away from them and there will be less points as you will be the higher rated team and they become the less rated team. This is reasonably fair so you are only as good as your last game. However if you don't play you don't change points and the rating points remain as is long periods and for some team even for years with other teams hopping and dropping around them as they play their games.

AWB.

 

It does includes matches up to 12th Feb, so the jump includes the Qatar WCQ game. In the next ranking release in March 12th, it may drop off the 2004 Venezuela friendly game in which you have drawn, but it is unlikely to do any thing as it was not a match counted by not any of the best top 5 matches. You had plenty of WCQ matches in which you have won later in 2004 with enough goals that would count better than that friendly.

You have to remember that Nigeria (-26 places), Morocco (-9), Guinea (-14) all dropped below (losing huge points), so that is three places plus Mali (not doing much but sitting) overtook by the first 32 points of the 56 points given and then the other +24 points overtook the other 4 countries that were losing points but still rose up by a bit in the place because of those losing three. Only Belgium who was just below at 49th place gained points to rise to 43rd place in the 48th to 38th place section of the rankings.

The Copa America and the European championships are will see changes after the mid-year for the nations above you, but basically the AFC WCQ games have equal if not better weight of points to gain on the rise so it would good time to get up to at least 7 to 9 places by the year's end with most the points in the first leg of the WCQ gaining perhaps up to 150 FIFA points. So you could be looking at 31th to 29th place if things go well for you. After a successful 2nd leg of WCQ you could rise up to about 18th to 20th place.

Just keep winning and you be right. the other countries above you seem to have a much tougher task, but the UEFA countries have their WCQ yet to do after the Euro and so you could be sitting from 24th place to 14th place leading into the WC2010 depending on other UEFA teams results.

You basically want the UEFA teams of Scotland, Turkey, Bulgaria, Poland, Russia, Israel, Sweden, Norway, Serbia, Ukarine, Denmark, Northern Ireland, Republic of Ireland, Finland to do badly. Turkey, Poland, Russia, Sweden are in Euro Champs and so you don't want them to be winning more than one Euro game this year. Russia and Poland are likely to be in that catergory when you look at the draws. Sweden and maybe Turkey could get to the QF. But WCQ are large groups and more than 5 games in each group.

So I could only see more than half of the above 15 nations having at least three decent wins for FIFA points in 2009. So you need some more healthy competitive wins for the WC build-up in 2009 to take the advantage over semi-competitive UEFA teams who missed out getting to the WC.

Then it seems that you be in a health position before WC2010.

 

What the . . .? When did they change that again?

They only changed it slightly. Mmmm . . . A another revision on a revision. Bugger, I hate it when they do that.

Someone must have added the feedback and had a rethink because I read the publication a couple of years back and I made an indepth critique on the readings at the time, as feedback. That could explain some of the points averaging indifferences I have seen for some of the teams especially with those ranked 15th down to 50th place. Teams below 50th, tend to have less than 5 matches.

Well, it's an improvement to include all the matches, they must have read my article. But that is still a disadvantage to the teams that can't play 5 matches because that means the points you get for 4 or less match are divided as tho they were accumulated for 5 matches instead. So they still are forcing poor teams to play at least 5 matches to be comparable. And also still a huge point haul for the winning team over the drawing team which causes "point inflation" i.e. 3 times more over the draw. especially with the multipliers. The gradual decline still is slightly wrong to the percentage. sigh. Still don't like the Strength of opponent based on "rankings" rather than on "point strength" incorporated in the points systems that just bad maths comparing "unlike" maths terms. You can't justify the difference between teams over the different eras like Elo rating could do in part. It still makes a mock of the yearly comparisons if rankings are used. e.g. a strong 8th rank team with more points maybe stronger than a weak 5th rank team of a different era with less points.

Well FIFA ranking still stinks, despite the slight revisions without publication.

Well time to move on. I tend to get sick of critiquing FIFA rankings because a number of issues like the above a couple of years back.

 

In main it was after the WC2006. But the first edition of the procedure was released three days before the WC2006 on the 6th Jul. I apparently did a critique and analysis on 12th Jun a whole month before public release of the new rankings on 12th Jul. Although I must have mix up the 5 matches with 7 matches. Thats happens when you usually type posts by memory.