Latest FIFA rankins - What's the bigger surprise ?

[kinstlinger]

We're11th, Mexico is 7th (http://soccernet.espn.go.com/headlinenews?id=319892&cc=5901)

Which is the bigger surprise here ?

[John L]

"Note: FIFA's standings are based on a statistical analysis of countries' results over eight years, weighted according to how recently the matches were played, the strength of the opponents and the importance of each match."


If this is truly done by a mathematical formula, then Mexico being at #7 is the bigger surprise - Their "A" squad beat an Argentina "B" squad in Gold Cup (or Copa something-or-other) - Apparently the formula isn't tweaked for big opponents using their "B" squads - While I like the idea of using formulas and letting the chips fall where they may, I think you need to tweak some of the results

[Clint Eastwood]

The biggest surprise is Germany is 19th. They haven't fallen that far off the map. Also, Scotland, what's going on man? They're ranked below Syria?!!!

Both the US and Mexican rankings are too high, but you'd have to say Mexico leapfrogging England is the bigger surprise. It's all meaningless anyway, but Mexico isn't that good.

[TAKK]

The biggest surprise is Germany is 19th. They haven't fallen that far off the map. Also, Scotland, what's going on man? They're ranked below Syria?!!!

Both the US and Mexican rankings are too high, but you'd have to say Mexico leapfrogging England is the bigger surprise. It's all meaningless anyway, but Mexico isn't that good.

...and England is?

[superdave]

The biggest surprise is Germany is 19th.
No, cuz Germany is only playing friendlies now, not qualies.

[Joe Gannon]

The biggest surprise is Germany is 19th. They haven't fallen that far off the map. Also, Scotland, what's going on man? They're ranked below Syria?!!!

Both the US and Mexican rankings are too high, but you'd have to say Mexico leapfrogging England is the bigger surprise. It's all meaningless anyway, but Mexico isn't that good.

I agree. These rankings are like the BCS, AP Poll, etc. Mexico rated so high? Look at their first round of qualifying - -they destroyed their opponents = = higher rankings.
Either way, the rankings mean nothing. As you know Mexico has been our B*tch lately.

[EvanJ]

After drawing at home to Jamaica in our last game I'm happy the United States lost only 2 points this month.

[Eric B]

I agree. These rankings are like the BCS, AP Poll, etc. Mexico rated so high?Becuase they're one of only four(?) nations to make the second round of the last three World Cups. Because they've won three Gold Cups in the last eight years. Because they won a Confederations Cup (albeit at home). Because they've finished in the top 3 of the Copa America twice (or maybe thrice, I can't remember). In other words, they've gotten some pretty big results in the last eight years. Check out how the rankings work on the FIFA website, it's not like the AP poll.

Look at their first round of qualifying - -they destroyed their opponents = = higher rankings.There are diminishing returns for running up a score on an opponent in the FIFA Rankings, especially against opponents as low ranked as the "Saints". El Cry's sixth, seventh, and eighth goals probably didn't gain them any points. Check out how the rankings work on the FIFA website, it's not like the AP poll.

Either way, the rankings mean nothing.The rankings are half of the formula FIFA uses to determine seeds for the World Cup. They mean something. Check out how the rankings work on the FIFA website, it's not like the AP poll.

[Eric B]

After drawing at home to Jamaica in our last game I'm happy the United States lost only 2 points this month.I doubt that game would hvae been one of the seven matches that "counted". Sure we could have had an extra point or two, but I imagine we went down because results from the 1998 and 2002 Gold Cups are starting to diminish in value.

[Nutmeg]

Which is the bigger surprise here ?
That Greece was called a "power."

[ursula]

I agree. These rankings are like the BCS, AP Poll, etc. Mexico rated so high? Look at their first round of qualifying - -they destroyed their opponents = = higher rankings.
Either way, the rankings mean nothing. As you know Mexico has been our B*tch lately.

Oi.

First, as superdave said, Germany is ranked so low because they aren't playing qualies. Expect to see them drop further.

Second, the rankings mean a lot because they are used to pick the #1 seeds of the WC groups. This december ranking in particular means a lot- specifically one-sixth of the point totals for teams. With these rankings five-sixths of the components to determine the #1 seeds are now in with just next November's rankings to go meaning that the seeds are now virtually set. This is great news for Mexico as they stand third in the seeding formula so they basically would have to fail to qualify to not get a #1 seed.

With five-sixths of the formula now complete, the only way for one of the projected #1 seeds not to get their seed is to fail to qualify. If that happens, the Netherlands stands to benefit first since they are the first team on the outside looking in. The U.S. is second, meaning that if the U.S. qualifies for the WC, it will get a #1 seed IF two of the higher ranked teams fail to qualify. It's unlikely, but not impossible. For example the last projected #1 seeded team, France, isn't exactly tearing up their Qualy group.

[California Jack]

That Greece was called a "power."


Confederation tournies are double-weighted and Greece had a great run in Euro '04. (So I do sort of hope we take Gold Cup seriously)

I'm a bit of a newbie to the whole ratings thing and I'm trying to learn how FIFA's differs from Elo. I've read the respective formulae, but I wonder if there's any research on which is more reliable.

Also, would we be assured a #2 seed in our group in Germany if we remain around #11, or is there really no such thing as a #2 seed?

[VioletCrown]

Also, would we be assured a #2 seed in our group in Germany if we remain around #11, or is there really no such thing as a #2 seed?

No such thing as a #2 seed. (Let's see whether I'm #1, 2, 3, or further down to respond).

#1 seeds are set, then the rest of the slots are filled so that teams from the same federation aren't in the same group, with the exception of Europe. Bec. of the # of Euro teams, there can be as many as 2 Euros in a group.

[VioletCrown]

Second, the rankings mean a lot because they are used to pick the #1 seeds of the WC groups. This december ranking in particular means a lot- specifically one-sixth of the point totals for teams. With these rankings five-sixths of the components to determine the #1 seeds are now in with just next November's rankings to go meaning that the seeds are now virtually set. This is great news for Mexico as they stand third in the seeding formula so they basically would have to fail to qualify to not get a #1 seed.

Which leads me to wonder how Mexico's being seeded effects the look of our group. Previous cups, we could've been placed in any of the 8 groups. This time around, we'll have to be placed in only one of 7 groups. It seems to me as though this one small shift could more closely define the makeup of our group. At the very least, it will incease the odds of our ending up in with Germany.

And, oh, heck, let's put in the obligatory link to eldiablito's seeding information (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=135020&page=5&pp=15) over on the FIFA board.

[Adam Zebrowski]

In the best of all worlds, germany finds a way to get into the TOP 8 by the end of 2005. Being a home side, and being out of the TOP 8 means a the last TOP 8 qualifier gets replaced by Germany.

Still, USA can leapfrog Mexico in the Hex and Gold Cup.

I would wonder if TWO wins and a DRAW would be sufficient to do that job.

I think that's realistic, as long as USA does drop a couple bad matches during the hex.

Winning the hex should be worth a #1??

since concacaf gets 3.5 bids and Asia gets 4.5, ASSUMING neither gets a #1 seed, I'd expect ASIA+CONCACAF to get lumped into a pot.

This approach could make the USA group more difficult, as I see an African, or South American opponent being more difficult than an Asian one.

[VioletCrown]

No such thing as a #2 seed. (Let's see whether I'm #1, 2, 3, or further down to respond).

#1 seeds are set, then the rest of the slots are filled so that teams from the same federation aren't in the same group, with the exception of Europe. Bec. of the # of Euro teams, there can be as many as 2 Euros in a group.

OK. So, since there's not a whole mess of people responding, I'll expand on this.

In the past, CONCACAF was put in the same pot with the African teams (8 groups, 3 CONCACAF and 5 Africa, works out nicely). There's a whole mess of possibilities this time.

If Mexico gets a seed, and the #4 CONCACAF beats the #5 Asia, then we're in the same situation -- 3 CONCACAF & 5 Africa in one pot. (This would have the side effect that an African team would be guaranteed to be in Mexico's group because of the 'no 2 from the same confederation except in UEFA's case').

However, if Asia #5 beats CONCACAF #4, then there's only 2 additional CONCACAF. How do we get a nice set of 8 teams to go in one pot? If Australia beats S. America (CONMEBOL) #5, then we can put Australia in the pot, and everything is nice again -- see above scenario, except that Mexico could get Australia in its group.

If Australia *doesn't* beat CONMEBOL #5, we have this setup: 2 CONCACAF, 5 Asia, 5 Africa, 3 S. America, 9 UEFA. We'd probably still get put in the same pot at Africa, but with those numbers, Africa and Asia are interchangeable.

In addition, with 9 UEFA unseeded teams, what they'll probably do is put them all in the same bowl and select them first, filling in until they end up with a possible third UEFA team in one group, then adjust so that they don't have that case. When the draw happens, it's a little strange to follow, but makes sense if you think about it.

After going through three cups with CONCACAF and Africa in the same bowl, I'd personally like to see CONCACAF and Asia in the same bowl. I'd like the chance to play an African team in the WC.

Hope that made sense.

With the way I've been going on BS lately, I expect someone will come on and correct an obvious error in the above.

[afgrijselijkheid]

i think that the biggest surprise is that anybody cares what our FIFA ranking is

[Adam Zebrowski]

violetcrown has a good model for the 2006 draw....

Once the intercontinental play-offs are decided, we'll have lesser premutations to consider....

[I. Tristeza]

...and England is?

England may play like p*ssies at times, but they're still light years better than the US and Mexico. FIFA rankings are idiotic, however.

EN-GER-LAND!!

[sidefootsitter]

I'm a bit of a newbie to the whole ratings thing and I'm trying to learn how FIFA's differs from Elo. I've read the respective formulae, but I wonder if there's any research on which is more reliable.
FIFA has a much longer lag than ELO and both have much longer lags than a typical US college ranking system where top teams can drop many spots with one bad loss.