Errors in FIFA seeding formula

[EvanJ]

http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/paul20051127.html
By Paul Marcuccitti
Read the bottom of the article (starting with "We’ve seen that, to determine seeds, FIFA World Rankings at the end of 2003, 2004 and 2005 are used and they’re given equal status. Why is that?") after the final seeding formula table and then discuss if FIFA should have incorporated their rankings into the seeding formula a different way that would have had the Netherlands get a seed instead of France.

[desertfox2]

Very interesting article. I really hadn't thought about that flaw in using the rankings, but it's pretty simple in the fact that the rankings themselves are based on the past 8 years. So using the rankings from the last 3 years (2003-2005) you're essentially putting more weight on the older rankings which puts France ahead of the Netherlands in the seedings.

I'd much rather see it the way it was put in the article, by ONLY using the 2005 rankings. However, like Paul said, FIFA even realizing this would still probably not do it considering that France won the 1998 World Cup and EURO 2000. It's pretty distrubing in that Holland at the current moment is better than France is IMO. Since EURO 2000, France hasn't done much. Going 3 and out in the 2002 WC Finals, France's only real success came when they swept their group in EURO 2004 qualifying but with the toughest team being either Slovenia or Israel, it's not that impressive. In the EURO 2004 Finals France played decent in the group stage and then was ousted by Greece in the quarters and many would say their entire Finals performance was under par. Then, in 2006 WC qualifying, they draw 5 times and barely manage to win the group, and that's only after Zidane and company came back to save them. So for the past 4-5 years they have been anything but impressive.

Holland meanwhile, like was said in the article, are playing really well. Playing pretty darn well at the EURO 2004 Finals to going 10-0-2 in a qualifying group which contained the Czech Rep., Romania and Finland (sweeping all three of those teams home and away mind you) it's hard to fathom France getting the seed over them.

Now, a lot of people don't like the rankings because of the fact that teams like Holland are behind France even though they are in much better form at the moment. But actually, I like the way the rankings are set up. I like the fact that you look at historic results to determine a teams' weight, however the one problem I have with them is the fact is goes back 8 years. That's quite a long time and I believe that if they decreased that to 4 years it would make the rankings somewhat more accurate.

Unfortunately, I don't think FIFA will change much. France will get the top seed and Holland will end up hoping with the other 8 UEFA non-seeds to get a decent top seed leading their group. But I think either way France will have their work cut out for them. I currently have Holland as a team making the semis and I think France will falter early on. So regardless of seeding, I think Holland will still do better.

[Edgar]

2003 results count for 19.444% of the rankings and so on...


2003 19.444%
2002 16.667%
2004 13.889%
2001 13.889%
2000 11.111%
1999 8.333%
2005 7.407%
1998 5.556%
1997 2.778%
1996 0.926%

[johan neeskens]

It seems everybody's obsessed with whether Holland will be seeded or not except for the Dutch themselves.

[midknight]

probably has something to do with the fact that the dutch are the only country that won't have to play against themselves :rolleyes:

I never thought about these implications of the seeding formula but i find it hilarious since the eurosnobs calling for holland to be seeded were all gunning after Mexico :D

[johan neeskens]

probably has something to do with the fact that the dutch are the only country that won't have to play against themselves :rolleyes:

I never thought about these implications of the seeding formula but i find it hilarious since the eurosnobs calling for holland to be seeded were all gunning after Mexico :D

It's just that I don't think it makes much of a difference to be a top seed. You can be drawn in a group with tough opposition regardless. What's far more important is the strengths of the third and fourth weakest country in the group.

[ScoringChance]

Very interesting article. I really hadn't thought about that flaw in using the rankings, but it's pretty simple in the fact that the rankings themselves are based on the past 8 years. So using the rankings from the last 3 years (2003-2005) you're essentially putting more weight on the older rankings which puts France ahead of the Netherlands in the seedings.

I'd much rather see it the way it was put in the article, by ONLY using the 2005 rankings. However, like Paul said, FIFA even realizing this would still probably not do it considering that France won the 1998 World Cup and EURO 2000. It's pretty distrubing in that Holland at the current moment is better than France is IMO. Since EURO 2000, France hasn't done much. Going 3 and out in the 2002 WC Finals, France's only real success came when they swept their group in EURO 2004 qualifying but with the toughest team being either Slovenia or Israel, it's not that impressive. In the EURO 2004 Finals France played decent in the group stage and then was ousted by Greece in the quarters and many would say their entire Finals performance was under par. Then, in 2006 WC qualifying, they draw 5 times and barely manage to win the group, and that's only after Zidane and company came back to save them. So for the past 4-5 years they have been anything but impressive.

Holland meanwhile, like was said in the article, are playing really well. Playing pretty darn well at the EURO 2004 Finals to going 10-0-2 in a qualifying group which contained the Czech Rep., Romania and Finland (sweeping all three of those teams home and away mind you) it's hard to fathom France getting the seed over them.

Now, a lot of people don't like the rankings because of the fact that teams like Holland are behind France even though they are in much better form at the moment. But actually, I like the way the rankings are set up. I like the fact that you look at historic results to determine a teams' weight, however the one problem I have with them is the fact is goes back 8 years. That's quite a long time and I believe that if they decreased that to 4 years it would make the rankings somewhat more accurate.

Unfortunately, I don't think FIFA will change much. France will get the top seed and Holland will end up hoping with the other 8 UEFA non-seeds to get a decent top seed leading their group. But I think either way France will have their work cut out for them. I currently have Holland as a team making the semis and I think France will falter early on. So regardless of seeding, I think Holland will still do better.


Actually, IMO, both deserve a seed. I don't think it's fair that one of these two should not get a seed and Spain, for example, get one. As of late, the Spanish have been eliminated in the first round of Euro 2004 and had to go through the playoffs to get to Germany - which they also had to do to go to Euro '04. Not very impressive.

[Edgar]

Actually, IMO, both deserve a seed. I don't think it's fair that one of these two should not get a seed and Spain, for example, get one. As of late, the Spanish have been eliminated in the first round of Euro 2004 and had to go through the playoffs to get to Germany - which they also had to do to go to Euro '04. Not very impressive.

On the other hand, Netherlands didn't make to Korea&Japan, France left after 3 matches, while Spain made it to the quarterfinals. How about that?

[ScoringChance]

On the other hand, Netherlands didn't make to Korea&Japan, France left after 3 matches, while Spain made it to the quarterfinals. How about that?

That's true. This should also be taken into consideration, but if more recent results are given more importance, it'd be only fair to evaluate Spain's performance as well as France's and Holland's. That's all I'm saying, basically.

[Excape Goat]

It's just that I don't think it makes much of a difference to be a top seed. You can be drawn in a group with tough opposition regardless. What's far more important is the strengths of the third and fourth weakest country in the group.

Nobody wants to be in the same group as Holland. That would be a tough group, regardless of what happened.

[Sinter]

You can't expect to miss out on the last WC and honestly be considered for a seed... get over it people.

[Shackleton]

http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/paul20051127.html
By Paul Marcuccitti
Read the bottom of the article (starting with "We’ve seen that, to determine seeds, FIFA World Rankings at the end of 2003, 2004 and 2005 are used and they’re given equal status. Why is that?") after the final seeding formula table and then discuss if FIFA should have incorporated their rankings into the seeding formula a different way that would have had the Netherlands get a seed instead of France.

I pointed out this exact issue over a month ago in a post on this thread http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=257870&highlight=seed. FWIW, I don't think it's an accident that FIFA uses the 2003 and 2004 Rankings. Because of the timing of the different confederations' championships and the way these factor into the FIFA Rankings, the use of the 2003 and 2004 Rankings creates a systematic bias in the seeding formula in favor of the UEFA teams.

[MassachusettsRef]

You can't expect to miss out on the last WC and honestly be considered for a seed... get over it people.Well, FIFA can still justify giving France a seed in 1998 and South Africa (presumably) a seed in 2010, despite missing the previous WCs, just because they are hosts.

If hosting the World Cup is enough of a reason to make an exception, surely superior quality of play is, no?

And I think people should look at this article blindly, without focusing on the teams involved. The underlying point is an excellent one (and reinforced in Edgar's post above): there's absolutely no good or even legitimate reason to count the rankings from (and thereby give more weight to results in) 2003, 2004, 2002, 2001, and 2000 than those from 2005. Logically speaking, it's just counterintuitive.

[Dutch Treat]

http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/paul20051127.html
By Paul Marcuccitti
Read the bottom of the article (starting with "We’ve seen that, to determine seeds, FIFA World Rankings at the end of 2003, 2004 and 2005 are used and they’re given equal status. Why is that?") after the final seeding formula table and then discuss if FIFA should have incorporated their rankings into the seeding formula a different way that would have had the Netherlands get a seed instead of France.

Very interesting,but as far as I'm concerned France can keep the seed.It's not that we deserve it since we missed last WC,and even if we did deserve it I couldn't care less.

Thing is,the group we end up in will very likely be the group of death which I personally like more than a group you're very likely to advance from.

[midknight]

Well, FIFA can still justify giving France a seed in 1998 and South Africa (presumably) a seed in 2010, despite missing the previous WCs, just because they are hosts.
If hosting the World Cup is enough of a reason to make an exception, surely superior quality of play is, no?

Well you seem to be missing the point that hosts are seeded because

1) Fifa prefers to be assured that there will be a relatively strong interest in the tournament in the home country for as long as possible. One way of doing this is to make sure that the home team plays at least one more match than the obligatory 3. Believe it or not, every world cup attracts the attention of a couple million non football fans just because they can follow the exploits of THEIR team. The host country is no exception

2) No one is sure how many host countries would accept to put into place all the infrastructure needed for a tournament of that scale if they weren't given some kind of advantage viv à vis the other teams. I mean, come on, believe it or not it isn't all about the possible economic benefits to be gained. How much of a chance does football stand of becoming finally accepted as 'our game' in non traditional football countries if their team doesn't even leave a blip on the radar...

ps: its even possible that the much touted "economic factors" is making veiled reference but reference nonetheless uniquely to the seeding of hosts (though i wouldn't put my head on a block for that one)

[King-James]

Won't the $$ be a big factor? Mexico generates far more TV revenue than Holland or France.

[Craig P]

2003 results count for 19.444% of the rankings and so on...And really, the only way to address it that makes any sense is to throw out the 2003 and 2004 rankings and only use the current ones. Then you get a weighting of 22.2% for 2005, 19.4% for 2004, and 16.7% for 2003, which seems pretty reasonable to me.

[MassachusettsRef]

1) Fifa prefers to be assured that there will be a relatively strong interest in the tournament in the home country for as long as possible. One way of doing this is to make sure that the home team plays at least one more match than the obligatory 3. Believe it or not, every world cup attracts the attention of a couple million non football fans just because they can follow the exploits of THEIR team. The host country is no exceptionI agree. I was in Paris for 1998 and saw this phenomenon first-hand.

2) No one is sure how many host countries would accept to put into place all the infrastructure needed for a tournament of that scale if they weren't given some kind of advantage viv à vis the other teams. I mean, come on, believe it or not it isn't all about the possible economic benefits to be gained. How much of a chance does football stand of becoming finally accepted as 'our game' in non traditional football countries if their team doesn't even leave a blip on the radar...This, however, is a HUGE stretch. You honestly think that Korea and Japan would have turned down hosting WC2002 if they were told ahead of time that they wouldn't be seeded?

Well you seem to be missing the point that hosts are seeded because...Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing AGAINST the hosts being seeded. I fully agree that hosts should be seeded (though I disagree with your second justification above). However, I was simply making the point that if a team can be seeded solely for being hosts, surely FIFA can also overlook one bad qualifying campaign (or even one bad match) and seed a superiorly skilled team even if it missed out on the previous WC...ESPECIALLY if a fair mathematical formula would render that outcome. Effectively, right now, Holland won't be seeded solely because they lost to Ireland in 2001, while France rests on its 1998 and 2000 championship laurels. That doesn't seem fair, when Holland played so well and France struggled so much during qualifying.

And again, I think this is better analyzed when people look at this blindly and leave aside their allegiances or perceptions of any of the particular teams and just ask themselves if it's fair to count rankings from 2004 and previous years more than rankings from the current year.

[leonidas]

I agree. I was in Paris for 1998 and saw this phenomenon first-hand.

This, however, is a HUGE stretch. You honestly think that Korea and Japan would have turned down hosting WC2002 if they were told ahead of time that they wouldn't be seeded?

Just to clarify, I wasn't arguing AGAINST the hosts being seeded. I fully agree that hosts should be seeded (though I disagree with your second justification above). However, I was simply making the point that if a team can be seeded solely for being hosts, surely FIFA can also overlook one bad qualifying campaign (or even one bad match) and seed a superiorly skilled team even if it missed out on the previous WC...ESPECIALLY if a fair mathematical formula would render that outcome. Effectively, right now, Holland won't be seeded solely because they lost to Ireland in 2001, while France rests on its 1998 and 2000 championship laurels. That doesn't seem fair, when Holland played so well and France struggled so much during qualifying.

And again, I think this is better analyzed when people look at this blindly and leave aside their allegiances or perceptions of any of the particular teams and just ask themselves if it's fair to count rankings from 2004 and previous years more than rankings from the current year.

I agree it isnt really fair. France are definitely resting on the laurels of their past and brief successes. It's unfortunate too since the Netherlands for the most part have been one of the most consistent teams in the past decade or so. But then again, I think Ireland definitely added something to the World Cup. This would have been a different story if the Netherlands were knocked out at the expense of say, Slovenia. The draw always goes both ways and the Dutch rolled snake eyes...

As it is now, I think having the Dutch as a second seed will really make the groups tougher. They are definitely more deserving of a first seed than the French. If I were a second seeded team, I wouldnt mind getting France. Then again, Brazil were counted out before 02 began and look what happened.

[Laurens]

I'll hope that the Netherlands is 2nd seeded... than we surely have a great group :) I'm looking forward to a couple of great games... like netherlands vs czech republic on euro 2004 :D that was a great game