New FIFA Ranking System

[chrisrun]

FIFA will implement a new ranking formula after the World Cup:

"Furthermore, the executive body agreed that the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking should be revised. The new system will come into effect after the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ and will include data from the previous four instead of eight years for evaluation purposes."

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/051207/1/5igx.html

[Guinho]

Four years would be an improvement. I still think the ELO system is in principle better. None of this hokey 0.85 for games played in Concacaf, etc.

[Shackleton]

http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com/06/en/051207/1/5igx.html

"Furthermore, the executive body agreed that the FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking should be revised. The new system will come into effect after the 2006 FIFA World Cup™ and will include data from the previous four instead of eight years for evaluation purposes"

Who's likely to most benfit from this revision? Be harmed? Is it a good change?

[Credit to chrisrun who first noted the news in this thread. http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?t=291914&page=2]

[Shackleton]

Some thoughts on the change.

I wonder how FIFA will weight past results? Just a guess, but if they follow the same pattern as before, it would be (4/4 * results from last year [i.e. year 1]) + (3/4 * results from year 2) + (2/4 * results from year 3) + (1/4 * results from year 4).

Here's a comparison of the relative weight the assumed new formula gives to past results compared to the current formula:

Year --- Current --- New (Assumed)
Year 1-----22%---------40%
Year 2-----19%---------30%
Year 3-----17%---------20%
Year 4-----14%---------10%
Year 5-----11%----------0%
Year 6----- 8%----------0%
Year 7------6%----------0%
Year 8------3%----------0%

The most important thing the change will do is to make the Rankings much more volatile. IOW, it will be much easier for teams to move up and down the rankings and each game will be more significant. By December 2009 (when the Rankings will come out that will likely be used in the 2010 WC seeding formula), not a single game now played will have any bearing.

[ChaChaFut]

They want to ensure teams like Mexico are not seeded. :D

[Sagy]

By December 2009 (when the Rankings will come out that will likely be used in the 2010 WC seeding formula), not a single game now played will have any bearing.While your point is a good one, technically it is not correct.
1) If past method is used Dec 2007, Dec 2008 and Nov 2009 ranking will be used. Clearly 2005 games will still have a weight in the 2007 and 2008 ranking.
2) The Nov 2009 are also going to be impacted by 2005 games since the value game played in 2006-2008 will be determined by the ranking of the teams at the time the game is played. The ranking of the teams in 2008 will be impacted by games played in 2005 even under the new formula.

My big concern with the formula (given that FIFA is going to use FIFA ranking) is that games played in the November 2007 (more than 2.5 years before the WC) are the most valuable. Such games will have a relative value of (40+30+20)/3 = 30; games played late in WCQ (2009) will only have a value of 13 (0+0+40)/3. The same issue was in place this time around, (22+19+17)/3 = 19 for Nov 2003 games compared with (0+0+22)/3 = 7 for Oct 2005 game.

[Sempre]

They want to ensure teams like Mexico are not seeded. :D

But it's a team like Italy that will be hit the hardest by this change.
Italy relied on 'pedigree' to get their seed in 2006 but they will need
results if they want one in 2010 . . . .

[Natrium]

They want to ensure teams like Mexico are not seeded.
The system should benefit them even more than now and they USA/Mexico are already overrated in the FIFA rankings. As we all know Mexico and USA get their win in the crappy Concacaf practically for just showing up(even Liechtenstein would qualify in Concacaf) and they play each other what, every 4 years? This system will be much tougher on the european nations since there is actually real competition in the qualifiers.

[Natrium]

WTF? Can someone delete this from here on? Damn board.

[Natrium]

...

[Natrium]

...

[Natrium]

...

[Natrium]

...

[Natrium]

...

[Natrium]

...

[Nutty]

I don't think any nation benifits more or less based on the new ranking. Well, actually, the teams that will benifit the most are those that do really well this WC. Like Sempre pointed out, 'pedigree' will count for less, either you're on form for the last 4 years or you're not. But still, the same super-powers will be the teams more likely to have a hot streak. And second-teir teams will still have to produce some great results and upsets to move up the rankings. The new ranking just means a hot streak has to be 4 years long, not 8.

[Shackleton]

1) If past method is used Dec 2007, Dec 2008 and Nov 2009 ranking will be used. Clearly 2005 games will still have a weight in the 2007 and 2008 ranking.

You're right; can't believe I forgot about that twist in the WC seeding formula. I wonder whether FIFA will continue to use end-year rankings for the three years preceding the seeding? As you note, this formula gives much greater weight to some older years than the most recent ones and seems inherently illogical. From a neutral standpoint, it seems like dropping Dec 2007 and Dec 2008 would make a more accurate formula. Unfortunately, the years dropped (2004 and 2005) were very good years for the USA, so this may hurt the USA relative to other potential seeds. Of course, it all depends upon how the USA and other nations do in 2006-2009. The option to tinker with the formula and drop Dec 2007 and Dec 2008, however, will certainly give FIFA some flexibility in deciding who gets seeded.

2) The Nov 2009 are also going to be impacted by 2005 games since the value game played in 2006-2008 will be determined by the ranking of the teams at the time the game is played. The ranking of the teams in 2008 will be impacted by games played in 2005 even under the new formula.

This is an interesting observation that I had not previously considered. The more points you have going into a game, the fewer you receive from that game. So, paradoxically, you would be better off for the Nov 2009 Ranking by having poor results in 2005 and prior years!