FIFA Rankings (5/21)

[maverick]

http://www.fifa.com/en/display/article,69201.html

The USMNT holds steady at #10, only five points behind Mexico and even with Denmark. Next ranking published June 25th, meaning the U.S. friendly results against Wales, New Zealand (maybe Portugal?), and at least the first round of the Confed Cup will be reflected...

TIME TO BUST A MOVE, BOYS.

:D

[eldiablito]

Yup, 5 games between now and 6/25:

Wales
New Zealand
Turkey
Brazil
Cameroon

If all goes well, we could conceivably pass Mexico (finally).

[Ictar]

It'll have to go really well. Who's Mexico playing between now and then? I'd bet my ass that it won't be anywhere near the quality of Turkey, Brazil and Cameroon.

[geordienation]

Repeat after me:

These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.

Any system that kept Brazil ahead of France while the frogs were defending WC and Euro champions is crap.

[roarksown1]

Originally posted by geordienation
Repeat after me:

These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.

Any system that kept Brazil ahead of France while the frogs were defending WC and Euro champions is crap.

I'm sure that if the USA was ranked something like 78th in the world, these rankings would mean a lot to them! I know that it's a flawed system entirely, but it's still nice to see the USA within someone's top 20 in the world. It's not like we've always been there.

[cmonaco]

Originally posted by geordienation
Repeat after me:

These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.

Any system that kept Brazil ahead of France while the frogs were defending WC and Euro champions is crap.

Not to mention:

Mexico ahead of US.
US ahead of Italy.
Jamaica ahead of Australia and Wales.

Don't make much sense, does it.

[RevdUp]

Why are people here so quick to dismiss the FIFA Rankings??
I really haven't heard any convincing explanations as to why you think this is so.
Do most of you know how the rankings are being calculated?

[RevdUp]

Originally posted by maverick
http://www.fifa.com/en/display/article,69201.html

The USMNT holds steady at #10, only five points behind Mexico and even with Denmark. Next ranking published June 25th, meaning the U.S. friendly results against Wales, New Zealand (maybe Portugal?), and at least the first round of the Confed Cup will be reflected...

TIME TO BUST A MOVE, BOYS.

:D
Since the points are based on the relative strengths of the two teams, we'll need to win big(assuming we do win) against Wales and New Zealand in order to gain a significant number of points, as they are ranked #50 & #51 ,respectively.
For example, a 1-0 win against either of these two countries will give us fewer points than a 1-0 win against, say, Mexico or Portugal.

There are many other factors involved:
http://cbs.sportsline.com/u/soccer/fifa_rules.html

[artigiano]

The FIFA rankings are extremely complex and convoluted for a reason. So no one can clearly argue that their alternate system is more fair. The FIFA system accounts for 8 years worth of results which is probably way too long a time period. But it doesn't count every result for every team. Only the 8-12 games a year per team that somone on FIFA staff has labled "most meaningful". Pretty damn subjective.

So a game between say USA and Mexico (or any two teams) could count toward one team's ranking and be total disreguarded in calculating the other teams ranking.

I would say that the FIFA rankings are accurate to within 5 rank placements. Meaning if you are ranked #10 chances are that any country from #5 to #15 may be in reality better or worse than you at any given moment. If a team more than 5 ranks above or below you either wins or looses unexpectedly then it is a major upset.

Since the US is at #10 curently I would say that it is a safe statement that they are somewhere between the fifth and the fifteeen best national squad currently.

But we are better than El Tri no matter what FIFA says.

[n00bie deluxe]

Originally posted by cmonaco
Not to mention:

Mexico ahead of US.
US ahead of Italy.
Jamaica ahead of Australia and Wales.

Don't make much sense, does it.

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

[worldsoccer-Jeff]

Originally posted by artigiano
So a game between say USA and Mexico (or any two teams) could count toward one team's ranking and be total disreguarded in calculating the other teams ranking.

I would say that the FIFA rankings are accurate to within 5 rank placements. Meaning if you are ranked #10 chances are that any country from #5 to #15 may be in reality better or worse than you at any given moment. If a team more than 5 ranks above or below you either wins or looses unexpectedly then it is a major upset.

Since the US is at #10 curently I would say that it is a safe statement that they are somewhere between the fifth and the fifteeen best national squad currently.

But we are better than El Tri no matter what FIFA says.


I think that's about right.


As to which games are inclued, I believe they count a teams best 8-12 results, not neccesarlily the "most meaningful" but generaly they are, or am I why off?

[Stan Collins]

There's a "meaningfulness" factor, too, though. So beting Mexico in a WC would count for more than beating Brasil in a friendly.

[superdave]

Originally posted by geordienation
Repeat after me:

These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.

Any system that kept Brazil ahead of France while the frogs were defending WC and Euro champions is crap.
I really hate this kind of smartass crap. I'm just tired of it.

If they mean nothing, then the rankings would be essentially random. A match between any two teams anywhere in the rankings could just as easily be won by the lower ranked team as the higher. And we all know that's ridiculous.

Tell ya what, Geordie...I'll take the top 10 teams, and you take the bottom 10, and let's see which wins more games.

Repeat after me...

Geordienation doesn't know what he's talking about.
Geordienation doesn't know what he's talking about.
Geordienation doesn't know what he's talking about.

[Craig P]

Originally posted by geordienation
These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.Not true, specific snapshots go into the WC seedings.

[soccerfan]

Wales seems to make a point of defeating us for the pure fact of gaining points in the rankings.
The one flaw I see is the extended time results are taken into account. They should publish two rankings one for performences of the last 4 years a WC cycle. Start each team at 0 points and see how many points they make in 4 years time.

[worldsoccer-Jeff]

Originally posted by Craig P
Not true, specific snapshots go into the WC seedings.

Speaking of, I do not plan on posting an update to the current seeding ranks as there is no major change with the new FIFA Coca-Cola Rankings. But if someone wants me to I will post an update.

Look for major changes in the next rankings and seeding with the Confeds Cup taken into account in next installment. The USA stands a good chance of overtaking Argentian, but France is not far behind.

[eldiablito]

Originally posted by geordienation
Repeat after me:

These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.
These ratings mean nothing.

Any system that kept Brazil ahead of France while the frogs were defending WC and Euro champions is crap.

Fascinating response. Why did you even bother posting? It appears as if this thread is a complete waste of your time. Thank you so much for enlightening us ignorant folk. Were you the one in kindergarten telling all the other kids that Santa Claus wasn't real?

Well let me tell you something, Mr. SmartyMan,
you're wrong.

Unfortuately, these ratings do mean something: the FIFA rankings for Dec03, Dec04, and Nov05 will all go into the formula for World Cup seeding. (At least, this information did matter for 98 and 02). So to say they mean nothing is completely false.

As far as Brazil and France is concerned, I understand the dismissive attitude but the mathematical formula used still had Brazil higher. If you took into account the formula used, it would make sense as Brazil had won the World Cup in '94, won Copa America, crushed their qualifiers before 98, and then came in second place at WC98. France, meanwhile, did f*** all before 98. They didn't go to WC94 and because they hosted WC98, they played no qualifiers (only friendlies). Clearly, they had a lot of ground to make up. They were ranked #25 in April 1998, they didn't make #1 until May 2001.

[eldiablito]

Originally posted by cmonaco
Not to mention:

Mexico ahead of US.
US ahead of Italy.
Jamaica ahead of Australia and Wales.

Don't make much sense, does it.

This really is splitting hairs isn't it. Seriously, if Maryland is ranked #8 in NCAA basketball, and Syracuse #9--nobody has conniptions, do they? They are two good teams, ranked relatively high--and that's an opinion poll. The FIFA rankings are a mathematical formula.

When you start talking about Jamaica, Australia, and Wales--they are all around #50--right where they should be. Does it really matter which one is #49?

[eldiablito]

Originally posted by artigiano
The FIFA rankings are extremely complex and convoluted for a reason. So no one can clearly argue that their alternate system is more fair. The FIFA system accounts for 8 years worth of results which is probably way too long a time period. But it doesn't count every result for every team. Only the 8-12 games a year per team that somone on FIFA staff has labled "most meaningful". Pretty damn subjective.

So a game between say USA and Mexico (or any two teams) could count toward one team's ranking and be total disreguarded in calculating the other teams ranking.

I would say that the FIFA rankings are accurate to within 5 rank placements. Meaning if you are ranked #10 chances are that any country from #5 to #15 may be in reality better or worse than you at any given moment. If a team more than 5 ranks above or below you either wins or looses unexpectedly then it is a major upset.

Since the US is at #10 curently I would say that it is a safe statement that they are somewhere between the fifth and the fifteeen best national squad currently.

But we are better than El Tri no matter what FIFA says.

Actually the 8-12 games aren't as subjective as you say. It is each country's best 8-12 performances in a given year. (Best performances meaning FIFA rankings points). This is to make the rankings "more fair." Each game gives a country points, whether it wins, ties, or loses--this way a country doesn't rack up points simply by playing 19 games in a year when most countries play only about 8. However, the more games a country plays, the more crap results would be erased.

Great point, however, about how to read the FIFA rankings. I think plus or minus 5 rankings is an "accurate" way of measuring the rankings' accuracy.

[Soccer-Six-Shooter]

Ratings are for the fans and for entertainment. But I like to take a look at it as a measuring stick. I think the USA is rated too high at number 10. Around 20-25 is more ideal IMO. Maybe they think we will streamroll thru 2003 in good shape coming off WC 02. According to the rankings, why not take the first 32 teams for the next WC at that time. No qualifying. Just think of all the BS we can eliminate of whos in and whos out. Just the first 32 on the list. No debates. Case closed. Of course, the 33rd team would be pissed, but we have to cut it off somewhere. I guess it would be no fun that way. Soccer purists chill out.

Hey man, what about #204 in the last slot -- Montserrat. You think they're fans are happy about their rating? Lets go Montserrat!