The Official Fifa Rankings Is A Joke Thread

[vancity eagle]

yes this has been done before, but I'd like to restart the debate having recently seen the WC, gold cup, copa, some asian cup games, and 2006 nations cup.

First off I would like to say that there is too much fluctuation in the rankings. Teams should not be jumping or falling 20 spots at a time which happens with these rankings. This just shows that the rankings are not stable and cannot be taken seriously. I am not really concerened with rankings that seem to be off by a few spots, however I would like to point out teams in or around the top 50 which seem to be around 10 or more places off where they should be.

TOO HIGH

CZECH REP #11 - after being outclassed in 2006 WC, followed by poor results in euro qualifying. (tieing Wales, losing at home to Germany) as well as a losing at home to Serbia in a friendly I see no reason why this aging side is still flirting with the top 10. They should be closer to #20.

USA #14 - just because they beat Mexico, does this warrant them jumping from around #30 post WC to being on the cusp of the top 10. They've done nothing to warrant being so high. Last in their group in both WC and copa cannot justify such a high ranking.

GREECE #16 - this high ranking still flatters the current euro champs who have been absolutely dreadful since that success. Poor WC qualifying, poor confed cup finishing last in their group. They have the easiest euro qualification group yet are still unsure about euro 2008 qualification.

BOSNIA #27 - Yes they are better than what previous editions had them ranked at(I think in the 50's), but #27 is far too high for Bosnia who have proved nothing on the international scene.


TOO LOW

DENMARK #26 - should really be close to the top 10, I'd say mid teens at least. Can always compete with the best teams in the world.

IVORY COAST # 31- Easily the best team to go out in the first round of 2006 WC. Can take their game to any team in the world. An easy top #20 choice in my opinion yet they dropped 11 spots from last month without losing any games.

GHANA # 37- another revelation from 2006 WC. Easily outclassed the Czechs who still sit at #11 after a woefull WC, yet Ghana drops 18 spots in one month.

EGYPT # 42- clearly the African champs deserve much better.

AUSTRALIA # 49 - poor Asian cup, but their WC results should not be forgotten so quickly. At least a good 20 spots too low.

ECUADOR # 53 - never thought too much of them, but 53 is a quite bit harsh on a side that easily beat a Poland side in the WC virtually playing at home, and made England struggle to victory.

KOREA # 58- have also been very poor lately but this is too much of a slide for my liking.

[superdave]

USA #14 - just because they beat Mexico, does this warrant them jumping from around #30 post WC to being on the cusp of the top 10. They've done nothing to warrant being so high. Last in their group in both WC and copa cannot justify such a high ranking.
Since you're such an enormous fan of subjectivity, the US' results in Copa shouldn't count. The "US team" doesn't start Klejstan. Gaven isn't its supersub off the bench.

[...In my defense]

Since you're such an enormous fan of subjectivity, the US' results in Copa shouldn't count. The "US team" doesn't start Klejstan. Gaven isn't its supersub off the bench.

I'm sorry but that really isn't an excuse and it gets really old when some USMNT fans throw out excuse after excuse in order to justify your failure. Listen, all this proves is that your national team has no depth and that my friend, is something to worry about :eek:

[tomwilhelm]

vancity...

You're asking for mutually exclusive things:
1. rankings that reflect current form/recent results
2. rankings that don't fluctuate too much.

There simply aren't enough games for that to happen.

Add to that the fact that it's nearly impossible to take into account how serious a team takes a given game, regardless to it's status for fifa (friendly, continental championship, WCQ, WC), and basically there is no way to rank teams fairly.

Ranking teams on a worldwide level is an inherently subjective activity. Quit pretending otherwise.

[st mirren till i die]

Of course they're a joke, scotland were just outside the top 10 a couple of months ago off the back of beating France. Which was an unrealistic jump from being outside the top 50.

Elo ratings are more indicative of a nations footballing pedigree.

[vancity eagle]

vancity...

You're asking for mutually exclusive things:
1. rankings that reflect current form/recent results
2. rankings that don't fluctuate too much.

There simply aren't enough games for that to happen.

Add to that the fact that it's nearly impossible to take into account how serious a team takes a given game, regardless to it's status for fifa (friendly, continental championship, WCQ, WC), and basically there is no way to rank teams fairly.

Ranking teams on a worldwide level is an inherently subjective activity. Quit pretending otherwise.

true, but the formulas could still be a lot better.

[McFly31400]

Greece victory at the 2004 euro -> 11 players on steroids and EPO.
They came out of nowhere and of course only 2 months before the Athens olympic games.
that was really strange. Like you said they haven't done anything since 2004.

[Aveirenses]

:rolleyes: Croatia is... Why? Croatia? I mean... CROATIA!?

[Auriaprottu]

Since you're such an enormous fan of subjectivity, the US' results in Copa shouldn't count. The "US team" doesn't start Klejstan. Gaven isn't its supersub off the bench.

That would be asking far too much of any ranking system. You'd have to get into rating individual players, taking cards into account ("Yeah, Germany lost, but that was because Spain scored after Lehmann got sent off. They'd exhausted their sub limit.") and maybe even figuring into the equation players who are on the pitch but nursing injuries that keep them from being 100%. It's much simpler to define "team" as "whoever is wearing the shirt at the time", and punch in the results.

[woodlands]

While I'm no expert on this, isn't the FIFA ranking based on points accumulated from FIFA-recognized games, with the games weighted? That would explain why teams are hopping all over the place.

So when a team wins a big international match, it accumulates X points in the process, and hops up Y number of spots in the rankings, and bumps whoever else out of the way.

Maybe a better approach is to look at the long term averages to get a better picture?


USA #14 - Last in their group in both WC and copa cannot justify such a high ranking.

IVORY COAST # 31- Easily the best team to go out in the first round of 2006 WC.

You penalize the US for doing poorly in the WC, but make exceptions for the Ivory Coast's poor performance? Couldn't someone just as easily argue the exact reverse (that the US is a good team that just had a bad tournament)?

[midknight]

Greece victory at the 2004 euro -> 11 players on steroids and EPO.
They came out of nowhere and of course only 2 months before the Athens olympic games.
that was really strange. Like you said they haven't done anything since 2004.

Come on man, you forgot the subs :rolleyes:

[JLSA]

I just remember the old rankings - and how we said no-one could come up with anything worse than those.

Well FIFA certainly showed us.

J

[McFly31400]

Come on man, you forgot the subs :rolleyes:

Then search for what Charles Bietry said about the 2004 greek team. If you didn't have doubts on their victory you're naive about what happens "behind the scenes".

[vancity eagle]

While I'm no expert on this, isn't the FIFA ranking based on points accumulated from FIFA-recognized games, with the games weighted? That would explain why teams are hopping all over the place.





You penalize the US for doing poorly in the WC, but make exceptions for the Ivory Coast's poor performance? Couldn't someone just as easily argue the exact reverse (that the US is a good team that just had a bad tournament)?

a poor example. One of the teams you mentioned is ranked #14 the other #31, so they are not in the same boat.

[midknight]

yes this has been done before, but I'd like TOO HIGH

CZECH REP #11 - after being outclassed in 2006 WC, followed by poor results in euro qualifying. (tieing Wales, losing at home to Germany) as well as a losing at home to Serbia in a friendly I see no reason why this aging side is still flirting with the top 10. They should be closer to #20.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
At this stage, 9 places can come and go in the blink of an eye. Their excellent euro and euro qualifying are still benefitting them, but they will soon lose the latter. Also, remember that their win over the US in the WC is considered as a win over the (admlittedly false) 5th placed team in the world in a competetive match at the highest level.

USA #14 - just because they beat Mexico, does this warrant them jumping from around #30 post WC to being on the cusp of the top 10. They've done nothing to warrant being so high. Last in their group in both WC and copa cannot justify such a high ranking.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
The post WC rankings had more to do with the FIFA overhaul of their rankings and less to do with the actual World Cup and you know that.
The US went on a 10 match winning streak after the World Cup up until the Copa started including 6 straight wins in their confed's competition. 14 is high but in a month they'll lose the automatic bolster they got from the 2003 GC (3rd place), 4 wins)

GREECE #16 - this high ranking still flatters the current euro champs who have been absolutely dreadful since that success. Poor WC qualifying, poor confed cup finishing last in their group. They have the easiest euro qualification group yet are still unsure about euro 2008 qualification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nope that honour would probably go to the Netherlands. Greece is actually top of their group. However we both agree that number 16 flatters them a lot.

BOSNIA #27 - Yes they are better than what previous editions had them ranked at(I think in the 50's), but #27 is far too high for Bosnia who have proved nothing on the international scene.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
well, they have drawn Spain twice, beaten Serbia, beaten Belgium, beaten Norway twice, beaten Denmark, beaten Turkey all in competetive matches in the last 4 years. Thats where they get their points. Deal with it.


TOO LOW

DENMARK #26 - should really be close to the top 10, I'd say mid teens at least. Can always compete with the best teams in the world.
----------------------
I would agree with you except that missing out on a world cup will do that to you - Basically they went a year without a competetive match. Playing friendlies doesn't get you anywhere in these rankings

IVORY COAST # 31- Easily the best team to go out in the first round of 2006 WC. Can take their game to any team in the world. An easy top #20 choice in my opinion yet they dropped 11 spots from last month without losing any games.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ivory Coast played 15 games in 2006 alone, of which something like 9 or 10 competitive matches, all played in the space of one month or so for the CAN (jan-feb) and then one month for the WC (may-june)
This means that al of these results were heavily devalued in february of this year and then in june (last rankings). No surprise that they've lost points. Beaten up on Madagascar and Gabon can't compensate for any of this.


GHANA # 37- another revelation from 2006 WC. Easily outclassed the Czechs who still sit at #11 after a woefull WC, yet Ghana drops 18 spots in one month.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ghana is suffering from the Switzerland syndrome., basically what Germany went through before the World Cup. Basically, since hosting gives you no competetive games befor the tournament, the friendlies can't compensate. As Ghana is hosting the CAN in 2008, they end up dropping, and this willl happen to any team until FIFA decides to give a special regime for host countries friendlies (which would belie the stated goal of simplification of the rankings :rolleyes: )

EGYPT # 42- clearly the African champs deserve much better.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing Egypt has done since winning the CAN is draw to Botswana and Mauritania in competitive matches. Seeing that they didn't get to the World Cup and their CAN results are long devalued, its not very surprising.

AUSTRALIA # 49 - poor Asian cup, but their WC results should not be forgotten so quickly. At least a good 20 spots too low.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree with you on the 20 spots too low. That said, the WC was a year ago man. In between time, Australia has contrived to lose to both Kuwait and Iraq in competive matches and lost half of its friendlies. WC results (only 4 points when you check it) have been devalued as well

ECUADOR # 53 - never thought too much of them, but 53 is a quite bit harsh on a side that easily beat a Poland side in the WC virtually playing at home, and made England struggle to victory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"You don't get points for 'almost' or 'easily'. Like Maitre Fifa says Do it or don't. There is no try. As such Ecuador's devalued WC results don't look all that impressive behind a string of friendlies (10 of which only 2 wins and 3 draws) when you lose all matches of the first competitive competition you enter. South America, unlike most other confeds suffers from not having any qualifiers for its continental tournament, and any team not named Brazil or Argentina suffers big time from that

KOREA # 58- have also been very poor lately but this is too much of a slide for my liking
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
agree
.

The basic problem with this ranking is that, results (in competitive matches) talk, and bullshit walks. There are no 'form' points, and teams are penalised for playing too many friendlies, something that is inherently unfair to certain tams and federations. That said, as Tom Wilhelm rightly pointed out currency of rankings = volatility.

I say why don't we just ditch the formula's altogether and let everyone do his own personal ranking on his own criteria :rolleyes:

[midknight]

Then search for what Charles Bietry said about the 2004 greek team. If you didn't have doubts on their victory you're naive about what happens "behind the scenes".

Charles Bietry from what i've found says/said quite a lot of nonsense. I will also remind you that he happens to be a French commentator, and i highly doubt he was pleased by France's elimination at the hands of the self same Greeks.

Quite a lot of people suggested that France bought out the WC in 1998. Did Mr. Bietry have anything to say about that?

- Were the Greeks doped in 2004?
Probably

-Were they more doped than anyone else?
Probably not.

[superdave]

That would be asking far too much of any ranking system. You'd have to get into rating individual players, taking cards into account ("Yeah, Germany lost, but that was because Spain scored after Lehmann got sent off. They'd exhausted their sub limit.") and maybe even figuring into the equation players who are on the pitch but nursing injuries that keep them from being 100%. It's much simpler to define "team" as "whoever is wearing the shirt at the time", and punch in the results.

I'm not the jacknut using how the US played in the glorified friendlies of the Copa America as evidence.

As far as the "no depth" point, this wasn't even the US' B team. Drew Moor and Marvell Wynne are at best our #5 and #6 RBs. Brad Guzan is an exciting prospect but isn't one of the US' current top 5 keepers, even not counting the retired Brad Friedel. And around the field, the story is similar at most positions.

Our true B team would drill the boys who were in Venezuala.

[Auriaprottu]

I'm not the jacknut using how the US played in the glorified friendlies of the Copa America as evidence.

No, but unless my sarcasm meter is broken, you're the one suggesting that the Copa (which was not made of friendlies, and wasn't very friendly to the USMT) results not be used in the calculations because the US didn't send a good team.

It's one thing to say in conversation with another human, "The USA has better players than those who went to the Copa", but quite another to suggest that those results be omitted from mathematical calculations that help determine rankings because Donovan & co. stayed home. Stop and think for a moment.

Using the additional variable of which players were on the roster/in the lineup opens the whole system to so many more variables that it's just not feasible to even bother. You do that, it makes just as much sense (none) to weigh injuries, subs, cards, and start rating players. We all know that they might have qualified for the QF had they brought an A team. But they did not.

As far as the "no depth" point

Not my post.

this wasn't even the US' B team. Drew Moor and Marvell Wynne are at best our #5 and #6 RBs. Brad Guzan is an exciting prospect but isn't one of the US' current top 5 keepers, even not counting the retired Brad Friedel. And around the field, the story is similar at most positions.

You do see where this is going, don't you? Even you don't know exactly where these guys belong. You know only that they ain't A or B team stock. Once you start to get into who's better than who within an NT's talent pool (things that are neither static nor grounded in absolute consensus), you're giving the rating system -ANY rating system- too damn much work. What if X number of A-teamers play in any two of the GS matches but not the third? The simplest and most concrete way is to take the results of whoever steps off the plane wearing the shirts. That also could* have the beneficial effect of encouraging feds to play their best, or close to their best as often as possible, since there could be a seed riding on a good performance.

Our true B team would drill the boys who were in Venezuala.

So send them next time, or don't go.

*The players decide (if they're available) whether or not to play these matches, so it might not make that much difference. But the big pic is having the simplest way of determining quality, with the fewest variables.

[celito]

a poor example. One of the teams you mentioned is ranked #14 the other #31, so they are not in the same boat.

I suggest you stop wasting your time with this and close this thread. You admit you know the formula and that's why the rankings fluctuate. So why wat your time with discussing who should be where :confused:

[superdave]

No, but unless my sarcasm meter is broken, you're the one suggesting that the Copa (which was not made of friendlies, and wasn't very friendly to the USMT) results not be used in the calculations because the US didn't send a good team.
No, I'm saying they shouldn't be used in someone's subjective criticism of FIFA's objective rankings.

Not my post.
Right...I thought the way I wrote that made the "I'm changing course here" point clearly enough, apologies if I didn't.

My main point was that vancityeagle led off the thread using the CA results in a subjective way, but he was being really ignorant about it.