USA up to 9th in FIFA standings

[Newman]

If you are a US soccer fan, this is nothing but good news. It puts something positive and (sort of) newsworthy out there. It was actually running on the espn2 ticker. Who cares if it's meaningless? Hell, American sports fans are exceedingly poll concious(college sports, anyone?), maybe this will help. Polls do one thing well, start conversation and debate. At least FIFA doesn't have a World Cup BCS...

As long as FIFA wants a power ranking, I'd just as soon have the US listed nearer the top than the bottom, regardless of the validity.

[dcc134]

Originally posted by superdave

You mean knockout round. Mexico has only made the quarters the two times it hosted.

Yeah, thats what I meant.

Anyway I don't buy we should be ranked ahead of Mexico. It has only been 2 years since we have shown we can beat them. France 98 is still a black eye for US soccer is going to be a weight on our ranking for 4 more years.

[VFish]

Originally posted by superdave

You're wrong.
How so?

The Gold Cup, Oceania Nations Cup, and Euro 2000 are considered "Continental Championships", hence they're weighted equally by FIFA's system.

[chaski]

UEFA and CONMEBOL matches are weighted higher than the other federations.

[mcontento]

Originally posted by VFish

How so?

The Gold Cup, Oceania Nations Cup, and Euro 2000 are considered "Continental Championships", hence they're weighted equally by FIFA's system.

True except games between UEFA and Copa America have a 1.00 modifier, while AFC is .93 (or something similar), CONCACAF is .86, CAF is .84, and I forget what Oceania is (.05?) ;)

So USA vs. Mexico GC match would have a 1.5 multiplier for Continental then a .86 multiplier for region's stregnth while Argentina vs. Brasil CA match would be 1.5 for Continental and 1.00 for region's stregnth.

[superdave]

Originally posted by united16
These rankings are TOTALLY meaningless
TOTALLY meaningless?

I'll tell you what then. Since they're meaningless (er, TOTALLY meaningless) then lets bet $50 on every match over the next year between two nations where one nation is ranked 20 slots ahead of the other. I'll take the favorites, and you take the lower ranked teams. Heck, I'll pay you $55 for every time your team wins, and you pay me $50 when my team wins.

According to your theory, you'd come out ahead on the $5 difference.

[mcontento]

Originally posted by dcc134
I actually think these ranking are pretty accurate this time around. But of course they mean nothing :)

Not true. These rankings mean a lot really. Just the fans don't want to believe them. But they have an affect on your World Cup seeding, which to me is the most important thing a ranking system could have an effect on. Otherwise, who should care who is 2-301, just who is #1?

You can say that you think the system is flawed, or the equations don't make sense, but u cannot say that the rankings have no meaning.

USA is #9 in the world to FIFA. That means a LOT!

[dcc134]

Originally posted by mcontento


Not true. These rankings mean a lot really. Just the fans don't want to believe them. But they have an affect on your World Cup seeding, which to me is the most important thing a ranking system could have an effect on. Otherwise, who should care who is 2-301, just who is #1?

You can say that you think the system is flawed, or the equations don't make sense, but u cannot say that the rankings have no meaning.

USA is #9 in the world to FIFA. That means a LOT!


sarcasm anyone? I should have used the ;) instead of :).

I think the rankings are usually pretty realistic. The only thing I had a problem with was Brazil being ranked ahead of France for quite a bit longer than they should have, but that was corrected in due time.

[mcontento]

Originally posted by dcc134



sarcasm anyone? I should have used the ;) instead of :).

I think the rankings are usually pretty realistic. The only thing I had a problem with was Brazil being ranked ahead of France for quite a bit longer than they should have, but that was corrected in due time.

Actually I was speaking more to a number of ppl with that quote, sorry I just singled yours out because it was convenient to what I was thinking at the time.

[CharlesS]

Can somebody redo the seeding numbers with present rankings?

[dcc134]

Originally posted by mcontento


Actually I was speaking more to a number of ppl with that quote, sorry I just singled yours out because it was convenient to what I was thinking at the time.

Thats alright. I just didn't want to be confused for someone who completely disregards these rankings.

[VFish]

Originally posted by mcontento


True except games between UEFA and Copa America have a 1.00 modifier, while AFC is .93 (or something similar), CONCACAF is .86, CAF is .84, and I forget what Oceania is (.05?) ;)

So USA vs. Mexico GC match would have a 1.5 multiplier for Continental then a .86 multiplier for region's stregnth while Argentina vs. Brasil CA match would be 1.5 for Continental and 1.00 for region's stregnth.
Okay, I can buy that... but taking it a step further, Euro2000 matches are devalued because they occurred 2 years ago, so they are actually weighted less than Gold/Oceanic Cup matches.

Gold Cup : 1.5 x .86 = 1.29
Oceanic : 1.5 x .84 = 1.26
Euro 2000: 1.5 x 1 x .75 (age weighting) = 1.125

The point is... the weighting system is flawed.

[dcc134]

Originally posted by VFish

Okay, I can buy that... but taking it a step further, Euro2000 matches are devalued because they occurred 2 years ago, so they are actually weighted less than Gold/Oceanic Cup matches.

Gold Cup : 1.5 x .86 = 1.29
Oceanic : 1.5 x .84 = 1.26
Euro 2000: 1.5 x 1 x .75 (age weighting) = 1.125

The point is... the weighting system is flawed.

What do you propose the solution is. You can't weight matches from 2 years ago the same as those from 6 months ago, or those from 8 years ago. It is the scheduling system that is flawed, not the weighted ranking system. If the Gold Cup and every contential championship for that matter, was held every 4 years like Euro 2000, it would give a clearer picture, but that isn't the case.

[VFish]

Originally posted by dcc134


What do you propose the solution is. You can't weight matches from 2 years ago the same as those from 6 months ago, or those from 8 years ago. It is the scheduling system that is flawed, not the weighted ranking system. If the Gold Cup and every contential championship for that matter, was held every 4 years like Euro 2000, it would give a clearer picture, but that isn't the case.
I’d like to see the Gold Cup, Copa America, and European Championships held concurrently. It would elevate some of the club vs. country conflicts that often turn these matches into glorified friendlies. While we’re at it, let’s combine the Gold Cup and Copa America and create an “Americas Cup” that could rival the European Championships.

[Raider Red]

Copied this from my Excel spreadsheet. World Cup column is the weighted average pts from last three World Cups, FIFA ranking is current. There are some countries which are higher than Nigeria, but I omitted them since they would still be out of the top 15.

Position World Cup FIFA Ranking Total

BRA 1 31.67 32 63.67
GER 2 28.83 28 56.83
SPA 3 21.17 30 51.17
ARG 4 17.33 31 48.33
MEX 5 21 27 48.00
ITA 6 23.5 24 47.50
ENG 7 21.5 26 47.50
FRA 8 14.67 29 43.67
USA 9 18.17 24 42.17
DEN 10 19.83 21 40.83
TUR 11 15 22 37.00
IRE 12 13.33 20 33.33
HOL 13 14 19 33.00
BEL 14 16.17 15 31.17
POR 15 4.5 26 30.50
KOR 16 18.67 11 29.67
PAR 17 14.83 14 28.83
SWE 18 15 13 28.00
JPN 19 14.67 10 24.67
NGR 20 15 5 20.00

[paulocesar]

Originally posted by njb3358


I'm laughing at you right now;)

Wow 5 posts....that must mean that you just got into soccer right around when the World Cup started i'd bet...who cares what you think...why don't you go to your little room and go pop your little pimples on your pimply head...listen to your favorite "bands" NSYNC, Backstreet Boys whatever...but not too loud, or your momma is gonna whoop your ass (and we know that she can), and follow another sport worthy of your following...like field hockey or ping pong...

I've been following the game passionately and thoroughly since 1986 lil boy...and if anyone's laughing at someone...its me at you....

Why don't you get a good laugh too and take a good look in the mirror...hilarious!!!

[roarksown1]

Poor little CONCACAF - former region of losers - now with TWO teams in the Top Ten in the WORLD !!!

Let's enjoy the coverage while we can...

[paulocesar]

Originally posted by eldiablito


I don't mean to boil your blood any more, but how is your three-tiered system any different than the current FIFA ranking, besides the fact that it's more detailed?

Your heavyweights are ranked #1, #2, and #9.

Your middleweight is currently punching above its weight class at #9; tied with one of the big boys, Italy, who has suffered from some questionable officiating (but then that's boxing, damn judges always taking the bribe ;))

Your lightweight is not in the top 100. It looks like you and FIFA's list agree, it's just that they've decided to tell you who's punching above/below their weight class.

Gotta respond to this....by the way...luv your login name...el diablo does play"the beautiful game" for DC....

let's suppose you take all the players in this world cup and say, "you can't play the next one." I'd wager that the heavyweights would still be Brazil, Argentina, ...and yes even Italy!

Why??? Because time and time again these countries have proved that they have a system of churning out great players over and over again...Can the U.S. do it??? Who knows...its got the money and the physical presence (much like the Germans) to do it, but if MLS tanks in the furture (and that still could happen people) they can never come close to having a system that matches up with the heavyweights...could they sneak a World Cup with a golden generation...maybe...but look at Holland with Cruyff, Van Basten, and Gullit, Spain with El Butre, Michel, Vazquez, France with Tigana, Giresse, and Platini, and now even Figo, Rui Costa and Jao Pinto...great generations that couldn't get it done.

The heavyweights can almost come to a World Cup with two, maybe even three teams that could compete and win cups...I can't see the middleweights doing that on a consistent basis...

Do Americans love ranking things...yes!!! Is it necessary (like i guess it is for College sports)....Absolutely not!!!

Let me tell you what that ranking takes into account. Not only does it take in the Men's National
Teams official games, friendlies, and petty tournements, but also, Under 23's, Under 21's, Under 19's, Under 17's, as well as probably the Women's national team (not sure about that one, but that wouldn't surprise me). So excuse me if i don't take it seriously....I know many other people in the world would agree with me....too bad the rest of the world (instead of mostly Americans and Brits) can't get access to BS...(sic)..

[WHOLMAN2]

Originally posted by paulocesar


Gotta respond to this....by the way...luv your login name...el diablo does play"the beautiful game" for DC....

let's suppose you take all the players in this world cup and say, "you can't play the next one." I'd wager that the heavyweights would still be Brazil, Argentina, ...and yes even Italy!

Why??? Because time and time again these countries have proved that they have a system of churning out great players over and over again...Can the U.S. do it??? Who knows...its got the money and the physical presence (much like the Germans) to do it, but if MLS tanks in the furture (and that still could happen people) they can never come close to having a system that matches up with the heavyweights...could they sneak a World Cup with a golden generation...maybe...but look at Holland with Cruyff, Van Basten, and Gullit, Spain with El Butre, Michel, Vazquez, France with Tigana, Giresse, and Platini, and now even Figo, Rui Costa and Jao Pinto...great generations that couldn't get it done.

The heavyweights can almost come to a World Cup with two, maybe even three teams that could compete and win cups...I can't see the middleweights doing that on a consistent basis...

Do Americans love ranking things...yes!!! Is it necessary (like i guess it is for College sports)....Absolutely not!!!

You were doing real good until right here...

Originally posted by paulocesar
Let me tell you what that ranking takes into account. Not only does it take in the Men's National
Teams official games, friendlies, and petty tournements, but also, Under 23's, Under 21's, Under 19's, Under 17's, as well as probably the Women's national team (not sure about that one, but that wouldn't surprise me). So excuse me if i don't take it seriously....I know many other people in the world would agree with me....too bad the rest of the world (instead of mostly Americans and Brits) can't get access to BS...(sic)..

In the words of Jack Edwards, FIFA only ranks the full international team. Not the U-23's, U-21's, U-19's, U-17's, or any of the Women's teams.

[Bluecat82]

Y'know, we can debate the value of mathematical formulae from now until the end of the Millenium, and still never come to a consensus...

Algebra II aside...bottom line for US fans is this...

If someone...anyone...had come out here in August 1998, when we were about to enter our "You finished last in the World Cup, nyah, nyah!" four years of Purgatory...

(Thanks to Our Friends The Saudis for taking that one over...:))

...and said that we'd be tied for NINTH ON THE WHOLE DARN PLANET!!! in just four years time...

...with the Italians, no less...

...everybody on these boards would have been chasing after the poor slob with large butterfly nets...

Kids, how far we have come...:D