USA up to 9th in FIFA standings

[Ghost]

Boy this is thread is knee-deep in haterade.

[paulocesar]

Originally posted by WHOLMAN2


You were doing real good until right here...



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.

You know what...you're right...i just looked at the rules for the ludicrous rankings (it's been a while since i've done that)...and i'm even more perplexed how these guys come up with these results if its only based on the men's "A" team results!?!?! Qualifying, Tourneys, home and away...they still forgot to add how much money federations put in to FIFA coffers...ahem Jack Warner....

I guess I got a little carried away...sue me...i luv this "beautiful game"...I think that's why sometimes we get a lil vicious.

[drnlm]

just wondering... what rank was the usa after the 98 world cup?

[ramckay]

Originally posted by drnlm
just wondering... what rank was the usa after the 98 world cup? We were 11th going in when the May rankings came out, and 19th in the July rankings (there were no June rankings, of course). We hovered in the high teens and low twenties from 1998 to '02.

[VFish]

http://www.fifa2.com/images/ranking/Rank-2002-08/USA465300.GIF

You can plot any team's history here:

http://www.fifa.com/rank/index_E.html

[VFish]

Originally posted by ramckay
We were 11th going in when the May rankings came out, and 19th in the July rankings (there were no June rankings, of course). We hovered in the high teens and low twenties from 1998 to '02. Our lofty #11 ranking in 1998 again demonstrates how overweighting the Gold Cup skews the results (JMHO :))

[jeeeesus]

i reckon the only worthwhile information to be drawn from the fifa rankings is the historical tracking, where a picture of a team's fortunes over time can be reasonably seen.

at any one time, however, there are going to be quite a few ludicrous placings, rendering the list dubious as a starting point for seeding tournaments (no better way though, i suppose).

[dcsoccer2000]

after reading this entire thread...here are my conclusions:

1) All games are still won and lost on the field or for our English friends online...the pitch.

2) No team has ever beaten another team because of the FIFA rankings.

3) The ranking are just a guide that rewards teams for consistency over a long period of time. It also rewards teams for scheduling friendlies (even though they don't really matter) against better teams, because you'd gain more points by earning a draw against Brazil then you would against El Salvador. No real surprise here.

4) I don't think the confederations really have any pull with the ranking (i.e sending FIFA money) because anyone could do the calculations if they'd like to put the time into it. FIFA provides the formula...I actually did the calculations once for the US after a hand full of friendlies...it wasn't worth the time or effort.

5) These ranking really bother some people...even though they don't really mean to much once the game starts. I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that England could care less about the fact that Argentina was ranked higher when they played June at the WC, but Portugal should have looked at the rankings to see that the US should be at least respected.

6) Can the US keep this ranking over time...who knows. Our youth teams are doing better at developing players, but MLS has to survive and create a bigger pipeline of young players coming through the ranks. We'll have to start this thread again after Germany '06

[VFish]

Originally posted by jeeeesus
i reckon the only worthwhile information to be drawn from the fifa rankings is the historical tracking, where a picture of a team's fortunes over time can be reasonably seen.

at any one time, however, there are going to be quite a few ludicrous placings, rendering the list dubious as a starting point for seeding tournaments (no better way though, i suppose). Point well taken... the rankings are historical in nature, hence the current snapshot is filled with anomalies. I suppose that's why back room politics play such a crucial role in the seeding “process”.

[Deimos]

Originally posted by VFish
Point well taken... the rankings are historical in nature, hence the current snapshot is filled with anomalies. I suppose that's why back room politics play such a crucial role in the seeding “process”.

Give us an example where back room politics played a crucial role.

[glove]

Who cares about rankings? Anyone who knows the game will tell you they don't mean squat. Colombia is 15 and S.Korea 22? Who finished 4th and who did not even make a palyoff to go to the cup? These rankings make the BCS look like the second coming in comparision. Sure they are fun to look at but they don't even count(please someone correct me if Iam wrong) towards shi+.

[VFish]

Originally posted by Deimos


Give us an example where back room politics played a crucial role. I once had a link to FIFA’s description of the ‘98 process. FIFA mentioned trying numerous formulas and criteria and always coming up with the same 6 seeds (in addition to the host and defending champ). To me that screams “we had no clear cut criteria but molded these stats to bolster our preconceived notions of who should be seeded”. If I can find the link I’ll post it here for you.

Take another example, any clear reason England shouldn’t have been seeded over Spain in 2002?

Spain:
1990 - Second round exit
1994 - Quarterfinal exit
1998 - First round exit

England:
1990 - 4th place
1994 - Didn't qualify
1998 - Second round exit

I think both sides could make a decent argument.

[VFish]

Originally posted by glove
Who cares about rankings? Anyone who knows the game will tell you they don't mean squat. Colombia is 15 and S.Korea 22? Who finished 4th and who did not even make a palyoff to go to the cup? These rankings make the BCS look like the second coming in comparision. Sure they are fun to look at but they don't even count(please someone correct me if Iam wrong) towards shi+. The problem is you don’t view the rankings in the proper perspective. Unlike the BCS, the FIFA rankings aren’t designed to be a snapshot of a team’s current strength. They go back 8 years and are lagging indicators trying to predict future trends.

[VisualPlayground]

usa sucks and only had luck, 9th place is in no where close.

anyway fishbrain, you know that we think that you and your buddy (smilingretart) have no idea about football and not even played the game before......hehee we still want you to join in this fantasy group (mostly soccernet people)
deatline is friday afternoon, take the challenge and invite all your retartet friends

In order to join the group, just go to http://uk.premiership.fantasysports.yahoo.com/salary, create a team and choose to Join a Private Group. Then, when prompted, enter the following information...

Group ID#: 6354
Password: mls






Originally posted by VFish
Point well taken... the rankings are historical in nature, hence the current snapshot is filled with anomalies. I suppose that's why back room politics play such a crucial role in the seeding “process”.

[Deimos]

This is not a discussion of which team is better, that's decided on the pitch, or which "player" can put together the best Fantasy team.

It's used to determine which teams are seeded in the World Cup.

[VFish]

Originally posted by Deimos


Give us an example where back room politics played a crucial role. Here’s the link I promised you on 1998’s Seeding procedure:
http://www.fifa.com/fifa/pub/newsletter/fifanews.1-98.html#5.00 (see Seeding based on performance)

Note the following text:

… The committee observed that a number of different variations of such a calculation (e.g. varying the weight attached to the different factors) all resulted in the same teams being foremost in the seedings.

These nebulous weightings allow FIFA to tinker with the system unti they end up with their preordained seeds.

[Dandal]

I read the article, and I really don't get your point. Firstly, the article confirms that FIFA used the same ranking formula in 1998 as they did in 2002 (using last 3 World Cup performances and last 3 years FIFA ranking). It also says that the organizing committee also played with the formula to see if the weighting of the different factors (such as a Euro Championship weighs more than a OFC championship) was crucial in determining the ranking. They came to the conclusion it was not.

What's the problem?

[VFish]

Originally posted by Dandal

What's the problem? There's no problem. Deimos asked for an example of “back room politics”, so I gave him one.

The point is FIFA acknowledged it experimenting with the formula. Say for the sake of argument the weightings had altered the outcome. Which formula do you use? What is the tie-breaking criteria? Conveniently no one knows the exact formula so the “powers that be” can hand pick the lottery winner.

Anyway… seeding is overrated. It’s designed to spread out 8 elite teams. The “Luck of the draw” still plays a much greater roll whether your group is difficult or easy.

[Deimos]

That example is perhaps not as clear as I was looking for, but I suppose if it was clear, it wouldn't be a back room deal.

Seeding is important in that it means you don't have to play another seeded team. It doesn't guarentee a trip to the second round, obviously.

[speedcake]

I started to say something, but I won't. The idiocy in this thread might leak into my post and corrupt all things me.

Okay, I lied. Some of you need to get a grip. Do some research before you target the rankings in your retarded boo-hooing. No ranking will ever be perfect, this ranking certainly could be improved, it is a mathematical formula, no money is exchanged(prove that it is if you think so), the seedings in the World Cup DO depend on the rankings therefore you SHOULD F-ING care who is ranked where. Give some suggestions as to how the rankings can be improved cause your negative dribble makes you look silly.

One good thing about the rankings? It takes out the "idiotic opinion" factor. And thankfully, after reading some of these posts and posts from past rankings related threads.


so much anger, sheesh.