USA up to 9th in FIFA standings

[Father Ted]

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/020814/80/d7f3b.html

[NASL Fan]

Yeah, and the two teams we beat in WC2002 are 6th (Mex) and 9th (Port). The Netherlands is 14th. And Colombia is 15th, ahead of 18 other teams that played in the World Cup...

[Red Card]

Each team is given a computed "score" and then the teams are ranked with the highest score on top. The mathematical formula used is what is questionable.

The most common formula is the "Elo" formula which is used for rankings in chess and tennis. Applied to soccer it gives different rankings than Fifa's formula. See http://www.eloratings.net/ and go down past the recent results.

In the Elo system, which is updated daily and based solely on results. In Elo, the US is tied for 20th, the Netherlands is #2, Colombia is #12, and Mexico is tied for #16.

Each system has its peculiarities. But remember they are based on mathematical formulas that give and take away points due to results. The higher the team's points, the higher their ranking. The big problem is how to weight the results. Should a Copa America final count as much as a World Cup semi-final? Should a friendly count when one team sends their "C" team?

[worldsoccer-Jeff]

Originally posted by NASL Fan
Yeah, and the two teams we beat in WC2002 are 6th (Mex) and 9th (Port). The Netherlands is 14th. And Colombia is 15th, ahead of 18 other teams that played in the World Cup...


Yeah, and Poland beat the USA, so I guess they should be ranked in the top 8 right? Come on, you know better than that.

[Football Ronin]

Not only is it cool that the U.S. finally broke the top ten, but it is on the front page of fifa.com right now. (At least the english version.)

http://www.fifa.com/

Of course I don't know how long it will stay there.

[SNUSA]

Any of the math wizards out there know where this puts us in the shot for a seed at WC06 (should we qualify and play well in the next four years)?

[Topo]

We broke the top 10. It's nothing but good news.

In theory this means that we are the favorite in most of our games. In practice, we are often still treated as an underdog. Whatever. It means very little, but is a nice confidence boost.

If it meant anything, this would be iceskating instead of a sport.

Also:

New Zealand went up 41 places (thanks to an Oceania Cup victory which featured MLS players Ryan Nelson and Simon Elliott).

[Topo]

Originally posted by Topo
New Zealand went up 41 places (thanks to an Oceania Cup victory which featured MLS players Ryan Nelson and Simon Elliott).
I mis-stated that, gained 41 points to move up to 47th place.

[prk166]

I agree that the rankings don't mean a lot. But at least they're a decent attempt at trying to track team results. And as they get more refined over time, they would mean even more.

[Topo]

Oh yeah. We're actually tied with Italy for 9th place.

[sljohn]

Originally posted by SNUSA
Any of the math wizards out there know where this puts us in the shot for a seed at WC06 (should we qualify and play well in the next four years)? See this forum (http://www.bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=126614#post126614) for a discussion on the topic.

The short answer is that next summer's tournaments (Gold Cup and Confederations Cup) are what matter the most (along with qualifying of course!).

[VFish]

The US breaking the top ten and New Zealand's dramatic move highlight the most glaring defect of FIFA's system... all Contential Championships are weighted equally.

[Dandal]

Originally posted by SNUSA
Any of the math wizards out there know where this puts us in the shot for a seed at WC06 (should we qualify and play well in the next four years)?
You have to qualify and play well even to get to play in the World Cup finals;).

Anyhow, seed is decided on
1) Results in the three previous World Cup finals, which makes up 50 % of your "seed points" (where USA after this years WC is #9)

2) Rankings in december 2003, 2004 and 2005 makes up the rest.

Long article on this at http://www.worldcuparchive.com/GUESTS/paul20020709.html . Seed for USA not impossible, but not likely. Best shot is if both England and France falls out in qualifications (don't laugh, it's happened 1994).

And, of course, FIFA might use another system for deciding rankings in 20006. It's a long time away.

[Soccerholic]

The article said that the rankings were affected by the loss of hidtorical points. Anyone know the specifics on this?

[paulocesar]

so let me get this straight....the U.S. beats Portugal and Mexico, yet they are ranked higher...

....and South Korea and Turkey make it to the Semis of the World Cup, yet are ranked lower....


!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!

Each time that list comes out, I just have to laugh...

[Pyro]

I think it is important to keep in mind that the FIFA ranking rank the overall state of football looking at what seems like a rolling 8 year period.

Overall I'd put the US above S. Korea. The U.S. beat them on our home soil with a very weak team earlier last year and tied them on home soil in the World Cup.

[Dandal]

Originally posted by Soccerholic
The article said that the rankings were affected by the loss of hidtorical points. Anyone know the specifics on this?
A simple example: this summer USA lost their points from the summer 1994 (now more than eight years old) and traded them for points made this summer. Also, older results weigh less than recent results.

The bright side is that if you made a fool of yourself four years ago, this has lesser and lesser impact on the rankings and four years from now even the FIFA ranking system will have completely forgotten that match against Iran.

If you want all the specifics, "the principles and method of calculation" is at http://a1801.g.akamai.net/f/1801/2004/3d/www.fifa.com/infoplus/IP-415-E-WR_Long.pdf (large pdf-file).

[nicodemus]

The only time these ratings concern me is when it comes to seeding. Obviously the US wants to be ranked higher in FIFA rankings to get the best WC seeding possible. That is the only stock I put in them, besides that, I don't really care if we are 1st or 100th as long as we win.

[Soccerholic]

Originally posted by Dandal

The bright side is that if you made a fool of yourself four years ago...

You're not referring to anyone in particular, are you? ;)

[paulocesar]

Originally posted by Pyro
I think it is important to keep in mind that the FIFA ranking rank the overall state of football looking at what seems like a rolling 8 year period.

Overall I'd put the US above S. Korea. The U.S. beat them on our home soil with a very weak team earlier last year and tied them on home soil in the World Cup.

I admire your attempt to explain this laughable ranking, but then i throw you the question of "where's Turkey"...or "why was Colombia ranked in the top 5 for so long last year"...amid some other discrepancies....

Plus, didn't Korea also beat the U.S. "on home soil too."?!?!? Ya know what, who cares!?!?! If you've read my posts before, friendlies are as useful as a Jeff Agoos on defense....give me important games if you want to analyse the 8 year progress of a team.

And for future responders who say, "What would you do???", I'd say...scrap the whole system and do what most sensible people do...

Think of the Football world as a Three Tier system...you got your heavyweights...(Brazil, Argentina, Italy, etc.) your middleweights (I would say the U.S. has proved this for a while now), and your lightweights (St. Vincent and the Grenadines!?!?).

Sometimes you have a middleweight punching above its weight, but most of the time you don't. A lot of times we see countries like Bulgaria, Sweeden, Colombia, Denmark, Portugal, Nigeria, come with a great generation and cause upsets, but then they suck again until they get a new golden generation. Yeah, there's upsets...but when you have consistent performance in important competitions time after time after time, then I'd say your punching with the big boys.

So there........man, that ranking really bothers me...can't believe there are people out there that actually like it (and worse...seem to believe it!?!?!?)