For those following all the previous seeding threads, here's the latest--no surprises. 63.67 Brazil 48.83 Spain 47.83 Germany 47.33 Mexico 46.33 Argentina 45.83 England 45.83 Italy 44.67 France ----------------- 43.00 Netherlands 41.67 USA
updated FAQ Please read the following before posting ignorant, misinformed opinions. I realize that might be asking a bit much. Why is this list different than FIFA's coke rankings? Because Fifa's coke rankings are only part of the complex seeding formula. What is the seeding formula used for? The seeding formula is used to determine which 8 countries receive seeds. Those 8 teams are heads of each of the 8 groups in the world cup. By being seeded, they get the luxury of not having to play another seeded team until the knockout stage. What is the seeding formula exactly? The complex formula takes into account the performance at the last 3 world cups and the FIFA coca-cola rankings of the last three years. Specifically: [1(wc94) + 2(wc98) + 3(wc02)]/6 = Part A (FIFA ranking 12/03 + FIFA ranking 12/04 + FIFA ranking 11/05)/3 = Part B Part A + Part B = world cup seeding formula How is the world cup performance determined? 0 points are awarded if the country failed to qualify that year. 8 points are awarded if the country finished last in their group. 9 points are awarded if the country finished 3rd in their group. All the countries that advanced to the knockout stage are placed from 1st place to 16th place. 1st place (champs) receives 32 points. 2nd place receives 31 points. 3rd place receives 30 points. etc. All the way to 16th place which receives 17 points. How are the points for FIFA ranking awarded? Similarly to above. First, all 32 teams that qualify are ranked by their FIFA ranking. The best is given 32 points. The worst 1 point. Why don't you show all 32 teams seeding formula results? Primarily, because I don't want to accidentally misinform. Only the top 8 teams receive seeds. Teams 9-16 are not placed in a second tier--so really it's irrelevent to show all teams' seedings results. However, if you ask for it, I will show it. How do you pick which 32 countries to run the seeding formula? First, I choose all qualified teams. Then I pick the remaining countries based on their FIFA ranking by federation as much as is possible. For example, the best 14 European teams by FIFA ranking as long as there are at least one team from each Euro qualifying group and no more than two from each qualifying group. This is done primarily for two reasons. It keeps the criteria objective and it runs the formula with the worst-case scenario in mind. Are you sure that FIFA will use this seeding formula? No. However, the last world cup this was the specific formula used. World cups '98 and '94 used a formula extremely similar--possibly identical, but the details of those formulas were never spelled out as specifically as the one used in '02. It is possible that FIFA could change the formula or alter it, but because the last three world cups used this formula, it is a good projection of which teams will be seeded.
In terms of world soccer politics, it's clear to me that FIFA could easily seed those teams without any problems. Personally, however, I'd seed the Netherlands over Mexico... Mexico has never made it to the quarter finals of a World Cup hosted outside their own country. The Netherlands has had more success. Mexico: 2002: lost to USA in round of 16 1998: lost to Germany in round of 16 1994: lost to Bulgaria in round of 16 1990: did not qualify 1986: hosted, lost in quarters to Germany 1982: did not qualify 1978: three and out. 1974: did not qualify Whereas the Netherlands: 2002: did not qualify 1998: lost in semifinals to Brazil 1994: lost in quarters to Brazil 1990: lost in round of 16 to Germany 1986: did not qualify 1982: did not qualify 1978: lost in final to Argentina 1974: lost in final to W Germany
THe LATEST seeding is as follows World Cup top seeds as of 19 October*: 1 Brazil 64 points 2 Spain 49 3 Germany 48 4 Mexico 47 5= Argentina 46 5= England 46 7= France 45 7= Italy 45 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9 Holland 43 10 USA 41 Reference: http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/internationals/4356050.stm
That list is mostly right--provided you round your figures to the nearest whole number (which is what FIFA did in 2002, btw). However, the BBC is off for Italy--that should be rounded to 46 as well. Here's Italy specifically: Part A wc 94: 2nd place = 31 points x 1 = 31 wc 98: 5th place = 28 points x 2 = 56 wc 02: 15th place = 18 points x 3 = 54 31+56+54=141/6=23.5 Part A = 23.5 Part B FIFA ranking 12/03 = 10 = 23 points FIFA ranking 12/04 = 10 = 23 points FIFA ranking 11/05 = 12 = 21 points* *note that this is the only part of the formula using an estimate using October's figures in lieu of next month's. 23+23+21=67/3=22.33 Part B = 22.33 23.5 + 22.33 = 45.83 One could also round this up to 46--in case the BBC would like to check my work
If I understand correctly, the only potential seed not to have qualified is Spain, which in the UEFA playoff. Is this correct? Sachin
This is correct. It should also be noted to anyone who harbors hopes of USA getting a seed, that that dream should be put to rest. If FIFA uses this formula, Spain failing to beat Slovakia should give Netherlands a seed. If FIFA plans on using just raw FIFA rankings this time (as has been reported, but I highly doubt will happen), Spain will by all likelihood surpass USA in November's FIFA coke rankings. Granted, Spain will still need to beat Slovakia, but getting two favorable results between now and November's rankings should flip Spain and USA in the rankings.
Yes. But I think that two other teams in the playoffs, Czech Republic and Turkey, would also have an impact on our situation. In the off chance that they all lose, I think things would be quite a bit different for us.
Just curious as to why Spain are seeded so high. Italy and Germany for example have done quite a bit better than them in the last 3 WCs. Does the FIFA rankings count that much ?
I agree that Holland has a more deseving record for a seed , but what could FIFA do ? National teams that start with the letter "M" do not qualify for a seed .
Live for it over here. This is for those (like Scaryice) who would rather not see the discussion diverge down this path. Actually, I kind of agree with him as this month's thread may see a lot of traffic and it may become confusing for those seeking information to have to sift through posts like "Group G looks like hell and Mexico has it so easy." For those who've followed the other threads, I'm sure you'll agree.
Metropolitan and Everyone else: Talking about the FIFA rankings are indeed relevant. They are an important topic to discuss too. However they are too big a topic to discuss in this thread. Because of that I'm will now separate such talk into their own thread and that thread will stay in this forum to demonstrate their relevance.
Keep hope alive! A war could start any moment with Brazil annexing Argentina and sending a unified Brazentina for a single seed, while the same occurs for GermFrance. Stop being so pessimistic!
If we go by your conjecture Uruguay would get a seed over the Netherlands, Spain, France, and England. Uruguay = 2 World cups England = 1 France = 1 Spain = none Netherlands = none
I'd rep ya if I could! Myself I think the US will get a seed after England and Argentina form a new super state, "Englargeina"
All international conquests aside, I think it's interesting to note what would happen if FIFA uses ONLY the FIFA Coca-Cola Rankings and not previous world cup performances to determine the seeds. Sepp Blatter, in his interview with the BBC that someone posted on the last thread, seemed to hint that only the FIFA rankings would be used this time. That might be over-interpretive on my part. In any case, if we follow the formula used for the past two World Cups, counting previous performances and the Coke rankings, the seeds would be, as Eldiablito stated: 1 Brazil 2 Spain 3 Germany 4 Mexico 5 Argentina 6 Italy 7 England 8 France However, if, hypothetically, FIFA uses only the Coke rankings portion of the formula, using October rankings, the Netherlands and Czech Republic get seeds while Italy and England do not. (Taking the average of the three rankings that are used in the formula Dec. '03, Dec. '04, Oct. '05 (for now) produces the same seeds.) 1 Brazil 32.000 2 France 30.000 3 Argentina 29.000 4 Netherlands 29.000 5 Czech Republic 28.667 6 Spain 27.667 7 Mexico 26.333 England 24.333 USA 23.333 Italy 22.333 Portugal 22.333 Turkey 22.167 Sweden 19.667 8 Germany 19.000
as a mexico fan, i completely agree with you but take this into context, the world cup and fifa is a business spreading out the seeds based on geographics is a logical way of getting more business throughout the whole globe, with mexico as a seed, 5 seeds are from europe, 2 from south america, and 1 from concacaf, this gives teams from 3 continents an advantage to get farther in the tournament, by doing this, it opens up the economic market a bit more than as if it were 2 continents also, 1998: Mexico 2:2 Holland and...2002, Mexico (round of 16), Holland (no show) plus mexico has made the 2nd stage for 3 straight world cups, not too many teams have done that historically holland is the stronger team, that is stating the obvious. but for a seeding system to be accurate, the seeding system cannot use all soccer history to determine seeds, if they did hungary would be seeded as well as russia, and uruguay (no disrespect) the system of using the past 8-12 years is a good indicator of how to seed teams in my opinion, and face it mexico has put up the results internationally to earn seeds since 94, so now we have to wait for mexico to prove this world cup of whether they really deserve the seed