(Cross-posted to Climbing the Ladder) The new FIFA rankings are out for September. This will start to get really exciting with the December edition, after the qualifying draws are done in late November. That's also the first month of the three that get locked into place for the rankings half of the formula. Top 7 teams seeded (South Africa automatically seeded as hosts) Code: Total WC FIFA Change 1 Brazil 59.3 29.3 30 -2.0 1 Germany 59.3 30.3 29 1.0 1 Italy 59.3 27.3 32 2.0 4 Argentina 52.0 21.0 31 0.0 5 Spain 51.3 25.3 26 1.0 6 England 50.3 26.3 24 3.0 6 France 50.3 23.3 27 -2.0 8 Portugal 47.3 22.3 25 2.0 9 Netherlands 42.7 14.7 28 2.0 10 Mexico 39.3 19.3 20 -2.0 11 Croatia 32.0 9.0 23 -4.0 12 USA 29.7 13.7 16 0.0 13 Czech 28.0 6.0 22 -2.0 14 Poland 25.7 8.7 17 N/A 15 Japan 21.3 13.3 8 1.0 16 Romania 21.0 0.0 21 1.0 17 Paraguay 20.7 11.7 9 -1.5 18 South Korea 19.7 15.7 4 0.0 19 Scotland 19.0 0.0 19 N/A 20 Greece 18.0 0.0 18 -1.0 21 Uruguay 17.7 2.7 15 1.0 22 Cote d'Ivoire 17.0 6.0 11 -1.0 23 Nigeria 16.7 2.7 14 1.0 24 Australia 16.3 11.3 5 0.0 25 Tunisia 15.7 8.7 7 -1.0 26 Cameroon 15.0 3.0 12 -5.0 27 Colombia 13.0 0.0 13 2.5 28 Iran 11.3 5.3 6 0.0 29 Saudi Arabia 11.0 8.0 3 0.0 30 Guinea 10.0 0.0 10 N/A 31 South Africa 4.0 3.0 1 0.0 32 Canada 2.0 0.0 2 N/A Canada, Guinea, Poland, and Scotland are in the formula this month in place of Costa Rica, Morocco, Serbia, and Ukraine. For the first time I've added the column showing the change in total points from the previous month. Portugal edges back up a bit this month. Thanks to eldiablito and Edgar for their work on this in previous months. FAQ Why is this list different than FIFA's Coca-Cola rankings? Because Fifa's Coca-Cola 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 2 world cups and the FIFA rankings. Part A: World Cup performance = (2002*1+2006*2)/3 Part B: FIFA Ranking = (12/2007 rank+12/2008 rank+11/2009 rank)/3 Part A + Part B = world cup seeding formula For the purposes of this showing you the current standings in this thread, the current FIFA rank will count as all three years. How is the world cup performance determined? 0 points are awarded if the country failed to qualify that year. The 16 teams that didn't make it out of the group stage are ranked (Points, GD, GF). The bottom 8 get 8 points each. The top 8 get 9 points each. 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. If two or more teams have the same FIFA ranking, the points are not divided among them. Instead, the one shown first in the FIFA rankings gets the most points and so on. How do you pick which 32 countries to run the seeding formula? I pick the countries based on their FIFA ranking by federation. For example, the best 13 UEFA teams by FIFA ranking since 13 UEFA teams will qualify. This is done primarily for two reasons. It keeps the criteria objective and it runs the formula with the worst-case scenario in mind. 13.0-UEFA 5.0-CAF (5+host) 4.5-AFC 4.5-CONMEBOL 3.5-CONCACAF 0.5-OFC Are you sure that FIFA will use this seeding formula? No, it might change slightly. For 2006 they only used the previous 2 World Cups instead of 3 like before. But they've been using the same basic formula since 1994. Previous Editions July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007
Mock Draw Pot 1: Argentina, Brazil, England, France, Germany, Italy, South Africa, Spain Pot 2: Croatia, Czech Republic, Greece, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Scotland Pot 3: Cameroon, Colombia, Cote d'Ivoire, Guinea, Nigeria, Paraguay, Tunisia, Uruguay Pot 4: Australia, Canada, Iran, Japan, Korea Republic, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, USA Group A: South Africa, Portugal, Paraguay, Iran Group B: England, Scotland, Colombia, Mexico Group C: Argentina, Croatia, Cameroon, Korea Republic Group D: Brazil, Romania, Nigeria, USA Group E: Spain, Poland, Guinea, Saudi Arabia Group F: Italy, Czech Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Japan Group G: Germany, Netherlands, Uruguay, Canada Group H: France, Greece, Tunisia, Australia
Except for the South Africa group (many, ain't it sweet being the host?), that actually looks like a pretty even set of groups all around. Seems to me that Groups C and F are the toughest. It's be an entertaining tournament.
I wouldn't dismiss D as being a cakewalk, at least not for 2nd place. But I agree, no "Group of Death". Not even one that is often defined by USA or MEX, or by a Euro team that just misses being a seed. B looks interesting, if just for the ENG/SCO game.
I have to admit, with CONCACAF #4 going up against CONMEBOL #5, I don't see it as quite as likely. One of Costa Rica/Canada/Honduras/Trinidad against one of Colombia/Paraguay/Chile/Peru (I used the FIFA rankings)? I suppose it's possible. Just not likely.
Maybe, just maybe, this will finally force FIFA to seed all four pots.... Wow, that was a nice dream.
Fudge the formula to seed Mexico and then keep them apart from other CONCACAF teams. Nothing could be simpler. J
Then you'd have the following: 5-AFC 5-CAF 4-CONCACAF 2-CONMEBOL (Argentina & Brazil seeded) They would probably just have the same pots, just one would have 9 teams. They might take one team out of the 9 make them a special pot like they did with Serbia last time. For that team they would draw the group and not the team.
With England failing to qualify for Euro, I'd think that would open up a chance for the Netherlands or Portugal to gain some ground in 2008 for a seed. If Germany, Italy, France and Spain don't flame out early, and the Netherlands, Portugal or Croaita make a deep run, those extra points (which England won't have) could knock them out of a seed. Of course, that's assuming England qualified for WC2010!
i think to many realtively weak team make it to the WC. and the seeding system shud be changed. i mean atm europe have 13 teams Italy Spain Germany Czech Republic France Portugal Holland Croatia England Turkey Sweden Greece Ukraine that coulde be the 13 from europe. and inn my opinion that leav out a few teams that are better then teams the are likely to qualife from oter regions why do you think europe dont have more places inn the WC ?
Where did you get the idea that putting the 32 best national teams in the world on the field was the goal of the World Cup?
I'm going to let tomwilhelm give his opinion on this. Instead, I'm going to write up a rough analysis -- I have the exact data on another computer that I don't have access to right now. My assumption is that the FIFA rankings have some sort of meaning. I know, it's a stretch that has been analyzed to death on these boards. But I wasn't able to find any other ranking for the relevant times -- namely, the month before the World Cup in '06, 02 and '98. (Personally, I like varos' ranking, but as he's only one person, and his program isn't public, we're not going to get the info anytime soon. He hasn't updated his numeri calcio (or whatever it's called) website in a few months. He must've gotten busy. And I wasn't able to find any historic elo rankings. So there you have it, FIFA is all I have to analyze with.) I'll post the details when I can get at my other computer. The upshot is that, if you compare the rankings before each World Cup to the actual representatives in the World Cup, there is only a slight difference between each confederations number of representatives. If you look at the past three World Cups, the number of teams for CONMEBOL, CONCACAF and Africa (CAF, right? I always get CAF and AFC confused) are almost exactly right. That is, if there were 3 CONCACAF teams in the top 32 of the FIFA ranking, 3 teams were also in the World Cup. There were small variations, but overall, the number of CONCACAF, CONMEBOL and CAF representatives in the World Cup matched up very well with the FIFA top 32. The two that were off, as you probably aren't very surprised to learn, were UEFA and AFC. So, using FIFA's own rankings, there is some basis for suggesting that Europe is under-represented in the World Cup, and Asia is overrepresented. But not by much. Only one or two teams. Problem is, if you take two teams away from Asia, you're down to just 2.5 teams. While that would be nice in terms of a possibly better tournament, it would also reduce the viewership (somewhat), and cut out a large number of fans. So, yeah, maybe it should be the best 32 teams in the world. The problem is, how do you decide that? The FIFA rankings have their problems, as have been amply argued about. So, what other method are you going to use? As for me, I do think it looks like Asia has too many teams in the tournament. I think they should have one less, and Europe one more. But I'm inclined to wait and see how they fare in the next World Cup before I start really complaining. Not that I can do anything about it.
Sorry, but your logic makes no sense. In top 32 of the November FIFA/Coke there are respectively: 23 UEFA teams 5 CONMEBOL teams 2 CONCACAF teams 2 CAF teams 0 AFC teams I haven't looked it up historically, but can't imagine any dramatic changes in World Cup years. So: CONMEBOL is about right, CONCACAF is overrepresented; CAF is overrepresented; AFC is way overrepresented. UEFA gets reamed, to put it mildly. To me it is obvious that FIFA's goal is to load the WC field with as many diverse teams as possible, whether for commercial or growth reasons. The question still remains: does the sacrifice of quality in favor of multi-representation (a kind of soccer affirmative action) cheapen the quality of the tournament? I'd say yes, especially in the early stages, but it doesn't make it any less compelling to watch.
yes it does make the qualite much wore particularly inn the early stages. but 23 UEFA teams is a bit much i think 18 woude be more fair. also look at the EC the groupes ther are much harder then inn the WC. Even inn a competison that lacks England.
It's actually pretty easy to look up. Change the dropdowns on the right on the FIFA Rankings page. There actually are significant changes. At this very moment (the rankings that you used), the rankings reflect the fact that the most significant recent matches have been in Europe and South America -- the qualifiers for Europe '08 and South American World Cup Qualifying. Only a few African and Asian teams have played games that are significant. Come the World Cup, we will have had a stretch of 5 months with no significant games in any confederation, after a few months where every confederation have played meaningful games. This is pretty typical, and with the new FIFA rankings, I expect even wilder swings. We'll see big swings for the Euro teams in '08 -- at least, for the 16 teams that made it to Switz/Austria. Then in the summer of '09, Asia, Africa, South America and CONCACAF will hold confederation championships (I think. I know CONCACAF will. I don't recall when the other three are, they keep switching them between every 2 and 3 years, and I don't keep up with them). Those teams that do well there will find themselves disproportionally pushed up the rankings. That's the reason that I used the rankings right before the World Cup. At that point, most teams have only been playing friendlies, so things stabilize somewhat. As I said, I'll post the details when I get to my other computer. But if you don't believe me, rather than doubting me without looking things up, you could go to the FIFA website yourself and check it out.
So... b/c UEFA can't get its act together to tell the minnows to shove it up their ass and have 2 or 3 rounds b4 bringing in the Big Guns (Italy, Germany, Spain, England, Holland, etc.).... ... the rest of the world has to suffer? Prolly b/c 3+ UEFA teams tank each WC. Why? So we can watch 6 UEFA teams tank instead of 3? Sure. By having 18 UEFA teams you'll catch 2+ teams that are better than the #13 UEFA team, but... again... that's UEFA's problem. If #10 UEFA can't beat #3 CAF or AFC, what makes you think that #18 will? I disagree. While Group C is a harsh group, I think Argentina's last 2 groups at the WC were harder. And more interesting. Every EC has more than a few teams in over their head. Oftentimes, there are teams that can barely muster an attack! The opening round of EC is oftentimes quite frustrating for the fan b/c too many freaking teams sit back and defend 'cuz they're afraid of losing. Btw: inn = hotel in = preposition
Ppl forget that part of the WC is to foster development around the globe, not just in the countries that already have an established, renowned national program. And it's working. C'caf, AFC and CAF are far more competitive now that the game has become internationalized and the field has expanded, which spreads money throughout the globe as opposed to Europe.
well the only weak team inn the EC this year is austria. and the only reason they are there is cause they are a hoste natsion. so if you just look at that it gives you 16 UEFA teams 3 more then can go to the WC and i woude say al does teams are better then Costa Rica, Trinidad and Tobago, Angola, Iran, Togo, and Saudi Arabia. all teams that participated inn the last WC and as for many UEFA teams doing badly only Serbia got last inn there groupe and they played inn a very hard groupe. and as for the minnovs of europe beating out the big teams, well how do you want UEFA to organise the qualifing ? The point is that wile there are a few european teams that are clear international giants, many of the second best european teams are abel to beat them if they are haveing a good day so wining a groue onn eirope can be extremly hard even for the big teams. as for your development argument, that is a good one but it does make the WC less competative inn the groupe stage. Group 1 Portugal, Sweden, Denmark, Hungary, Albania, Malta Group 2 Greece, Israel, Switzerland, Moldova, Latvia, Luxembourg Group 3 Czech Republic, Poland, NORTHERN IRELAND, Slovakia, Slovenia, San Marino Group 4 Germany, Russia, Finland, Wales, Azerbaijan, Liechtenstein Group 5 Spain, Turkey, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Armenia, Estonia Group 6 Croatia, England, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Andorra Group 7 France, Romania, Serbia, Lithuania, Austria, Faroe Islands Group 8 Italy, Bulgaria, Republic of Ireland, Cyprus, Georgia, Montenegro Group 9 Holland, Scotland, Norway, FYR Macedonia, Iceland I just marked out the teams i think can do decent if they make it to the WC not saying that europe shud have 23 teams ,just showing that it is diffecult to get to the WC from europe.