I made a spreadsheet . . . . . Australia and England have plummeted, but blissett will be very happy. it is possibly 1 or 2 out for Brazil at this point, and they have another game very soon against Colombia
Wow, you're basically projecting Japan at 6th place, with a small margin over Netherlands and Brazil (actually, the margin over Netehrlands looks as thin as being quite invisible) and basically replacing Australia, after beating them! When exactly next update of FIFA women's world rankings is due? I'll have to check if Japan has any friendly match scheduled in-between.
not until late June after the next 2 rounds of UEFA qualifiers, which will have much more bearing than any friendlies.
I think the difference between Member (or Memebr) and Member+ is some combination of post output, reps, and time since registering. The memes must be strong with those who haven't met the Member+ threshold, though. X-D Basically, even if Japan has friendlies, expect the Netherlands to pass Japan (unless something really goes wrong for them in UEFA WWCQ)
Why the 22 pt. loss for England? Their draw with Wales at home? I'm unfamiliar with how the system operates, so I'd enjoy some clarification.
Yup! England is rated much more highly than Wales, plus they were playing at home, making for a nearly 500pt difference in ratings going in to the match. That translates to an expected result of 0.95 (on a scale of 0 to 1), or an absolute blowout for England. The 0-0 draw, though, means England's actual result was only 0.47. Since the match was a WWCQ game, it was worth 45 ratings points; 45pts x (0.47-0.95) = -22pts, roughly. I'm not being incredibly exact since you also have to consider the B&H match, but since that was a 2-0 away win for England, I don't think that shipped many points either way.
I noticed with this original spreadsheet not shown, France beat Canada in a friendly a few weeks back, so hence, France should move up, but by how far? enough to overtake Germany too?
That table ignores the fact that France also beat three days before they beat Canada, and that USA beat Mexico twice, etc. It's also missing Sweden's WWCQ away win over Hungary. Basically, I'm guessing that @Matilda Maniac was focused on the matches that were likely to ship more points. (It's exhausting to look at every match like I did for the March tournaments plus other friendlies.) As for France beating Canada, I'd back-of-the-envelope guess it shipped 5 or 6 points, so yes, France would move up a bit.
yes you are right. . . . i was focused on matches for teams Australia were playing, and so the teams that those teams were playing, and to do it properly you have to look at every match for every team. Most friendly matches between good teams only result in transfer of less than 10 points, so there's more meaningful changes coming in June with UEFA qualifiers. This was just meant as a guide and to show Blissett the skyrocketing Japanese and the plummeting Matildas.
I’m confused about people arguing that rankings should be different than they are. There is nothing subjective about the rankings. They are a strict mathematical construct. If you aren’t happy with the results, get better or lobby for a new model that rewards whatever your team’s result are. If you choose the second model, I’d be really eager th hear it and discuss the justifications.
No one is arguing that the rankings should be different than they are. At least not in the subjective sense. There are two slightly different discussions going on, both based on "live" ratings. Since the FIFA women's rankings are based on the Elo system, you can in theory calculate the rankings between FIFA's official releases. So that's one "difference" you might be seeing people talk about, and that one is still 100% objective. The issue with that is, if you want to be accurate, you have to account for every single game between the previous official release and when you do the calculations. The "live" update posted above did not include every game since the previous official release, so while it is 100% objective, it's not 100% accurate. That's the other "difference" you might be confused about.
Next release comes out Friday! Has anyone done calcs recently? I haven't, and while I would have fun doing some this week (especially with the two Caribbean tournaments that have happened recently) I know I'm gonna not have a lot of free time. X'-D
Well, since their last loss was Australia in july 2017, ( 17 games ago) I’m betting the USA is still number 1
not FIFA's stupid system, but here would be my current standings 1) United States 2) Germany 3) France 4) Netherlands 5) England 6) Spain 7) Japan 8) Canada 9) Australia 10) North Korea anchored by Phil 'Mr no offense' Neville, plus the SBC's leading scorer, Millie Bright(unfortunately all goals against her own team), I feel England was way overrated at #2 same with Canada, as their new coach(Moeller?) can't hold a candle to the thug-meister, John Herdman(thus playing good, clean soccer exposed to just an slightly above average team) the Dutch still need to figure out how to break down 'park the bus' teams. Japan deserves to move up again do to their AFC win. Spain is my 'X' factor, I think they can be the spoilers if only they can find a world class forward(Hermoso & her paltry 6 goals for the season at PSG wouldn't do) Trump will be happy not only that his new idols, North Koreans, are in #10 place, but also that his colluding buddy, Uncle Puti's team doing so well currently at the men's WC!
absolutely!........as long as Horst is in charge.....but looks like he's got bigger fish to fry after Jorgi's disaster a few days back(Horst as men's new NT coach, it's got to be!) when MVT takes over...........I fear it will be the 2nd coming of Stefania Jones!
I'd like to see the Dutch--who have some exciting players--play the United States. The Netherlands have a lot of flair but might struggle to score against the United States. Would be an interesting match.
The FIFA men's rankings are blocky and often stupid, but the women's are not. They're an Elo-based system, which (while not perfect - no ranking system is perfect) is one of the statistically most accurate systems out there. Switching to a Glicko system would probably be an improvement, but that's maybe the only bump up you can make without making the system way more complex by either A) breaking the rankings into multiple components [e.g. separating attack, mid, and defense] or B) coming up with a quantitative way to account for roster changes
The men change to an Elo system right after the cup. Teams begin with their current ranking. There will be no confederation skewing like there is now, but there will be a skewing for confederation cups, which will give UEFA an advantage. https://www.starsandstripesfc.com/2018/6/12/17451472/fifa-change-system-elo-ranking-mens-teams The USA would be almost exactly the same under either system.
Look, if we're going to do this, it needs its own home thread: Your power rankings (all competitions) to be used rarely
the FIFA woso system is more accurate because the teams are so much more unbalanced than the men's, but otherwise it neglects the most important thing The Human Factor the FIFA system can't tell that the 5 of the top 8 teams have switched coaches in less than two years, which is a big deal considering the quality of the coaching(especially one, Stefi Jones, who never coached a single team before, yet kept her team at #2 most of the time while she coached them) the FIFA system doesn't want to take into account the high injury rate, especially the ACL which inflicts women 6 times more than their men's counterparts & that keeps a player usually 9 months out of the game/ The FIFA system doesn't recognize that top female players get pregnant or that just quit do to the ridiculous low pay afforded to them so you can boast just how good the FIFA system is, but it's been proven wrong over & over again; the then 13th ranked Dutch, blew away the competition at last year's Euros/ Germany went into the 2015 WC I believe as the #1 ranked team(not sure, it could of been the US) but FIFA couldn't recognize that the then current p.o.y, Kessler, just retired, or that their super fast winger, Alushi, got pregnant, or that Marozsan picked up an injury one week before the WC began & left only at 50% playing capacity/ FIFA had the US at #1 right before the 2016 Olympics, yet failed to recognize Ellis's idiotic behavior in picking a bunch of injury recuperating vets instead the vast resources/depth that she had at her disposal(an decent coached, all star, college squad would of netted better results) and yet again FIFA failed to recognize the 'emotional factor' when a Japanese team won the 2011 WC, in a very large part due being super charged up to win after their country was devastated by that typhoon earlier in the year So when it finally comes down to major tournament time, the FIFA rankings have proved a failure over & over agian
they did play last, two years ago. The US won by a handy score, but most observer gave the Dutch good creds in that game(shot on goal were 5 vs 5). I remember seeing a part of it,the Dutch had a different coach, He was way more into playing the ball 'from the back' which is unfortunately made to order for a high pressing team like the US. Here are stats https://www.ussoccer.com/matches/wnt/2016/160918-wnt-v-ned#tab-1 it be interesting to see how Wiegmann's faster paced squad would do, plus that she has Roord & Groenen(who in't play in the previous game). I think Roord is the sort of American style player that would easily breeze by the high press/offside's trap set up uusally by the US
Okay, first: No objective ranking will ever consider "the human factor". What you're talking about is an intangible factor that can never be quantified. So if that's what you're always gonna be hung up on, you'll never get a ranking system you like, because no ranking will ever use something subjective like that. So stop complaining and please leave the ranking discussion threads. Second: The women's game is not "more unbalanced" than the men's. Even if it was, any moderately good ranking system (yes, even the one they're about to throw out for the men) would reflect the unbalance. But if you haven't noticed, the women's game has been growing more balanced by leaps and bounds over just the past few years. Third: You are incoherently obsessed with "who's the #1 rank" and "who won the tournament"; and if those two don't line up perfectly, that seems to disprove the entire rankings for you. News flash: there are hundreds of games to look at and dozens of teams that regularly play games to consider. Of course there will always be upsets, but the FIFA Women's rankings are massively successful at predicting aggregate results. Even the "counterexamples" you list aren't at all surprising if you actually understand what the rankings mean and remember who played who. Heck, you seem to think that no team can beat any team ranked higher than them, even if it's by just one rank, which is absolutely asinine. EURO17: NED were ranked 12th at the start of the event and only once played a team ranked higher than 9th - and they had HFA which in Elo-world gives them a ratings bump anyway. All three of their group matches were only won by one goal, so that's not dominant at all. Granted, their largest win was also against #5 ENG, but that's the only real upset they had - it's the exception that proves the rule. WWC15: GER were ranked #1 and were eliminated by #2 USA, and previously drew #3 FRA and #11 NOR - the latter of which being maybe the only semi-upset in their campaign. Also to consider: #2 won the tournament, 3 of the top 4 made the semis, and 7 of the top 10 made the QFs. That's pretty consistent. OG16: USA were ranked #1 and didn't lose a single match. They were only eliminated by a team that always seems to have their number in #11 SWE (the USA hasn't beat SWE in a competitive match since 2007, and even their record against SWE at the Algarve isn't great). This might be the only example of a non-quantitative result due to the odd rivalry these two teams have. Also to consider: USA drawing COL and CAN's wins over GER and FRA were the only other real upsets in the tournament - every other match was a reasonable result just based on the official rankings. WWC11: JPN entered the tournament at #4. If you don't think a #4 rank is good enough to potentially win the title, I don't know what to say. Not to mention they barely beat NZL, lost to ENG, barely beat GER, and drew the USA. That was not a "supercharged" run by any means. Also to consider: #1 made the final, 3 of the top 5 made the semis, and all eight QFs were in the top 11; aside from CAN crashing out and SWE beating USA, there wasn't a single upset by rank in the group stages. Cherry-pick results all you want, but the FIFA rankings are pretty damn good. To say it's been "proven wrong over and over again" is intentionally turning a blind eye to the vast majority of results and intentionally misinterpreting other matchups.