I wrote earlier about my ranking system I devised which I believe to be more accurate than both FIFA and ELO. Here is the ranking which would have been used for seeding in October. I realize there are still one or two headscratchers, but nowhere near the level of FIFA or ELO IMO. Here they are. 1. GERMANY 2. BRAZIL 3. FRANCE 4. ARGENTINA 5. SPAIN 6. Italy 7. PORTUGAL 8. CROATIA 9. PERU 10. ENGLAND 11. BELGIUM 12. COLOMBIA 13. MEXICO 14. POLAND 15. Wales 16. ICELAND 17. Chile 18. Holland 19. SWITZERLAND 20. EGYPT 21. SWEDEN 22. Venezuela 23. Turkey 24. Burkina Faso 25. URUGUAY 26. SENEGAL 27. DENMARK 28. COSTA RICA 29. SERBIA 30. Cameroon 31. Slovakia 32. MOROCCO 33. USA 34. Rep. Congo 35. South Africa 36. Ireland Rep. 37. NIGERIA 38. Ecuador 39. JAPAN 40. TUNISIA 41. Bosnia & H 42. Northern Ireland 43. Algeria 44. Paraguay 45. IRAN 46. RUSSIA 47. Ukraine 48. AUSTRALIA 49. Ghana 50. SOUTH KOREA Other World Cup qualifiers 68. SAUDI ARABIA 72. PANAMA So the pots would have looked like such Pot A: Russia, Germany, Brazil, France, Argentina, Spain, Portugal, Croatia Pot B: Peru, England, Belgium, Colombia, Mexico, Poland, Iceland, Switzerland Pot C: Egypt, Sweden, Uruguay, Senegal, Denmark, C Rica, Serbia, Morocco Pot D: Nigeria, Japan, Tunisia, Iran, Australia, S. Korea, S. Arabia, Panama Main differences are that Spain is rightfully in pot 1 in place of Poland, Croatia also comes in at Belgium's expense.
It's far better to have an organic approach to football than the manipulative, Big Brother method that you propose.
Why is Croatia in pot 1, they went out in the group stage at WC14 and round of 16 at Euro16. Colombia is a far worthier team for pot 1.
It won't help anyone's development if some of the bigger sides who still need this tournament are forced to decide not to participate bc the ranking situation becomes untenable. This very factor almost negates what it was intended to serve. It doesn't even help the rankings of the smaller nations. So, in the end, what's the point really? Simply so that we can say that it's there? Or is CAF going to play a regional strategy whereby they no longer care about international ranking so much as rankings within the confederation. Let's not also forget how ranking dilemma's can play havoc on WC qualifying as Cameroon and Algeria found out to their detriment. These three teams were in the same group because two of those teams had lower than expected rankings and when you can no longer count on the strongest teams in CAF to maintain the best rankings in CAF on a consistent basis, then you risk the effectiveness of qualifying determining our best qualifiers. A broken system from top to bottom. It simply doesn't do in practice what it's intended to do except in the minds of the nations who choose to see it as a sort of participation credit and allowing some of these players to say that they have NT caps to their name. But those caps represent utterly meaningless platitudes, while the only meaningful effect is hurting the nation's rankings.
My ranking system takes into account recent performances much more so than FIFA. I don't think WC 2014 has any bearings on my rankings. This isn't about "worthier" its about a formula which is far more accurate than FIFA. If you look at Colombia's last 11 WCQ their record isn't all that good Losses against Paraguay, Argentina, Brazil Draws against Peru, Brazil , Venezuela, Chile, Uruguay wins against Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay So in 11 matches only 3 wins against pretty much the worsed ranked sides in Conembol, yet they are still ranked #12 in the world. Why exactly should they be seeded in the top 7 ? Meanwhile Croatia beat Spain in the past Euro's, drew with Portugal at the same tournament and also beat Iceland in WCQ. Iceland after a strong Euro tournament is ranked higher than any side Colombia has beaten (Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay)
How is what I propose in any way more manipulative than the system itself? To me it's a part of the game that we shouldn't continue to ignore. And if this was the only aspect in which CAF appears oblivious then I wouldn't be making such a big deal, but it's indicative of a larger problem that rears it's head regularly for us. In the end I support organic approaches so long as they have real teeth, not simply empty symbolism. Capping domestic players is far less meaningful than hard currency and capital placed in the domestic leagues. And there are far too many Nigerian multi-millionaires running around who could easily be doing what Moïse Katumbi or Patrice Motsepe are doing but aren't. Last I checked Aliko Dangote is still the wealthiest man in Africa by some margin. Why is he so focused on Arsenal when he could easily do that while still lifting the fortunes of any club in Nigeria? I could blame him alone, but the federation has done nothing to make such an investment attractive. They've done little active recruitment. What men who have bought in have only done so on their own initiative. You want organic development, then put money in the leagues around the country; develop better facilities and hire nutritionists, trainers, coaches and set up an infrastructure to create real change. It can be done. We've seen it in DRC and they didn't need an empty cap system to do it. Platitudes do not equal a real approach in my opinion so I have no conflict in my mind towards denigrating it in lieu of real change. You want to motivate your domestic players? Pay them better. Give them better facilities. Make the leagues that they play in appear to mean something. Make the stadiums and atmospheres that they participate in be something that kids growing up in the country aspire to. These minor tournaments will change absolutely nothing. The fans won't suddenly start buying tickets. This is just another ploy by CAF to attract money and call it development. They need to start pursuing monied interests and pressuring them to invest in their leagues. Make the CAF CL mean more. Make the club academies mean more. So, no, I won't sit here and behave as though this is some special initiative that will do anything meaningful in the grand scheme to the degree that it's negatives should be ignored. Why should we always be the ones who don't try to game the system? Of course we aren't the ones writing the rules, but we do tend act like they don't exist and cannot hurt us. This does not help us... I simply endorse engaging in some strategy and a multi-pronged approach which incorporates both organic solutions as well as tactical positioning... And don't act like your country and confederation doesn't take such things into account when they have to. It isn't manipulation, it's simple pragmatism.
You have a good point.. but African football still need waaaaay more improvement, maybe ranking is one thing to care for later. Let’s see how the new board will deal with the whole issue.
Perhaps, but this isn't the only thing and it dove-tails into other questionable practices in such a way that makes me wonder if they're even at all aware of how FIFA even operates at all; or even how it's decisions affect it's federations competitiveness abroad. Not being able to consistently schedule friendlies is a problem that is at least partially linked to this, but this is not the only aspect that they seem to ignore when they plan these things. If I believed that this really had a tangibly positive effect on developing football then I wouldn't oppose it. I just don't see how it does. Maybe someone can convince me, but I just don't see it... these players would play in these tournaments regardless. Just a chance to put on the NT shirt and possibly attract the attention of a NT manager is reason enough. The rest is meaningless...
Actually I think the single biggest flaw in the FIFA rankings is that it weighs recent performances too heavily. A decent sample size of competitive matches is required to assess 200 teams, IMO. Also, this aspect of the FIFA forumula becomes more problematic since confederations don't hold their championships around the same time. So for e.g. the Euros are more heavily weighted right now than, say the AFC Championship.
The ELO rankings, while producing their own rather curious results at times, are the most methodological sound system we have for now. Under the ELO rankings, the top 32 teams in the world are as follows (the ones in bold teams which have not qualified to the World Cup, while teams not in the top 50 who are in the World Cup are also listed with their rank). 1- Brazil 2- Germany 3- Spain 4- Portugal 5- France 6- Argentina 7- England 8- Colombia 9- Belgium 10-Italy 11- Netherlands 12- Peru 13- Uruguay 14- Switzerland 15- Chile 16- Croatia 17- Mexico 18- Poland 19- Denmark 20- Sweden 21- Iceland 21- Iran 23- Serbia 24- Senegal 25- Wales 26- Paraguay 26- United States 28- Japan 29- Ecuador 30- Costa Rica 30- Slovakia 32- Venezuela ---- 33- Australia 37- South Korea 41- Nigeria 44- Morocco 45- Russia 47- Panama 48- Egypt 52- Tunisia 61- Saudi Arabia Obviously, ELO's rankings aren't kind to CAF teams and that is the only area where I find their rankings significantly in error. But as I have mentioned, and as is being discussed in this thread, the source of the problem may be with CAF itself.
I agree that Netherlands are overrated in the ELO rankings. And I am not exactly sure why that is the case?
The problem I have and expressed that in my post is about the ratings as a means for people to see their team get an "easier" group and thus a better chance to get into the next round. My take is that you enter a WC to win it. So whether sooner (= in the group stage) or later (= in the knock out stage), you have to deal with a strong competitor to reach the next round until the Final. Ratings arenot changing that.
ELO and anything derived from it uses perfectly objective criteria. Wins/draws/losses.The system was originally devised to rank chess players. It does a better job than FIFA, without even trying to account for other factors. In my view, anything you may question about X or Y team in ELO suggests that you yourself are overrating/underrating the team.
Why do people automatically assume that a system is overrating or underrating a team just because it doesn't appear to follow conventional wisdom that most people think? If we are just going to rank teams based on what everyone thinks there's no reason for an objective system to begin with lol.
That's a bit of a stretch. There is a reason that robots don't yet rule the world. Humans have that extra dimension to take on-board factors which may not have been thought about weighted appropriately beforehand to make better decisions. Of course bias can often cancel out that added dimension but I have no reason to be bias in thinking Holland should be lower (way lower) than #11. You're just gotta trust me on that. I would be curious to know where Holland ranked in the ELO rankings immediately after the 2014 World Cup. They've done nothing since then so I don't understand how they didn't slip further than #8 in UEFA and close behind Belgium (lol). Is there a link to retrieve historical ELO rankings like there is for FIFA?
These "so-called" objective systems are designed by humans, remember. Anyway, your point is based on the false premise that everyone thinks alike. Ranking systems are created... well... primarily for promotional reasons ($$$). But also because no three people will ever agree on anything much less "everyone".
Like I said earlier a ranking is only as good as the formula it uses. If the formula is crap or makes no logical sense the rankings will follow suit. There are many illogical aspects to FIFA formula which is why people constantly complain about it. If the rankings are going to be used for something as important as a WC then FIFA should do their best to improve the ranking formula.
I leave aside the notion that you can't really have 'perfectly objective criteria' in theory. I agree with you that the methodology used by ELO is sound and doesn't have obvious faults in it. I also remind myself to be more cautious in how I rank a side that ELO ranks significantly differently. That is particularly the case with Peru, who I don't rank highly in my mind but who rate highly not just by FIFA but even ELO at #12. (To some extent, this also applies to Colombia, who I don't rate as highly). In the case of the CAF sides, to be sure, I don't fault ELO methodology either. I fault mostly CAF. ELO can't mess up its methodology just to accommodate CAF's peculiar tournaments and practices. On the other hand, while I am not going to rank CAF sides as highly as our fellow CAF fans would, I have seen enough of Nigeria to know they can't be #41 (ELO) or certainly #50 (FIFA). Whatever causes Nigeria to suffer in ELO's ranking, I actually like to understand. There have been attempts to explain the issue, but ultimately that is a mystery still! As for the Netherlands, I think the issue with them boils down to them starting at a very high point and then their results overall being better than their tournament qualifications and finishes the past few years would suggest. I can understand how Netherlands can end up #11 even if I don't agree with that ranking.
Croatia actually lost to Portugal. And while Iceland can be a pesky team, don't forget that France thrashed them at the Euros. I disagree with the reason for the existence of friendlies that you offer. Also that Argentina or any other South American country tries to game the system with their friendlies. The point of friendlies is to provide more clarity on which players are truly international class and which diminish at this stage, so as an Argentine fan playing opponents such as Belize, New Zealand, Macedonia does very little to shed light on up and coming players such as Paredes, Dybala, Correa, etc. But playing stronger sides, no matter their FIFA ranking, can give a clue on how these players would perform in an international tournament. Despite not qualifying, all of Italy, USA, Chile, Venezuela, Ghana, etc. would be worthy matches to schedule. Germany historically does not typically play friendlies to win and earn FIFA points - they may win the match simply because they are better than the opponent but their approach is to use these matches as a filter for their young players along with trying established players in a couple of different positions from the norm. Obviously it does not seem to have hurt them at all. What butters me is that you are advocating for a cynical approach, which never pays off. It also makes for a loser experience to react at what others are thinking. The team that you pass off on playing due to ranking may be the team with strong wing play to test the young fullbacks who will own the position at the next World Cup.
I don't care being in pot 1 or pot 2. Give us whoever you want. I will be more excited facing a powerhouse than worried about it. I have seen my team beating the likes of germany and spain and lose against the likes of turkey and norway so it doesn't matter.
ELO is good at long term trends, it has a pretty long memory. Netherlands has a strong rating due to past results. Their poor run isn't adequately reflected in the rankings, similar issue with African team ratings, but in the other direction - a jump in form isn't adequately reflected. The ranking is objective, unlike FIFA's, but it does have its flaws.
Yes the systems are based on inputs that humans enter into the system. Any good system should have inputs that have been tested to show they directly correlate to talent. It's not like they are just putting in inputs because they like them or because it fits their favorite team. I don't know if the primary reason is for money tho. FIFA, ELO and SPL have all made systems publicly available for free. The primary reason for developing a system should be to accurately rank teams.
Related to the NBA but it shows what's a bit off with the ELO system http://blog.philbirnbaum.com/2017/11/how-elo-ratings-overweight-recent.html