You have no problems citing friendlies, except when it doesn't support your point! Otherwise, if you don't rate Iran's opponents in Asia, why not take Iran's average point in friendlies against non-Asian teams ranked at the level of the CAF teams you rank? Or lets imagine how we would rank a team in the groups listed below. Lets imagine Iran was playing in a friendly tournament simulating a UEFA group with Iran as follows: 1- Sweden 2- Iran 3- Russia 4- Montenegro 5- Macedonia In this tournament, lets imagine Iran has played 4 games, all away from home as follows: Sweden 3 Iran 1 (in Sweden) Macedonia 1 Iran 3 (in Macedonia) Montenegro 1 Iran 2 (in Montenegro) Russia 1 Iran 1 (in Russia) In other words, 2 wins, 1 draw 1 loss after a first leg of games all away from home and these are Iran's actual results in these friendlies. In my hypothetical, the next 4 games against these opponents would be in Iran. Where do you think Iran would finish in this group? Or lets imagine Iran was playing a friendly tournament involving a select group of non-UEFA teams as follows: 1- Chile 2- Iran 3- Venezuela 4- Panama The tournament format envisions playing once in neutral venue. Imagine these were the results: Iran v Chile (in Europe) 2:0 Iran v Venezuela (in Europe) 1:0 Iran v Panama (in Europe) 1:0 In other words, Iran's record would be 3 wins, 0 draw 0 losses. Not that I accept the idea that all the sides we beat in Asia were rubbish. Beating Uzbekistan 1:0 in Uzbekistan as Iran did isn't something that is easy to accomplish even for decent non-Asian teams. Iran did it easily, without the Uzbeks managing to trouble us. And how many teams can travel to South Korea after clinching their own qualification, with Korea desperate for points facing elimination, find themselves reduced to 10 men, and come out with a scoreless draw without allowing the Koreans much of any look at our goal? How many teams (including from your darling CAF sides) you know who can defeat S.Korea, not once, but 4 times in a row since 2012 (until the draw I alluded to above)?
South Korea isn't that hard to beat. Morocco just beat them 3-1 using entirely their bench. Algeria beat them 4-2 at the last WC. Ghana beat them 4-0 right before the last WC. South Korea is well below these sides and yet are still one of AFC top 4 You keep trying to prove something but I don't see what point you are trying to make. You keep trying to convince me that Iran has done something extraordinary, and they haven't. Beating South Korea and Uzbekistan is not some major achievement. Sorry but it just isn't. Plenty of teams from CAF could achieve that with ease.
I was talking 4 times in a row, not in one single match. Tell me which CAF sides you honestly favor to beat S.Korea 4 times straight as Iran had done? I believe 2 things are true when I read your posts and you can say I want to prove those things: 1- You underrate Iran, both compared to CAF and even within the AFC. 2- You overrate CAF teams. As for Iran doing something "extraordinary", no. But it is insulting to put Iran behind South Africa and Burkina Faso etc when I am not sure any team in CAF (even ones like Nigeria and Senegal I rate slightly above Iran) are better than Iran! CAF's record against the AFC (including against S.Korea 1-1-1) in the World Cup is dead-even but we can imagine things to be different I suppose. But since you like to talk about friendlies so much when it comes to some of the results you repeat, why don't you address my point about Iran's friendlies? We aren't trying to rate Iran among the top 10 to dismiss results against the kind of teams Iran has played. These are, in fact, exactly the kind of teams that UEFA or Conmebol teams that qualify to the World Cup have to beat.
I will post my rankings in a combined CAF/AFC confederation later but before I do so, I like to note the following conclusion I take from debate the past few pages with vancity eagle and others: * I consider ELO rankings to be methodologically sound even though I rate CAF higher than ELO does. How is that? Here is my answer: For those who play chess, imagine you and a bunch of your friends register with chess.com where you start with a rating of 1,000 and then play just each other with very few games against strangers who may have higher rankings. What's worse, imagine the few times you are actually recorded by chess.com playing such games, you actually decided to let your 5 year old son use your account (ala Burkina Faso using entirely unknown players against not just the likes of N.Korea and Uzbekistan, but even Chile). If this happens, you will probably end up being ranked very low even if you are actually a good player. The problem CAF faces in the ELO ranking is analogous. CAF sides began with a low rating. They had a bunch of sides of similar caliber playing one another and taking points from each other. The few times these CAF sides play strangers their results haven't been all that remarkable. To break this cycle, CAF needs (a) fewer games within CAF, as opposed to having, as it does now. within each World Cup cycle, 2 real continental championships (ANC) plus the 2 CHAN tourneys, along with the necessary world cup qualifiers etc, all in one World Cup cycle. These many games within CAF itself isn't useful. (b) penalize members who defraud opponents by taking ridiculously unrepresentative squads for friendlies. A degree of experimentation is fine and that is what friendlies are for. You might even on occasion want to focus on testing your bench. Or to test a group of players close to the margins in your roster. But to take a bunch of nobodies to an international friendly is fraudulent. (c) when you do get to play non-African teams, do much better than you have so far.
The general consensus I think is that ELO may not be perfect, but at least its not inherently unfair. You can debate its credibility, but at least the rules are clear, fair. This is not true with the FIFA ranking whose two major flaws are the inherent confederation bias and the inability to limit the negative ranking effect of playing friendlies.
would limiting subs help the seriousness of friendlies? The second halves of most friendly games become a bit of a farce when the benches are cleared
I believe there should be different kind of friendly matches. One would be friendlies meant to simulate competitive matches and fill the void that exists in not having enough such matches between different confederations. They should get a different designation and count more in rankings and even affect a confederations overall rating. There should even be encouragement or incentives by FIFA for each team in each confederation to play at least 2 such friendly games on FIFA calendar days. The rules (including on subs) in these friendlies should be the same as in competitive matches. We can also have friendly scrimmages played in camp and not have those count much in rankings and the like. These would be merely for a side to test players, tamper with lineup choices, and tactics etc. They could have unlimited subs and proceed as each side and its coach finds desirable for his purposes.
Burkina Faso IS better than Iran by any objective measure. Recent ANC they finished #3 Now Iran was eliminated in the quarter finals of the recent Asian cup. So Iran did worse in a substantially weaker tournament. How on earth can you claim they are better than Burkina Faso? I have already told you the teams BF has actually beaten in the past 3 years and it is far more impressive than one lone goal victory over a South Korea in poor form. Even last WC BF only missed out on the away goals rule to Algeria, which you said was the best African side in 2014. The 2 teams beat each other in their home leg. Algeria simply scored more away goals. This WC, BF did not lose to the eventual qualifier Senegal, who this time around are regarded as one of the best CAF teams. BF has a consistent record for the past 4 years being one of the top CAF sides. Go back another year and they finished #2 at the ANC in 2013. They have finished above Iran in their continental tournament, and have beaten more top ranked sides than Iran in actual competition. The bias is you, who cannot admit when someone based on results and not your subjective Iranian bias has a better record than you.
Worth noting that the Asian Cup winner outperformed the most recent AFCON winner at the Confederations Cup.
Instead of rehashing all the arguments once again, to see who is being "biased", please post any widely accepted ranking that supports your view and put these teams ahead of Iran! In the meantime, besides FIFA, ELO I can post various power rankings from respected sports publications that rate Iran well above not just the kind of teams you have mentioned, but even most of the African contingent in Russia 2018. I admit there are others that put Iran lower, but I haven't seen anyone rank Iran behind the likes of Burkina Faso and S.Africa! Not that it matters... P.S. Iraq finished 4th in the 2005 Asian Cup (ahead of Iran) and won the 2007 Asian Cup. Yet, no one who knows anything about the Asian game would rank Iraq above Iran! Tournament finishes are interesting but they aren't the only thing to look at.
Also worth nothing that CAF completely outperformed AFC in the past WC, including direct victories. CIV 2 v Japan 1 Algeria 4 v S. Korea 2 Also worth nothing that Cameroon completely outplayed Australia in that Confederations cup. Also worth noting that despite winning the ACN, Cameroon can't really be considered Africa's best side, when they finished 3rd in their WCQ group. They also have a long history of choking on the world stage. Also worth noting that both South Korea and Saudi Arabia (2 Asian qualifiers) have within the last few months both been completely outplayed and defeated by CAF sides.. South Korea losing 3-1 to Morocco's bench team Saudi Arabia losing 3-0 at home to a half baked Ghana squad that is in their worst form in over a decade. Lets consider ALL THINGS.
Instead of relying on faulty ranking systems, why don't you tell me what Iran has achieved in the past 3 years that makes them better than Burkina Faso. If you feel so strongly about it, you should be able to post some sort of RESULT based argument, and not just use some crappy ranking system to fall back on.
I have posted results by Iran. I have posted rankings of Iran. It is up to you to open your eyes and see what anyone who wants to go about this professionally would see.
Yes I know ONE COMPETITIVE victory over a top 50 side in the past 3 years. Great stuff !!!! My eyes need to be opened. LOL
I suggest we drop the whole Iran vs Burkina Faso argument. Burkina Faso won't have a chance to prove itself, so the argument is pointless.
It is actually simple but you simply don't get it. Otherwise, except in your peculiar rankings which have a lot of CAF sides in the "top 40", I could use ELO rankings and say no CAF team has defeated any "top 40" teams in a competitive match this World Cup cycle! Has any of them achieved any such wins?? NO. Ergo, they can't be ranked highly. In the meantime, Iran's record is actually very clear and consistent -- and the case for Iran is simpler than most others for that reason. Statistically, we have not lost any competitive matches in this World Cup cycle to anyone. We qualified to the World Cup ahead of our competitors, S.Korea and Uzbekistan, having clinched first place in the group even before we played our last 2 games. We lived up to our seeding and billing and then some! Anyone who actually watched us dispense of our opponents in real live action was even more impressed by how we did the job. Iran showed how you can dominate and completely outclass opponents and yet often win only by 1 goal, It wasn't even like Spain's tiki taka wins in Wc2010. It was easier and without much of a sweat. Almost like clock work.
The point, I hope you realize, isn't about Burkina Faso per se but how we go about ranking sides. It is disrespectful to me to take the top ranked team from the AFC with Iran's rather clear cut and consistent record and put Iran behind these other teams. Relying on nothing but inconsistent results between these teams and other CAF teams! Otherwise, for all I know, Burkina Faso might be a great team and much more deserving than where they are generally ranked.
It is disrespectful to just assume Iran is the best team in the world, simply because they "have not lost" even though they only play a bunch of crappy teams. you know, Iran may be the only team in the world that hasn't lost a competitive match in years. Going by your delusional logic Iran should be ranked #1
Except no one has ranked Iran #1 in the world. In the meantime, here are some things that it seems you have a hard time grasping: 1- The quality of teams is decided by their overall points in any logical ranking system, not their numerical rank. If you have 50 teams of roughly equal caliber separated numerically by 50 places, that doesn't mean beating the 50th (say ranked #80) is much less significant than beating the 1st (say ranked #30). Conversely, if you have right above these similar quality teams, teams which are hugely different in quality, then beating the one right above (e.g., #29) should be a lot more consequential regardless of the few places that separate it from a side which is numerically ranked right next to it or close to it. 2- If you really wanted to understand rankings, you would begin your focus on points earned in a ranking system, not numerical rank. In terms of points earned, there are many teams from AFC and CAF which are hard to distinguish statistically. Even if numerically they rank quite apart. For instance, if ELO's ranking points are assigned just a plus/minus 5% margin of error, all teams ranked below #44 (Morocco with 1687 points) and #59 (DR Congo with 1602 points), including, inter alia, Uzbekistan, Syria, Burkina Faso, Saudi Arabia, Ghana, Tunisia, Cameroon, Egypt, would fall within that margin of error. Similarly, all teams with less than 1771 points including Senegal, S.Korea, Australia, Japan, and Nigeria) would fall within the plus 5% margin of error compared to Morocco as well. In fact, the only AFC/CAF team that fall outside of a 5% plus margin of error for ELO points compared to Morocco (even that barely) would be Iran with 1791 points. That means, statistically, you can expect all these teams which I mentioned getting all sorts of results against one another. The only side that at this moment should be somewhat counted to beat Morocco (and, by extension, of course all teams ranked below Morocco) in our example would be Iran. 3- Iran's ranking will not significantly decline unless it loses to a team ranked significantly lower than Iran. Similarly, its ranking will not significantly improve unless it beat teams ranked significantly higher. Draws do have a negative and positive affect in ELO's methodology, but not that much. Wins and losses are actually the more significant deciding issue.
Based on what I posted above, when we approach the world cup we can revisit the ELO points for each of the teams and try to see if for those sides that fall outside of a 5% margin of error, ELO points give us correct predictions or not? For instance, in Group A, ELO would not really give us much clue with respect to the results between Russia, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Their ELO points are within a 5% plus/minus margin of error and anything can happen between them. Uruguay, however, would be expected to beat all of them if all things were equal. Since Russia are hosts, not all things are equal and that complicates things in Group A. In Group B, the ELO points between Spain (2013), Portugal (1976), Iran (1791) and Morocco (1687) are such that (a) the result between Spain and Portugal would fall within a 5% margin of error (b) both Spain and Portugal should beat Iran and Morocco as their differences compared to both is well outside a 5% margin of error (c) Iran should beat Morocco since the difference between us falls outside a 5% margin of error as well. You can do the same for the other groups and see what ELO would predict and how accurate are its predictions. If they aren't then you increase the margin of error from 5% to 10% etc until you find the margin more or less covered by ELO's rankings.
All of your logical explanation of elo is renderred useless through the example of how they rate South Korea so highly. A team who has won 2 of its last 10 games and lost 4 of them. According to your explanation, there is no way they should rank above teams like Egypt, Senegal, and Nigeria. Like I said before rankings like that expose Elo as pure comedy and a very flawed methodology. Also you still fail to explain why Iran is ranked so highly in the first place. I am not opposed to the idea of points of a team over their ranking position. I actually think that is a superior position, however if you are trying to tell me that Qatar, China, Uzbekistan should have anywhere near the same amount of points as Ghana, Cameroon, Senegal, Egypt, then I have to just laugh at you. So based on elo from what u postwd above you are telling me that a result against Syria or Uzbekistan is almost the same as against Ghana, Egypt, or Cameroon, and that is just laughable. THAT RIGHT THERE IS YOUR FLAW WITH ELO. Clearly somehow they over rate Asian sides and underate African sides. No wonder their results are so off base. So you get almost the same amount of points for defeating the sides that finished #1 and #2 and #4 in the recent ANC (Egypt, Cameroon, Ghana( as against a side who has never before qualified for a worldcup and never before won a much inferior tournament. Smdh.
If you go to these pages, and look at the overall results, as well as points earned and lost compared to last year, you might get your answers. http://www.eloratings.net/AFC http://www.eloratings.net/CAF In the meantime, stop conflating different points and using different criteria. ELO is focused, not on tournament ranking, but on results. It doesn't care if you are from from Africa, Asia, or Mars! You start with certain points and you can earn points or lose points based on who you play and the results you get. It is a mathematical formula and a sound one, except if the input is flawed (for instance CAF having a bunch of meaningless matches assigned as international A games) then the problem is with CAF not ELO.
Well I have spotted a few deep flaws with elo. 1. Any ranking that awards teams virtually the same amount of points for beating Egypt or Ghana as they would for beating Uzbekistan or Syria is complete rubbish. 2. It seems that both FIFA and elo award points for meaningless tournaments or friendlies that aren't even the real teams. For example South Korea just gained a whole bunch of points for defeating Japan 4-1 in some Asian regional tournament that uses teams that are nowhere near the actual sides. The teams both Japan and Korea used in this tournament are nowhere near full strength. You said above this was a problem with CAF, but no its actually a problem with the Ranking system that fails to recognize meaningless matches and just inputs any obscure result they can find. Likewise u mentioned before how Uzbekistan beat burkina Faso, but again the BF team used was not their real team. Calculating meaningless friendlies and tournaments where the real teams are not used is not only meaningless but its actually misleading. S Korea just gained 49 points for beating Japan 4-1 in a match that wasn't even the real teams for either side. Nigeria got 26 points for beating Argentina 4-2 in a match that was very close to both teams full squads And Senegal got 6 points for beating South Africa in AN OFFICIAL MATCH. From that one meaningless victory over Japan, South Korea jumped up 13 PLACES ON THE ELO RANKINGS FROM 37 TO 24. None of this makes any logical sense. The more I look into Elo it is absolutely horrible and it is no wonder the rankings are extremely off base.
There is s something very flawed with both fifa and elo. Lets compare both rankings of 2 teams. With Senegal their ranking doesn't change much from elo to fifa. Elo has them at 25 and fifa at 23 So with Senegal its fairly close. You would conclude that both rankings have to be fairly decent to rank Senegal very close. But then look at South Korea. Elo has them at 24 while fifa has them at 60!!! So how are elo and fifa so close with Senegal yet so far apart with South Korea. Similarly my rankings are close to both fifa and elo with Senegal, as I have them at 20 while the other 2 are 23 and 25. With Korea my rankings are closer to fifa as I have them at 53 which is better than fifa putting them at 60 yet much further than the unexplainable 24 that elo has put them at. Elo doesn't make logical sense to be honest. I think if fifa gets rid of the confederation co efficient and the friendly issue, it will be far superior to elo, which in ways it already is.