MORE FIFA vs ELO I have noticed some very suspicious trends Fifa has S. Korea at #60 Fifa has 10 African teams ranked ahead of South Korea Yet Elo has South Korea ranked above every African side If you compare the rankings, Elo has EVERY ASIAN SIDE ranked higher than they are in FIFA. Elo also has EVERY AFRICAN SIDE other than Nigeria ranked lower than they are in FIFA, and CIV who are the same The only sides that have a less than 10 place difference in both rankings are Ivory Coast - same ranking Senegal - 2 places off Morocco - 4 places off Ghana - 4 places off Australia - 5 places off Cameroon - 6 places off the biggest difference South Korea - 36 places off Tunisia - 25 places off Japan - 19 places off SO THE BIG QUESTION NEEDS TO BE ASKED. WHY DOES FIFA HAVE EVERY CAF SIDE RANKED HIGHER ? AND WHY DOES ELO HAVE EVERY AFC SIDE RANKED HIGHER ? HOW CAN SOUTH KOREA WHO HAS WON 2 OF THEIR LAST 10 MATCHES AND LOST 4 OF THEM BE RANKED AS HIGH AS #24 IN ELO YET FIFA HAS THEM AT #60 (which frankly seems more reasonable given their results) Something is very wrong with the methodology here for both rankings. Here are top CAF and AFC sides according to both rankings FIFA 23. Senegal 27. Tunisia 31. Egypt 32. Iran 38. Australia 39. R. Congo 40. Morocco 44. Burkina Faso 45. Cameroon 50. Ghana 51. Nigeria 57. Japan 58. Algeria 60. South Korea 61. Ivory Coast ELO 21. Iran 24. South Korea 25. Senegal 33. Australia 38. Japan 41. Nigeria 44. Morocco 48. Egypt 51. Cameroon 52. Tunisia 54. Ghana 55. Saudi Arabia 56. Burkina Faso 57. Syria 57. Uzbekistan MY RATINGS 20. Senegal 23. Nigeria 25. Egypt 26. Cameroon 27. Morocco 28. Burkina Faso 30. South Africa 34. Tunisia 35. Ghana 36. Iran 40. R. Congo 44. Japan 50. Algeria 53. South Korea 55. Australia There are clear problems with all 3 to be honest. Interesting enough though is that the only team that is virtually ranked the same in all of Elo, FIFA, and my own rankings is SENEGAL. It would be interesting to see what other people who follow other confederations think about FIFA vs ELO.
They are both OK as far as they go but measure different things and have different biases. In ELO every result in history has some sort of basis in the points a nation has. Its theory is that points are transferred between nations based on how far results are from predicted results based on the rankings before the game. If you draw a team very close to you points may be won or lost by only by a small amount. If you are predicted to lose heavily and get a draw you may get some points, or lose some. You also get points on a win, with more points coming your way if the team is ranked much higher than you. In theory its a way of constructing a table when not all teams get to play each other, and it works quite well if there is a general cross section of matches across the entire population. In football, this doesn't happen with most matches being against teams within your confederation. What this means is that if you are consistently at the top of your "region" you accumulate a lot of points and get a high ranking. Its the reason why my own nation reached a top 10 ELO ranking when we were in OFC. There hasn't been a lot change in Asia, with the top nations spending a reasonable time period at or near the top so they accumulate more ELO points at the expense of the lesser nations in that region. In the case of Africa, there is a lot more variation in who the top teams are at a given time as different nations rise for a period, then drop back. This means more nations are competing for the pool of points available in Africa. To increase the number of points available with a confederation under ELO you need to play against teams from different regions and steal points from them. This is why ELO shows more Asian nations higher than African ones at the very top, but the middle strongly favours Africa. FIFA explanations have been done to death here and we have already discussed its strengths and weaknesses. It actually favours confederations that play more competitive games like Africa and CONCACAF who hold two championships and everyone else holds one. The time discount also means the last Asian Championship doesn't count for as much as the others do as it was the one that was held in the more distant path (Asia play their one and only championship within a year of the World Cup). This is why at this time of the cycle Asian teams don't do as well in FIFA rankings as some others.
I have looked at the various issues with the various rankings and have my own ranking methodology I basically average FIFA and ELO rankings to give me a sense of how a side has done in terms of overall results. I also look at pedigree and achievements. Also keep an eye on transfer market values beyond just the figures. In my rankings, moreover, teams are assigned grades not numerical rank per se. Basically, teams are divided into 5 categories: (A): Excellent/Elite: these are teams within 90-100% of the average top FIFA/ELO point who also have elite historical pedigree. A Brazil or Germany that is within 98%+ of the top FIFA/ELO combined average points with the pedigree they have can get an A+, but even if Belgium reach that high in points, they wouldn't. You would need some pedigree to find yourself in this category. (B): Good: these are teams that have 80-90% of the average/combined FIFA/ELO top points and which I rate on other subjective/objective criteria (including transfer market value) as being potentially good enough for a R16 spot in the World Cup and certainly deserving of a World Cup spot on pure merit; (C) Average: 70-80% of the ELO/FIFA top points. These are average sides. The best among them would get a C+ and might find themselves among the 32 teams in a World Cup and would be marginally qualified for a World Cup spot. But even the best (C+) aren't good enough for a R16 spot even in an average draw and will simply make up the numbers. The few C+ teams that might be rated among World Cup contestants aside, most C category teams are not World cup material. (D): Poor: 60-70% of ELO/FIFA top points. Sides that are rubbish and aren't competitive enough. (F): Fail. These would be the minnows etc with 50% or less of average top FIFA/ELO points.
The time for editing the posts is over, but basically with reference to my post above, to fit my description of them, the cut-off on average top points for B category would actually be 70% (not 80%) of top average points and for C category 60% and D 50%....
Rankings across different confederations are more difficult, but within the confederations, the task shouldn't be so hard. In the AFC, both FIFA and ELO rank Iran #1. ELO ranks S.Korea #2, Australia #3 and Japan #4. FIFA has Australia #2, Japan #3 and South Korea #4. I tend to agree with FIFA more. Both FIFA and ELO rate Saudi Arabia as #5 and I agree with that as well. Syria and Uzbekistan are ranked #6 by ELO and that is also the case with FIFA. The order between UAE, Iraq and China slightly differs between ELO and FIFA but both agree the differences aren't substantial with Qatar following them in the list. That is basically the top 10 in the AFC the way I see things: 1- Iran (B-) 2- Australia (C+/B-) 3- Japan (C+/B-) 4- South Korea (C+) 5- Saudi Arabia (C/C+) 6- Uzbekistan (C) 7- Syria (C) 8- UAE (C) 9- Iraq (C) 10- China (C-) compared to CAF, which gets the following grades and rank by me on general criteria (results, pedigree, talent/transfer market value) and not based on any special knowledge: 1- Senegal (B-/B) 2- Nigeria (B-/B) 3- Egypt (B-) 4- Morocco (C+/B-) 5- Cameroon (C+) 6- Tunisia (C+) 7- Ghana (C/C+) 8- DR Congo (C/C+) 9- Burkina Faso (C/C+) 10- Ivory Coast (C/C+)
Looking at February 2018 FIFA rankings, leading African countries suffered a downward shift in points, regardless of participation in the CHAN 2018 tournament. FIFA ranking points, for CAF members qualified to Russia 2018: --------------Played in CHAN 2018------Jan 2018---------Feb 2018--------Net difference Egypt...................no..............................814.....................693...................-121 Morocco.............yes.............................748.....................692..................-56 Nigeria................yes.............................651.....................606..................-45 Senegal...............no..............................875.....................855..................-20 Tunisia................no..............................915.....................914..................-1 Egypt played no matches during Jan-Feb 2018. Also, the 48-month roll-over that dropped January 2014 matches did not affect Egypt, because it played no matches during January 2014. Same goes for Tunisia: no matches during Jan-Feb 2018, no dropped matches from January 2014. Apparently, various African rankings suffered a double-loss, because points from Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON) are worth less in February 2018, than in January 2018: - For January 2018 ranking: AFCON 2017 points worth 100%, AFCON 2015 points worth 30%. - For February 2018 ranking: AFCON 2017 points worth 50%, AFCON 2015 points worth 20%. In conclusion: Most African rankings fell every February, because AFCON tournament points are discounted on that month. It would be incorrect to blame CHAN 2018 participation or friendlies for falling African rankings. This behavior will change when the AFCON tournament calendar moves to June-July. Then, you can expect various African rankings to fall every July. References: Coca-Cola February 2018 rankings, CAF countries only: http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/men/rank=283/caf.html How is that ranking calculated? http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/procedure/men.html