I had a couple of preconceptions which turn out to be somewhat wrong. Based on your info it doesn't look as bad for UEFA as I first thought. Well, 204.94 is low, with upsets like Iceland v. Wales, etc. in mind, and taking UEFA's size into account. E.g. CONMEBOL did save a lot of points seeing they only have 10 members and, for example, Mexico + the US were able to save points in the Copa América Centenario (could have been CONMEBOL teams instead). I guessed other confeds would save more points in their confederation tournaments and completely outpace UEFA. Considering about 80% of games are intra-confed affairs you'd hope points inflation in the different confeds rises at a similar pace. World Cups (+ the Confed Cup) do give a big boost to UEFA and CONMEBOL but that's less of a surprise looking at which teams reach the KO rounds. Unless the expansion to 48 teams, adding a Ro32, already materializes in 2022 we'll see an even bigger influx of "saved" points in 2026. Especially if gaps between points totals widen and the new Ro32, for instance, churns out upsets. The global Nations League, if the idea gets off the ground, could add to the points inflation as well. Hopefully FIFA take notice yet usually they need a push, like when British newspapers complained about the old method leading to the current overhaul.
Of course it goes on the other side as well they can also beat any CAF top team especially the Chile of 2010s will be clear favorites of any game but the point is made on as they cannot play each other all the time and shouldn't underestimate them. That's all.
Regarding knock-out round matches, I believe you need a system where you give a team extra bonus points for making the knockout stages in a tournament and advancing in each knockout phase, but also a system where teams win/lose the points they would otherwise lose by virtue of their knockout wins/losses. To simply ignore knockout round losses as is done in Fifa's new system is absurd to me. But even more absurd would be a system where a side loses more points by virtue of advancing to the knockout rounds than if they had failed.
Not preciselly always wins, but that for most of the times we tend to get them, or that in our worst case scenario against african teams, we hardly ever, lose.
To be honest though, it's not much diferent to other Conmebol teams (1st or 2nd tier, almost the same). Only Conmebol team whom has never lost against a CAF side, is Peru.
Good to see the world cup finalist coming back to the fifa top 5 after the 3rd place from WC 98. Our appetite is growing ^^ Now we want the golden ball for Luka Modric
Your view on that point is brilliant by the way, the history of football only started 10 years ago. Anyway, technically speaking Chile of the 2010s are better than any CAF team (except Ghana), they had excellent group of players Sanchez, Vidal, Valdivia, Aranguiz, Medel, Bravo etc this was arguably the greatest team in the country's history. After all, this not happens every day, this not the same thing for Chile in 70s, 80s and 90s for example. Peru the first half of 1970s they were better because they had greater team than any CAF top team. Algeria of the 1980s they were better because they had greater team than Chile. Cameroon of the 1980s they were better because they had greater team than any Conmebol 2nd tier team. Nigeria of the 1990s they were better because they had greater team than any Conmebol 2nd tier team. And so on.
They played only 2 games that's all, Peru beat Morocco 3-0 in 70, which was the greatest team in Peru's history, the other result ended 0-0 against Cameroon in 82.
And before this match date (1989), who has Chile defeated (CAF team)? and how many games between them?
I agree, I'm just wondering what Jesta doesn't like about the new formula. Once I know that then we can have a discussion about it.
How is it more complicated? You gain points for winning. You gain more points for beating a good team in more important match. You lose points for losing. No more 48 month rolling averages.
Nope. Only beated Chile at the WC of 1982 by one goal (final score was 2-3), when the only team playing with chances to go through, when that match was played, were them. When Chile played that last match, we were already eliminated, an issue which sure can affect the mood of players. Algeria had an excellent run during the 1982 WC, but fact also is, that whatever arrangement could've went on afterwards between Germany and Austria, if Argelia vs. Chile would have scored a diference of at least 3 goals, which they couldn't, they would've still gone through to the next stage. Fact also is, that when all teams in the group still had chances to go through, while we lost to Austria by only one goal (we were very close to get the draw, as it was a very even match between both teams, but at the end, we couldn't), Argelia lost against them by 2 goals. Where we lost all chances, was against Germany whom cooked us alive. Also a fact, that Argelia at home, also confronted Peru in a pre-WC friendly, that same year, where they only got a 1-1 draw (in which case their superiority over them is also put in doubt), and later on during 1986, they got defeated by Brazil, at the next WC. During the same decade, Chile despite not making it to the next couple of WC's, still managed to defeat Peru at next WC qualifiers (at the end got eliminated by Uruguay and Paraguay for 1986; and by Brazil for 1990). Also during the late 80's, we also kicked the crap out of Brazil, during the 1987 Copa America. Anyhow, I'm not saying that we were superior to any of them, during that decade. I'd say, that we could've been about the same level. Same as for Cameroon and Peru, whom btw at that 1982 WC, happened to also get a draw between them. Strange logic, As a matter fact, during the 90's, Nigeria didn't win any match, against any Conmebol side : During the 1990 WC qualifiers, they didn't even make it out of CAF. During the 1994 WC, the only Conmebol team they confronted, which was Argentina, they lost the match. In a pre-1994 WC friendly match also lost vs. Colombia, whom also beated them in a friendly tournament, the next year (1995) in the USA. During the 1998 WC, at group stage they faced Paraguay, whom defeated them there, by 3-1.
That 1989 match, was our second match ever, vs. an african team at senior level. Was also our second defeat to a CAF side, but also happens to be the last. Since then, all we've seen are draws and wins.
Nope. Actually, have been five (not many, but still undefeated) 1970 WC : 3-0 vs. Morocco 1982 (April) : 1-1 vs. Algeria (friendly in Algeria) 1982 WC : 0-0 vs. Cameroon 2012 (February) : 1-1 Tunisia (friendly in Tunisia) 2012 (May) : 1-0 Nigeria (friendly in Peru) https://www.eloratings.net/Peru
The formula may look complicated but in a nutshell it works like this. You will always get some points for a win. The amount of points you gain depends on the level of match, and also the ranking of the opponent. The more important the match and the higher the opponent you defeat you gain more points. The same applies if you lose a match in reverse. The more important the match and the lower the opponent you lose to means you lose more points. In the case of a draw the importance of the match factor still applies, but the ranking of your opponent determines if you gain or lose points. Draw against a higher ranked team and you get points, draw against a lower ranked team and you lose points. The rankings list wont really reflect the new system for a while, as the initial rankings and points allocations were based on the old system. After most regions have had a confederation championship the new system will have a stronger effect. Right now only games from the last world cup have had an effect on the new system. Most nations are still on their initial allocation from the old system.
This is all true. However, if there is a problem it is that Elo rankings are designed with a particular type of tournament in mind - and one that, unsurprisingly, is common in chess tournaments, where Elo comes from. In those you typically tend to move towards playing people of similar ability during the tournament - hence the last few games are normally self-seeded and fewer points change hands - you get the 9th and 10th best playing to see who is 9th and 10th best. This is entirely not the case for most football teams in qualification, and (ironically) in the cases where it is most true - the last few matches of major tournaments - the system isn't even used properly as teams can't lose points already gained!!! J
An honest question for those who follow African football more closely (looking at you @zahzah @vancity eagle @FastRNL ): With the new FIFA ranking point system as it is (say what you will about it), should CAF prioritize setting up its own Nations League? Or if not, do you believe African sides aiming at a high seeding can make do without the points they could win in those games?
We have an AFrican nations cup every 2 years as opposed to the 4 that uefa, afc, and conmebol do. So that essentially is our "nations league" frankly I think the idea of a "nations league" is kind of pointless accross the board, I mean we already have confederational tournaments, I dont see what value this adds. What would be far more interesting and entertaining would be a global league with all confederations integrated. People complain about a lack of internatiional competition, well this would certainly be a way to get around that. This would also go a long way to getting accurate FIFA rankings.