Gains and losses in the August ranking UEFA + 510.49 FRA 1576 + 150.41 BEL 1592 + 130.66 CRO 1528 + 114.72 RUS 1340 + 70.15 ENG 1556 + 58.61 SWE 1512 + 53 DEN 1556 + 23.92 SUI 1580 + 16.89 ESP 1564 + 16.29 POR 1588 + 11.25 SRB 1472 - 12.59 POL 1572 - 34.31 GER 1600 - 39.29 ISL 1520 - 49.22 CONMEBOL + 118.85 URU 1552 + 75.19 BRA 1596 + 60.84 COL 1544 + 18.53 ARG 1584 - 10.47 PER 1560 - 25.24 AFC - 14.54 JPN 1372 + 20.1 IRN 1460 + 11.19 KOR 1388 - 0.7 KSA 1348 - 11.84 AUS 1464 - 33.29 CONCACAF - 85.95 MEX 1548 + 11.97 CRC 1516 - 44.52 PAN 1396 - 53.4 CAF - 144.27 SEN 1500 - 1.9 NGA 1420 - 10.34 TUN 1524 - 25.72 MAR 1448 - 29.55 EGY 1432 - 76.76 UEFA and CONMEBOL are the only two confeds that avoided red ink. Especially the European teams picked up quite a few points and those will now be fed into the UEFA mixer, as the bulk of the games before Nov.-Dec. 2022 are intraconfed affairs. Germany should have done better, only winning against Sweden and bleeding roughly 60 points in the games against Mexico and S.Korea. Russia (+ 70.15) qualified as hosts and might not have made it otherwise. They did very well to reach the QFs, beating Spain on the way, only to lose on pens to Croatia. All UEFA play-offs winners improved their ratings and they more than held their own: Croatia (+ 114.72) ... Finalists Sweden (+ 53) ... QFs Denmark (+ 23.92) ... Ro16 Switzerland (+ 16.89) ... Ro16 Interconfed play-offs winners Peru and Australia proved to be costly inclusions. Australia even plummeted Asia into the red. Next month Peru could try to win some points back in the friendlies against Holland and Germany. Argentina was the only team that advanced to the KO phase yet still dropped points. Conversely, Iran was the only team that failed to advance yet still came out ahead. Mexico were saved by FIFA's KO rule. Had they instead lost points when Brazil knocked them out, they would have been in the red just like the other two CONCACAF members. In that case CAF wouldn't have been the only confed with all of its members dipping into the red. To every team that went into the red, better luck next time.
Friendly Results from September 4th Guam (GUM) (-4.93) 0 : 2 (4.93) Macau (MAC) FIFA Points - GUM: 912.0 -> 907.07 MAC: 919.68 -> 924.61 Nepal (NEP) (-6.13) 1 : 2 (6.13) Pakistan (PAK) FIFA Points - NEP: 1004.0 -> 997.87 PAK: 884.0 -> 890.13 Bangladesh (BAN) (5.29) 2 : 0 (-5.29) Bhutan (BHU) FIFA Points - BAN: 901.42 -> 906.72 BHU: 932.0 -> 926.71
Now that we are in fifa top 5, we want the fifa player of the year award and golden ball for Luka Modric ^^ "He is too old" @zazah december 2017
@vancity eagle FT UAE 0 - 2 Trinidad and Tobago. A decent performance and very good result for T&T against UAE, especially considering the issues they had in the build up to the match in Spain.— Caribbean Football (@caribbeanfooty) September 6, 2018
Results from September 6 Largest Point Swings 1) 7.15 Slovenia to Bulgaria 2) 6.96 Czech Republic to Ukraine 3) 6.75 Ireland to Wales CONCACAF Nations League (Weight = 15) Dominica (DMA) (1.2) 0 : 0 (-1.2) Suriname (SUR) Guyana (GUY) (0.97) 2 : 2 (-0.97) Barbados (BRB) UEFA Nations League (Weight = 15) Kazakhstan (KAZ) (-6.43) 0 : 2 (6.43) Georgia (GEO) Latvia (LVA) (-0.01) 0 : 0 (0.01) Andorra (AND) Czech Republic (CZE) (-6.96) 1 : 2 (6.96) Ukraine (UKR) Slovenia (SVN) (-7.15) 1 : 2 (7.15) Bulgaria (BUL) Norway (NOR) (5.71) 2 : 0 (-5.71) Cyprus (CYP) Armenia (ARM) (3.79) 2 : 1 (-3.79) Liechtenstein (LIE) Gibraltar (GIB) (-2.37) 0 : 2 (2.37) FYR Macedonia (MKD) Germany (GER) (2.31) 0 : 0 (-2.31) France (FRA) Wales (WAL) (6.75) 4 : 1 (-6.75) Republic of Ireland (IRL) Friendlies (Weight = 10) Kyrgyz Republic (KGZ) (-0.29) 1 : 1 (0.29) Palestine (PLE) Bahrain (BHR) (-0.08) 1 : 1 (0.08) Philippines (PHI) Jordan (JOR) (-3.94) 0 : 1 (3.94) Lebanon (LIB) Mongolia (MNG) (-0.15) 1 : 1 (0.15) Guam (GUM) Nepal (NEP) (4.32) 4 : 0 (-4.32) Bhutan (BHU) Bangladesh (BAN) (4.84) 1 : 0 (-4.84) Pakistan (PAK) Uzbekistan (UZB) (0.77) 1 : 1 (-0.77) Syria (SYR) Portugal (POR) (0.42) 1 : 1 (-0.42) Croatia (CRO) Netherlands (NED) (4.95) 2 : 1 (-4.95) Peru (PER) Austria (AUT) (5.6) 2 : 0 (-5.6) Sweden (SWE) Trinidad and Tobago (TRI) (5.45) 2 : 0 (-5.45) UAE (UAE)
South Korea 2 Costa Rica 0 USA 0 Brazil 2 Ecuador 2 Jamaica 0 Mexico 1 Uruguay 4 Not a good week for concacaf. I'm sorry but Concacaf is BY FAR the most overrated confederation according to FIFA rankings. The fact that the USA is #22 when they couldn't even qualify for the worldcup and finished behind both Panama and Honduras is a sick joke. Costa Rica at #32 and above all the teams they are above is laughable.
Besides US was playing the number 3 ranked team. Mexico played the number 5th ranked team CR (ranked 32) and the 3rd in Concacaf played SK (ranked 57) and 4th in AFC in South Korea. Jamaica (ranked 54) and 4th in Concacaf played Ecuador (ranked 60) and 10th in conmebol at a nuetral site. This is really the only truly bad and unexpected result. My guess is these results won’t change FIFA ranking much, except for maybe Jamaica and Ecuador.
You missed the point - the UAE/T&T result speaks (once again) to the lack of depth in the AFC that detractors of Concacaf conveniently ignore.
Really? I think lack of depth is something that AFC gets criticised for quite often, along with CONCACAF. Both regions tend to have the same teams qualify each world cup with only a one team variation if they change at all. Since a round of 16 spot or two is usually the best we accomplish it does suggest a lack of depth in both regions. I think its valid to say the drop off in quality is faster in CONCACAF in terms of numbers, but that's a function of the size of the confederations.
Top 50 FIFA Rankings as of today Code: Rank Team Points Prev Pts Prev Rank +/- Confederation ------ ----------------------------- -------- ---------- ----------- ----- --------------- 1 France 1729 1726 1 0 UEFA 2 Belgium 1725 1723 2 0 UEFA 3 Brazil 1660 1657 3 0 CONMEBOL 4 Croatia 1642 1643 4 0 UEFA 5 Uruguay 1632 1627 5 0 CONMEBOL 6 England 1607 1615 6 0 UEFA 7 Switzerland 1603 1597 8 1 UEFA 8 Portugal 1600 1599 7 -1 UEFA 9 Spain 1588 1580 9 0 UEFA 10 Denmark 1581 1580 9 -1 UEFA 11 Argentina 1575 1574 11 0 CONMEBOL 12 Chile 1570 1570 12 0 CONMEBOL 13 Germany 1568 1561 15 2 UEFA 14 Colombia 1567 1563 14 0 CONMEBOL 15 Sweden 1559 1565 13 -2 UEFA 16 Mexico 1556 1560 16 0 CONCACAF 17 Netherlands 1540 1540 17 0 UEFA 18 Poland 1538 1538 18 0 UEFA 19 Wales 1536 1536 19 0 UEFA 20 Italy 1532 1532 21 1 UEFA 21 Peru 1525 1535 20 -1 CONMEBOL 22 Austria 1508 1502 23 1 UEFA 23 United States 1505 1508 22 -1 CONCACAF 24 Tunisia 1503 1498 24 0 CAF 25 Senegal 1492 1498 24 -1 CAF 26 Slovakia 1491 1493 26 0 UEFA 27 Romania 1489 1490 28 1 UEFA 28 Northern Ireland 1484 1492 27 -1 UEFA 29 Ukraine 1483 1468 35 6 UEFA 30 Paraguay 1477 1477 30 0 CONMEBOL 30 Republic of Ireland 1477 1484 29 -1 UEFA 32 Venezuela 1472 1476 31 -1 CONMEBOL 33 IR Iran 1471 1471 32 -1 AFC 34 Costa Rica 1466 1471 32 -2 CONCACAF 35 Iceland 1465 1471 32 -3 UEFA 36 Serbia 1463 1459 36 0 UEFA 37 Bosnia and Herzegovina 1460 1452 39 2 UEFA 38 Congo DR 1447 1456 37 -1 CAF 38 Turkey 1447 1455 38 0 UEFA 40 Greece 1441 1436 42 2 UEFA 40 Montenegro 1441 1440 41 1 UEFA 40 Scotland 1441 1444 40 0 UEFA 43 Australia 1431 1431 43 0 AFC 44 Bulgaria 1430 1416 47 3 UEFA 45 Morocco 1425 1418 46 1 CAF 46 Czech Republic 1423 1430 44 -2 UEFA 47 Russia 1418 1410 49 2 UEFA 48 Nigeria 1413 1410 49 1 CAF 49 Cameroon 1408 1416 47 -2 CAF 50 Ghana 1407 1424 45 -5 CAF
I think it will take till after the next worldcup for these rankings to come anywhere close to accurate. I still think a major flaw in these rankings is that they do not consider victory/loss margins. That is a big flaw.
both AFC and Concacaf have a serious lack of depth, but as Almango pointed out, concacaf's is actually significantly worse. AFC can have a 16 team tournament with few teams that regularly get blown out against even the top opposition. If we look at the 2015 AFC cup you had 4 teams with 0 points. (Palestine, Qatar, N.Korea, Kuwait) Now keep in mind that one of these teams (N. Korea) was good enough to qualify for the 2010 World cup. Kuwait another side finishing with 0 points only lost by 1 goal to South Korea which is one of the top 4 sides in Asia. Qatar another side finishing with 0 points only lost by one goal to Iran (another top 4 Asian side) I honestly cannot see this kind of competitiveness in Concacaf. Once you get past the top 10 or so sides you've got teams that are complete rubbish and would get regularly blown out against top and even mid level concacaf sides. We will see how poor concacaf is with the expanded Gold Cup (16 teams) I also do not think that the expanded 24 team Asian cup will flatter AFC either, but I guess for the teams that qualify it will be a big deal for them, teams like India and Phillipines have large populations so we can at least say it will be making the game more global. But expanding the Gold Cup to make room for teams like St. Lucia or Monserratt, I see absolutely no value. Frankly I think a bunch of the smaller carribbean islands not named Jamaica, Trinidad, or Haiti should join together and form a team, would be much more interesting.
That would've been an interesting convo back in the 80s...now, no way in hell would the FAs pass up on all that FIFA development money each one gets.
Significantly is not what I said. I said it was related to the size of the confederation. I think a 12 team team Gold Cup is pretty equivalent to a 16 team Asian Cup in overall quality. I am interested to see what happens with a 24 team Asian Cup. It gives opportunities for teams 15-24 to do something in a finals tournament. I say 15-24 because the old Asian Cup reserved two spots for "emerging" nations through the old challenge Cup which was open to roughly the bottom third of AFC.
The fact that the Concacaf area has small islands does not mean that good football is not developing. This bunch of islands has its own identity and rivaldry. Do not put them all in a bag as if they were potaoes. You don't know much about Concacaf football to affirm such as fallacy that an expanded Gold Cup is to make room for teams like St Lucia or Montserrat . The posible candidates would be : Curacao, Dominican Rep, Martinique which currently are playing a decent football along with Nicaragua, Belize or Martinique . These countries added to USA, Mexico, Canada and the Uncaf members + Jamaica or Trinidad &Tobago will be surely the participants of the next Gold Cup. (No Montserrat or St.Lucia) So I asure you it will be a very competitive tournament for the area. With the league of nations , St Lucia or Montserrat will have the chance of playing a significant number of matches and so in the near future be able to participate in a Gold Cup.
I wrote a program to calculate them when I enter the results in a spreadsheet. I'm sure someone will have a site running sooner or later.
As jagum said, St. Lucia and Montserrat are unlikely to qualify for a 16 team Gold Cup. There will be teams that lose by a lot, but you gave bad examples. Would you propose that two nearby clubs that aren't elite should combine players to make one better club, such as West Ham United and Fulham or Newcastle United and Sunderland? Wanting national teams to combine isn't any more reasonable than wanting rival clubs to combine.
I find you suggestion to be fairly baffling tbh. To think that it is an issue that you can lose points by advancing is fair, but your solution has some major issues in itself. The extra bonus you need to give teams in your suggestion would need to be huge (45+ or so) otherwise a team could still, potentially in a worst case scenario, lose points by getting beat by a much lower ranked opponent. But that would mean that all teams that win, as well as most teams that lose, would make massive gains on top of the basic points from the match. Just looking at the table @Blondo posted the teams in the final, France and Croatia, gained between 150 and 115 points respectively with most of the rest that got to the KO rounds earned between 10 and 60 points. If you where to add 40-50 points/KO round a team played in then you'd double or triple the points gain for most, if not all, teams. That would seriously skew the ranking and insert a lot more points into the system than what the fix FIFA chose will ever do.
New FIFA ranking is out. I've also done the calculations for my rankings which I feel are quite a bit superior when it comes to actual reality. For me my problem with these new FIFA rankings are that they seem to be very similar to the rankings before the worldcup. Not much has changed from the Worldcup. Lets look at Russia who qualified for the quarter finals. In the first ranking after the world cup, they were still ranked closed to #50. I mean if qualifying for a Worldcup quarter finals cannot get you far from #50, that ranking is garbage IMO. It seems to me that all the teams that were ranked highly before the WC stayed that way afterwards despite how good or bad they did, and same for teams ranked lowly before the WC. Also Japan who made the second round still was below #50 after the WC. Here is my top 100, and I will include the difference between my ranking and FIFA's latest ranking showing how much higher or lower my ranking is for each specific team than FIFA's. Both my rankings and FIFA's are current including the 2 international dates since the Worldcup. 1. France +1 2. Belgium -1 3. Brazil 4. Spain +5 5. England 6. Croatia -2 7. Denmark +3 8. Colombia +3 9. Germany +5 10. Switzerland -2 11. Portugal -4 12. Uruguay -6 13. Sweden +4 14. Holland +1 15. Russia +26 16. Peru +4 17. Argentina -5 18. Nigeria +26 19. Chile -6 20. Italy -1 21. Mexico -5 22. Senegal +3 23. Morocco +24 24. Wales -6 25. Iran +5 26. Japan +24 27. Serbia +8 28. South Korea +25 29. USA -6 30. Iceland +6 31. Cameroon +20 32. Poland -11 33. Tunisia -11 34. Bosnia -2 35. Burkina Faso +22 36. Austria -12 37. Ireland Rep. -4 38. Ghana +14 39. Ukraine -12 40. Romania -14 41. Australia +1 42. Turkey -4 43. Slovakia -15 44. Paraguay -13 45. Greece -3 46. R. Congo 47. South Africa +26 48. Egypt +10 49. Ecuador +12 50. Czech. Rep -2 51. N. Ireland -17 52. Ivory Coast +12 53. Algeria +14 54. Montenegro -15 55. Bolivia +4 56. Costa Rica -19 57. Zambia +20 58. Finland -2 59. Georgia +33 60. Norway -11 61. Honduras +1 62. Guinea +3 63. Zimbabwe +47 64. Cape Verde +4 65. Saudi Arabia +7 66. Bulgaria -21 67. Scotland -27 68. Uganda +11 69. Mali -3 70. Syria +4 71. Canada +5 72. Slovenia -10 73. Macedonia -5 74. Hungary -19 75. Israel +16 76. Albania -16 77. Mauritania +27 78. Kenya +27 79. Panama -9 80. Togo +43 81. Angola +49 89. Kosovo +48 90. Uzbekistan +4 91. Qatar +5 92. Iraq -3 93. UAE -12 94. Comoros +54 95. Tanzania +41 96. Rwanda +42 97. Gabon -14 98. Equatorial Guinea +48 99. Sierra Leone +16 100. Congo -13
So According to my ranking these are the top Underrated Sides and the top Overrated sides when compared to FIFA rankings. Most of the biggest underrated and overrated are outside of the top 50. I want to include major discrepancies within the top 50 .Those in bold are in the top 50 of my rankings. MOST UNDERRATED ACCORDING TO MY RANKINGS Comoros +54 Angola +49 Kosovo +48 Equatorial Guinea +48 Zimbabwe +47 Togo +43 Rwanda +42 Tanzania +41 Georgia +33 Mauritania +27 Kenya +27 Russia +26 Nigeria +26 South Africa +26 South Korea +25 Japan +24 Morocco +24 Burkina Faso +22 Cameroon +20 MOST OVERRATED ACCORDING TO MY RANKINGS Scotland -27 Bulgaria -21 Hungary -19 Costa Rica -19 N. Ireland -17 Albania -16 Montenegro -15 Slovakia -15 Romania -14 Gabon -14 Congo -13 Paraguay -13 UAE -12 Ukraine -12 Austria -12 Poland -11 Tunisia -11 Norway -11 Some themes here 1. Non world cup European teams tend to be overrated according to my rankings, pretty much with the exception of Holland, Italy, and Wales. 2. Both African and Asian teams are underrated according to my rankings almost across the board with a few exceptions. 3. Teams that did relatively well at the WC relative to their FIFA rankings were rewarded in my rankings however WERE NOT awarded according to FIFA rankings (Russia, Nigeria, Morocco S. Korea, Japan) 4. Some teams that did poorly at the WC relative to their FIFA rankings have not been punished according to FIFA, but have been in my rankings (Poland, Costa Rica) 5. Some of the biggest discrepancies are teams in the range of 70 - 100 in my rankings. There are some huge discrepancies with African teams in that range which FIFA ranks very lowly (Comoros, Rwanda, Togo, E. Guinea) which are literally over 40 place differences. As innacurate as I believe FIFA is from around #20 to #60 I think it is even worse from around the #80 to #150 range. It looks like they are just randomly throwing teams around in that range. For example I have no idea how a team like Krygzstan is ranked as high as #90 yet you have a team like Comoros ranked at #148. Comoros is a team which just drew with Morocco at home, and only lost by a single goal away from home to them this past FIFA window. The window before that they drew with Cameroon, and they have also pulled off a draw against Ghana in the previous WCQ cycle. There is no way in hell a team that can draw with Ghana, Morocco, and Cameroon is ranked #148. Looking at Comoros record it seems that there are a whole number of matches in which they didn't do to well. These matches were sub regional tournaments which take place outside of FIFA windows, and which use weakened squads. My rankings do not count sub regional tournaments or non FIFA window friendlies as this is not an accurate reflection of a teams true strength and can greatly throw rankings off. Even with that I do not see any justification for a team like Comoros being ranked so low.
FIFA weights games by the competition, but FIFA doesn't try to guess how good players a team used. Rankings shouldn't make guesses. ELO has Comoros tied for 182nd. In Comoros's last 10 games, they have 4 losses to teams ranked 100th or worse by FIFA. They lost 3-0 in South Africa to Mozambique, who is 122nd in FIFA. In 2016, Comoros won by 1 at home and lost by 1 away to Botswana, who is 140th in FIFA.
It wouldn't be a "guess", if you just as a principle do not count non FIFA window friendlies and sub tournaments across the board, knowing full well that the teams playing for the most part do not represent a teams full strength. FIFA does not include what are known as "B friendlies" for that very reason. B friendlies do not happen very often, but I would suggest that FIFA make these matches I am talking about B friendlies automatically. I believe as it stands teams have to go through some process of registering a match as a B friendly. As for Comoros losing 3-0 to Mozambique who is ranked at #112. 2 things. FIFA doesn't take into account margin of victory, so the 3-0 is irrelevant. My rankings do take victory and loss margins into account, which is another reason they are superior to FIFA. My rankings have Comoros at just inside the top 100, so losing to a team that is roughly 20 spots below you isn't really that abnormal across the board. That in itself isn't really indicative of anything. But when you have draws against 3 different sides which are all easily top 50, including a side that just took the game to Spain at the world cup and a team that won the recent Nations cup, I find it comical that they are ranked so low and a team like Krgystan which does not have results against any team even close to the quality of those 3 teams is ranked 40 plus spots higher. These rankings simply do not match reality in any way once you get past the top 20 or so.