FIFA Rankings & World Cup Seeding (2022 Edition)

My bad.

Edit... I see it now Mexico at 11, CR at 12 and USA at 16. That’s better.

 

Give and take a little here or there, at the conclusion of the last World Cup, I think the proper ranking of the top 50 teams in the world for the 2014-2108 World Cup cycle would be something like as follows. Anything that diverges too much from this order shows flaws.

1- France ............................................A/A-
2- Belgium ..........................................A-
3- Brazil ..............................................A-

4- Croatia ...........................................B+/A-
5- Uruguay .........................................B+
6- England ..........................................B+
7- Germany ........................................B+
8- Spain ..............................................B+
9- Portugal ..........................................B/B+
10- Argentina ......................................B/B+

11- Sweden .........................................B
12- Denmark ........................................B
13- Switzerland ....................................B
14- Colombia .......................................B
15- Chile ..............................................B
16- Mexico ...........................................B
17- Holland ..........................................B

18- Russia ...........................................B-/B
19- Senegal .........................................B-/B
20- Italy ................................................B-/B
21- Japan .............................................B-/B
22- Iran .................................................B-/B
23- Peru ................................................B-/B
24- Nigeria ............................................B-
25- Morocco ..........................................B-
26- Poland ............................................B-
27- Wales .............................................B-
28- Bosnia ........ ...................................B-
29- USA ................................................B-
30- Tunisia ...........................................C+/B-
31- Australia ........................................C+/B-
32- South Korea ..................................C+/B-

33- Serbia .............................................C+
34- Austria.............................................C+
35- Iceland ............................................C+
36- Turkey .............................................C+
37- Greece ............................................C+
38- Ukraine ............................................C+
39- Costa Rica........................................C+
40- Egypt.................................................C+
41- Romania ...........................................C+

42- Venezuela........................................C/C+
45- Ireland .............................................C/C+
46- Cameroon .......................................C
46- Slovakia ..........................................C
47- Ghana .............................................C
48- Saudi Arabia ...................................C
49- DR Congo .......................................C
50- Ivory Coast ......................................C

 

Unlike Sweden, Denmark are undefeated in all of 2017 and 2018 (and 18 games in a row), including at the WC where they managed a 0-0 against France and arguably were at least as good as Croatia in the 1-1 draw AET (though losing the penalty shoot-out) ... Sweden lost to Germany and England at the WC and btw also had to settle with a 0-0 draw at home against Denmark (with no Eriksen) just before the WC, so I argue that Denmark have had better results than Sweden in all of 2018 (also facing some of the same opponents, Chile, Peru and Mexico), besides the 18 games undefeated streak ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_national_football_team#2018
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denmark_national_football_team#2018

 

The Rankings Tools where you could see teams' ranking every month with up to four teams on a page was removed.

 

So I finished my rankings which I have much talked about on this forum. I really challenge anybody to try and claim this is not much more accurate of reality than both FIFA and Elo rankings. In Brackets next to each team I will show how my rankings differ to the current FIFA rankings for each team.

1. France
2. Brazil (+1)
3. Belgium (-1)
4. Croatia
5. England (+1)
6. Spain (+3)
7. Germany (+8)
8. Denmark (+2)
9. Colombia (+5)
10. Sweden (+3)
11. Switzerland (-3)
12. Portugal (-5)
13. Uruguay (-8)
14. Argentina (-3)
15. Peru (+5)
16. Holland (+1)
17. Mexico (-1)
18. Italy (+3)
19. Russia (+30)
20. Chile (-8)
21. Senegal (+3)
22. Nigeria (+28)
23. Wales (-4)
24. Morocco (+22)
25. Iran (+8)
26. Poland (-8)
27. Iceland (+7)
28. Cameroon (+20)
29. Burkina Faso (+23)
30. Japan (+25)
31. USA (-9)
32. Venezuela (-1)
33. Serbia (+3)
34. Ghana (+11)
35. Ireland Rep. (-6)
36. Tunisia (-12)
37. South Korea (+20)
38. Austria (-15)
39. Greece (+3)
40. Bosnia (-1)
41. Romania (-13)
42. Slovakia (-16)
43. S. Africa (+31)
44. R. Congo (-7)
45. Turkey (-7)
46. Australia (-3)
47. Ecuador (+13)
48. Paraguay (-18)
49. Costa Rica (-17)
50. Ukraine (-15)
51. Czech Rep. (-7)
52. N. Ireland (-25)
53. Egypt (+12)
54. Algeria (+12)
55. Bolivia (+4)
56. Ivory Coast (+11)
57. Scotland (-17)
58. Zambia (+18)
59. Slovenia (-3)
60. Norway (-7)
61. Montenegro (-20)
62. Syria (+11)
63. Guinea (+5)
64. Cape Verde
65. Finland (-3)
66. Georgia (+30)
67. Honduras (-6)
68. S. Arabia (+2)
69. Mali (-6)
70. Albania (-12)
71. Zimbabwe (+47)
72. Bulgaria (-25)
73. Uganda (+9)
74. Macedonia (-3)
75. Canada (+4)
76. Hungary (-25)
77. Panama (-8)
78. Israel (+15)
79. Togo (+45)
80. UAE (-3)
81. E. Guinea (+62)
82. Angola (+55)
83. Rwanda (+53)
84. Mauritania (+22)
85. Mozambique (+29)
86. Iraq (+3)
87. Belarus (-9)
88. Gabon (-2)
89. Kazakhstan (+27)
90. Tanzania (+50)
91. Kosovo (+50)
92. Uzbekistan (+3)
93. Qatar (+5)
94. Sierra Leone (+17)
95. Malawi (+28)
96. Kenya (+16)
97. Congo (-14)
98. Trinidad & T (-7)
99. Jamaica (-45)
100. Libya (-1)

 

LOL

What international accomplishments do any teams beneath them have ?

And if they are "way overrated" who below them has "accomplished more" ?

I think you are just reacting emotionally for some reason.

 

OK I asked if someone could argue if FIFA or Elo was a more accurate ranking OVERALL. and this is the best you can do ? Which minnow near the bottom should be ranked higher ?

For the record I agree, personally I think Jamaica is a better team than Malawi. Is my ranking 100% accurate ? No . I never claimed it was. It's a he'll of a lot more accurate than anything out there which I've seen.

So because of Jamaica and Malawi we should forget how my rankings is far more accurate when it comes to teams like

Nigeria, Morocco, Russia, Japan, S Korea.

I guess it's far more important that Jamaica tops Malawi.

So do you think that Jamaica is almost 40 spots ahead of Trinidad or do you think the teams are more equal. My ranking of Trinidad and FIFAS are almost identical, and T&T did finish above Jamaica in WCQ.

Jamaica did well in 2015 but those results are likely not in effect anymore. The 2017 Gold cup they beat a Mexico B team. This result was not counted in my rankings. Mexico's real team was playing the Confederations Cup.

Why should Jamaica be rewarded for beating a fake Mexico team and why should Mexico be penalized when their real team was in Russia at the Confed.

This is yet another reason why my rankings are far more accurate than either FIFA or Elo. B teams are not counted, neither are regional sub tournaments where full teams are usually not used.

What is more accurate is that Jamaica cannot claim to be better than Panama who easily beat them out on WCQ. AND we all saw how Panama was basically the worst team in Russia.

This isn't about cherrypicking one or two rankings that look off, we can all do that all day long.

It's about whether or not the OVERALL ranking is more reflective of reality, which again I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.

 

I have mentioned before that I don't think your methodology is sound, but while I don't find your actual rankings entirely off, I do agree that you have the CAF side's slightly overrated. The World Cup is the most important tournament in football and it just appears odd, for instance, that Morocco (in the same group as Iran, finishing with 1 point compared to 4 points for Iran in that group) would end up ranking higher than Iran. That could only make sense if you were ranking sides subjectively (where I agree Morocco were better than their results) but not when you have a ranking system that is supposed to judge teams by actual results and not subjective points.

More generally, though, I look at the 32 teams and ask whether some of the CAF sides you have among the top 32 (e.g., Cameroon, Burkina Faso) would really do well at the World Cup if they had qualified? Would they have done better than Australia, which you have ranked below them? I don't know that answer for sure, but based on the evidence that exists, that doesn't seem credible to me.

Of course, I agree that the FIFA rankings for Japan and South Korea are basically rubbish and, consequently, your rankings are better in that sense. I am still shocked that even after the World Cup where Japan in particular did well, they are as poorly ranked by FIFA as they are! This suggests to me that World Cup results aren't given as much weight in FIFA's formula as they should be, whereas if it was up to me, I would devise the formula such that World Cup results have huge weight for around 12 months. Their (super) extra weight would diminish afterwards, but to rank teams after the premier tournament in the game in a way that would not reflect the World Cup results at all would seem to diminish both the World Cup and FIFA's rankings. On the other hand, once we get into a new World Cup cycle, in the particular by the last 2 years of a new World Cup cycle, I don't think the last World Cup results should remain so important and their weight and value should substantially diminish in the formula that is used.

 

I have Sweden and Denmark ranked basically equally and I certainly have no dog in that fight What you say seems reasonable enough and I would be fine switching their place. My main point is that a ranking system that produces results that are hugely different than what I had suggested raises questions in my mind. But certainly I am not married to the precise order of any of the teams I have listed and the grade I have given is actually more significant to me than the actual numerical ranking.

 

Yeah, but I think regardless of how a team ranked before the World Cup, the formula should give the World Cup results (for a while*) such heightened value that it would show the rankings. To accomplish that, I would suggest giving sides "World Cup Bonus Points" added to their FIFA ranking points as follows:

I. Group Stage (GS) Bonus Points
1- +10 Bonus points for each group stage point earned by a side at the World Cup
2- +2 Bonus points for each goal difference better than (-3) at the GS (e.g., GD-2=2pts, GD-1=4pts, GD0=6pts, GD+1=8pts. GD+2=10pts, GD+7=14pts)
II. Knock-Out Bonus Points
3- +50 Bonus additional points for advancing from GS to R16
4- +50 Bonus additional points for advancing to QF
5- +50 Bonus additional points for advancing to SF
6- +50 Bonus additional points for advancing to F
7- +100 Bonus additional points for winning the World Cup

*All Bonus Points from the World Cup to be reduced in weight by 50% after the 1st anniversary of the World Cup and erased completely after the 2nd anniversary of the World Cup.

Using what I suggest, the Bonus points for some of the World Cup teams (for illustration) would be as follows:

1- France: GS Bonus Points: 70+10=80Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50+50+50+50+100=300Pts Total Bonus Points: 380pts
2- Croatia: GS Bonus Points: 90+18=108Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50+50+50+50=200Pts Total Bonus Points: 308 pts
3- Belgium: GS Bonus Points: 90+20=110Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50+50+50=150Pts Total Bonus Points: 260 pts
4- England: GS Bonus Points: 60+16=66Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 150 Pts Total Bonus Points: 216 pts
- Uruguay: GS Bonus Points: 90+16=106Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50+50=100 Total Bonus Points: 206 pts
- Russia: GS Bonus Points: 60+14=74Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50+50=100 Total Bonus Points: 174 pts
- Mexico: GS Bonus Points: 60+4=64Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50 Total Bonus Points: 114 pts
- Spain: GS Bonus Points: 50+8=58Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50 Total Bonus Points: 108 pts
- Japan: GS Bonus Points: 40+6=46Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50 Total Bonus Points: 96 pts
- Argentina: GS Bonus Points: 40+2=42Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: 50 Total Bonus Points: 92 pts
- Senegal: GS Bonus Points: 40+6=46Pts: Knock-Out Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 46 pts
- Iran: GS Bonus Points: 40+6=46Pts: Knock-Out Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 46 pts
- Korea Rep: GS Bonus Points: 30+6=36Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 36 pts
- Nigeria: GS Bonus Points: 30+4=34Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 34 pts
- Tunisia: GS Bonus Points: 30 Knock-Out Bonus points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 30 pts
- Saudi Arabia: GS Bonus Points: 30 Knock-Out Bonus points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 30 pts
- Germany: GS Bonus Points: 10+2=12Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 12 pts
- Morocco: GS Bonus Points: 10+2=12Pts 10+2=12Pts Knock-Out Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 12 pts
- Panama: GS Bonus Points: 0 Knock-Out Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: n/a Total Bonus Points: 0 pts

 

Whilst we have a new system in place now, most of these rankings come from the old system with World Cup matches having only a small effect in most cases, and most of those that didn't make the round of 16 would have lost points. For example, my own country would have had its old ranking determining the starting point which was 36th in the old rankings. We lost points by losing to France and Peru, and picked up a small amount from the draw with Denmark as they are ranked higher than us. We dropped to 43, with sides who moved above us not playing in the world cup. I expect the new system to be more accurate than the old (but still not perfect), but these rankings have more to do with the old system rather than the new.

 

If my methodology isn't sound then it would result in a large number of disrepancies, and frankly there are far less than in either FIFA or Elo.

I dont agree that CAF is overrated at all. If you look at Nigeria for example at #22, if you look almost directly below at #26 and #27 you have 2 highly rated European sides according to both FIFA and ELo, which Nigeria defeated within the last half year. Poland, who we beat on their own turf, and Iceland who we beat 2-0 in the World Cup. This is a team that was 5 minutes from qualifying from IMO the toughest group at the past WC. I dont see how you can claim Nigeria is overrated at #22. Senegal at #21 is certainly not overrated, and I dont believe Morocco at #24 is overrated either, a team which should have beaten Spain if not for being robbed, and a team which outplayed Portugal. I think a strong case can be made that all 3 of those teams are top 20 teams. All 3 are easily top 30 sides. Now we can move down to Cameroon and Burkina Faso at #28 and #29 respectively, and perhaps you may have a point, however its worth noting that Cameroon are African champs from 2017 and Burkina Faso came third in that same competition, and also drew with Senegal twice in WCQ. I'm sorry but I dont see that as a stretch to rate a team which Senegal could not beat and a team who finish third in an AFCON at #29. Certainly that makes more sense than FIFA ranking Romania #28. A team that finished fourth in their WCQ group and dead last in their Euro 2016 group. Sorry I just dont see CAF being overrated at all in my ratings.

You then talk about the fact that Morocco is ranked ahead of Iran (by only one spot by the way) as some great mystery which has nothing to do with objective results. Its really quite simple why Morocco is ranked above Iran. Same reason Brazil is ranked above Belgium in my rankings even though Belgium beat Brazil. The rankings are an accumulation of more than just the WC tournament. Morocco's record pre WC is just far superior than Iran's. Before the WC Morocco was ranked #25, so they went up a grand total of 1 spot to #24. Iran pre WC was ranked #40 and jumped up 15 spots to #25. In fact the 3 Asian sides (Iran, Japan, S. Korea) I believe were all the biggest climbers in my rankings after the World Cup.

Iran wasn't ranked that high pre WC because as I explained to you before, they hadn't beaten any high ranking sides. In my formula you wont gain in rank unless you beat or draw against highly ranked sides. Iran hadn't really done that, while Morocco pre WC had beaten Serbia, Slovakia, they had beaten Ivory Coast twice, had drawn with Egypt, drawn with Ukraine, beaten S. Korea by 2 goals. Iran frankly hadn't done much. By that I mean they hadn't racked up any serious points because they hadn't really done anything against anybody of note. Keep in mind they also lost against both Turkey and Tunisia pre WC, but they had a good WC and moved up 15 spots and are ranked at #24.

As for Australia, they had a decent-ish WC but the reason they are low is because they had a pretty poor WCQ. In my rankings if you play against low ranking sides and either lose or draw, it really effects your rankings, especially if you haven't had many matches where you gained lots of points to bring up your average. They drew against S. Arabia, Thailand, twice against Syria, and once against Honduras. They failed to beat Japan which was the only team in their WCQ group which contained any decent number of points to attain. All of these other teams they drew with were lowly ranked so it pulled Australias average down. They also recently got creamed by Norway 4-1 which was another pretty lowly ranked side. Actually just looking now Australia climbed 8 spots after their WC performance, (pre WC friendlies included) Not bad for finishing bottom in your group.

Most teams didn't actually move all that much in my rankings pre and post WC. Which again could be an indication that the rankings were pretty spot on already. Like I said the big positive movers were the 3 mentioned Asian sides (Japan, Iran, S. Korea) The biggest loser was Egypt who dropped 24 spots. Panama also dropped 19. Poland and Iceland both dropped 10 spots. Denmark went up 10, Sweden went up 14. Others moved a little here and there.

 

While I admit that FIFA ranks AFC sides too low, Japan and S. Korea's poor ranking had less to do with the AFC cup being devalued, and more to do with the simple fact that their records were frankly just piss poor. S. Korea did better than Iran at the last Asian cup but Iran was ranked quite a bit higher then either side because, they had a much better recent record. Go check and see how poor both Japan and S. Korea had been before the World Cup. They both frankly deserved to be ranked rather lowly.

 

- 1 win
- 1 draw
- 2 losses

Japan's results aren't particularly outstanding. They won some points then dropped a few later.

 

Sure but according to the new formula doesn't their knockout round loss against Belgium not count ? I believe that is a really stupid rule by the way, but it makes it even more baffling how Japan is ranked so low.

 

Japan's low ranking is a reflection of their poor results prior to the WC. Their previous manager Halilhodzic never took friendlies seriously. He always fielded an experimental line-up in friendlies.

 

Japan could thank FIFA for mitigating the impact of a KO round loss, that they couldn't lose any points in their last game but could win plenty of points had they beaten Belgium. So far, Japan haven't played many games since the introduction of the new method and plenty of teams haven't played a single game since that day. Give it time and their ranking will stabilize.

The inflation caused by not deducting points for KO round losses will make it harder to compare points totals over time but who knows FIFA might again overhaul their ranking anyway.

Also, considering the differences between confeds (and their competitions) how much of an impact will this have?

 

If we look at the biggest discrepancies in FIFA rankings and my rankings they are as such.

Top positive discrepancies in my rankings

1. Equitorial Guinea +62
2. Angola +55
3. Rwanda +53
4. Tanzania +50
5. Kosovo +50
6. Zimbabwe +47
7. Togo +45
8. South Africa +31
9. Russia +30
10. Georgia +30

Apart from Russia and South Africa the rest of the sides are all in the 70's and below. Georgia is at #66. Clearly my rankings and FIFA rankings disagree on the strength of African sides. FIFA also rates virtually every Asian side worse off than my rankings as well. Much of this obviously has to do with the confederational bias from the different multipliers which they just abolished, but I dont think it is just down to that. The fact that the biggest discrepancies occur on the lower end of the ranking suggest a vastly different methodology in dealing with lower ranked sides. My guess is that my rankings take into account the strength of the opponent you play, whereas FIFA takes more into account whether you win or lose. FIFA ranks all losses as the same, while my ranking takes into account strength of opponent. You can actually raise your points average from a loss in my rankings while you cannot in FIFA. If per say a team like China who is ranked lowly loses 1-0 to Brazil, it may probably increase their average and they can climb. The way I understand FIFA, you would get 0 points.

Top Negative Discrepancies

1. Jamaica -45
2. N. Ireland -25
3. Bulgaria -25
4. Hungary -25
5. Montenegro -20
6. Paraguay -18
7. Scotland -17
8. Costa Rica -17
9. Slovakia -16
10. Austria -15

The Jamaica is the biggest discrepancy as I have already explained largely because 2 seemingly positive results from the 2017 Gold cup were not counted. A draw and a victory against a Mexico B team. The other large negative discrepancies seem to mostly be European sides who finished mid table in their WCQ groups, who clearly were being artificially boosted by the confederational multiplier. Austria and Bulgaria both finished 4th. Austria also finished bottom of their euro2016 group. Of course neither of Scotland, Montenegro, or Bulgaria were even good enough to qualify for the Euro. Hungary finished 3rd in their WCQ group but they were much closer to the bottom sides with 13 points, beneath them F. Islands and Latvia at 9 and 7, while directly above Hungary Portugal and Switzerland at 27 points, a full 14 ahead.

 

Well this silly rule will clearly help teams that play joke tournaments, so I can see it helping Concacaf.

We can assume that teams like USA, Mexico, Costa Rica generally never play each other in the first round of a Gold Cup. So frankly they shouldn't be losing any first round matches. When they meet in the later stages, losses will not count.

This actually will also help the top teams in CAF and AFC since both confederations are expanding their tournaments to 24 teams, making it less likely for the better teams to meet each other in the first round. Concacaf is also expanding to 16 which will even dilute an already weak tournament even more.

I would say this rule would help these confederations in the following order.

Concacaf
AFC
CAF
Uefa
Conembol

Its a pretty stupid rule because it basically discriminates against teams who lose matches in first round of a tournament and rewards teams for losing, simply because it is in the later stages.

Not to mention all tournaments are not equal, especially when some have 24 teams and others have 12 or 16. Some tournaments can have tough first round matches, while others can have completely lopsided first round matches, like an expanded Gold Cup.