and now your hypocrisy and double standards comes full circle. You just went on above about African teams not having to qualify against teams as strong as Argentina, Uruguay, Colombia, Chile. And therefore they cannot be ranked so high. Which I fully agree with to an extent. Please tell me which teams Belgium had to beat to qualify for the WC which are as good as those sides ? Was it Greece, Bosnia, or was it almighty Estonia ? This group isn't even as hard as the teams Nigeria had to beat. LOL. Brazil is ranked so highly in my rankings, precicely because of the way they absolutely killed Conmebol qualifying defeating many very highly ranked sides which quite frankly make Belgiums qualification look like they came through concacaf. Their high ranking is a culmination of that WCQ and a decent WC showing. Rankings do not hinge on ONE GAME. So despite Belgium beating Brazil at the biggest stage such as the WC, Brazil's previous record pre WC was just so much superior.
Out of interest, given teams in your rankings gain and lose points based partly on what the ranking of the opponent is, what did you use as the initial starting point for your rankings? How did you order the teams to start with? Apologies if you've already mentioned this in the thread.
I used the FIFA rankings. Started this roughly 20 years ago. Yes the FIFA rankings at that time were off IMO, but I had to start somewhere and I knew eventually things would even out and we would get a more accurate picture.
As a couple of examples, Wales and Iceland both had strong runs in Euro 2016, with Iceland following it up by qualifying for the WC finals. What have Morocco done in the last four years to merit being ranked above Iceland? Honest question: what do you mean here? The whole tournament, or the games involving Mexico? True. What does your ranking do with losses? Honest q. Knocking out Paraguay and Ecuador, both of whom I'd rank above 95% of CAF? It is in my book. And what have Nigeria and Morocco done? Neither have reached even the semifinals of the AFCON in the last four years (Nigeria did win in 2013 IIRC); Nigeria reached the World Cup by overcoming an Algeria side that completely failed to capitalize on 2014 and fell off, as well as a Cameroon team that got thoroughly exposed in the Confederations Cup, while Morocco's grand accomplishment was overcoming Côte d'Ivoire and...that's it. Again, my apologies for the confusion: the comments about Peru weren't meant for you. But since we're on the topic, there is one more significant bone to pick with your rankings: how the hell do you rank Peru above Chile? And worse, have Chile at 20th?! Yeah, they failed to qualify for the World Cup by the skin of their teeth, but pretty much everything they've done over the last four years suggests that they are Top 10, Top 15 at worst. You were saying something about childish outbursts? Agreed. Not just one game: in my view, Belgium's performance in the WC finals was so much better than Brazil's that they should be ranked higher. If anything, I don't understand what makes you view Brazil's WC run as "decent": they beat a grand total of 0 even marginally elite teams and dropped points against Switzerland, while Belgium beat them and posted two wins over England. Now, if you want to discount that because England are overrated...I would have to agree.
So now you dropped Nigeria from the equation and just focus on Morocco ? That wouldn't have anything to do with the fact that Nigeria just beat Iceland 2-0 at the WC would it ? Also as I pointed out earlier, another European team I had ranked just below Nigeria was Poland, who we also beat in their own backyard. So is Nigeria really "vastly overrated" or were you just reacting emotionally for some reason ? While Wales and Iceland both had good runs in the Euro 2016, they have both fallen off since. In my last rankings before the WC, Iceland was ranked above both Nigeria and Morocco, I believe Wales was as well. But frankly lets look at the falls of both sides. Iceland while qualifying for the WC did lose to a very lowly ranked Finland in the process. They then followed this with a friendly draw against lowly Qatar, then lost friendlies to Czech. Rep, Mexico 3-0, and Peru 3-1. Then they lost at home to Norway (another lowly ranked side) drew with Ghana (who are currently lower than they usually are), then lost against both Croatia and Nigeria at the WC. Meanwhile in the same time span while Iceland has lost 7 matches, Morocco has only lost 5 (Portugal, Iran, DR Congo, Cameroon, Holland) As I explained earlier the strength of the team you lose to as well as the amount of goals you lose by effects your rank. Morocco has not lost by more than a goal to any of those nations, while Iceland lost by 3 to Mexico and 2 to Peru and 2 to Nigeria. Again as explained you get points from beating or tying highly ranked sides which increases your points averages. In this time frame Morocco has beaten Ivory Coast twice, once a 2 goal away victory (a boost) they've beaten Serbia, Slovakia, S. Korea drawn with Egypt, Ukraine, and drew with Spain at the WC. They also beat Mali 6-0. Mali is a mid table ranked side, but one of the ways that teams can get points from beating lower ranked sides is by beating them by multiple goals, and a 6-0 thrashing of Mali is very impressive no matter what you may feel. Mali recently drew with Japan 0-0 just to give you a bit of context, and they also regularly do well at ANC's. Again the ranking is all down to average points gained per match, and both Iceland and Wales have fallen off from their accomplishments from euro 2016. They haven't been able to maintain the high points averages they achieved from that period, while Morocco's more recent record is frankly more impressive. Wales recent matches are losses against Uruguay, France, a draw against Mexico, and PANAMA. A loss against Ireland, draws against Serbia (who Morocco beat), draws against Georgia and Austria. Again even with this poor record they were ranked above Morocco before the WC, but a draw against a highly ranked Spain in concert with their recent good record put them above Wales. I dont see why it is so hard to understand. You are living too much in the past and not looking at recent records, which is what rankings are supposed to do. I mean that the US did not play against Mexico in that tournament so me not counting a Mexico B teams matches in that tournament did not effect the US's rankings in any way. The only team effected was Jamaica who beat them and drew them. While FIFA rankings give 0 points for any loss, which is absolutely ridiculous. A 10-0 loss against Malawi would in effect be the same as a 1-0 loss to Brazil under FIFA rankings. My rankings gives teams points based on the amount of goals you lose by and the quality of the opponent you lose to. For example a victory over the top ranked side gives you 100 points. A draw would be 100/1.5 and a 1 goal loss would be 100/3. So you would get 33 points from losing by one goal against the top ranked team as opposed to getting 0. So currently that #1 is France. A one goal victory over France gets you 100 points, a draw vs France gets you 67 points, and a 1 goal loss against France gets you 33 points. Now a 2 goal loss and the points total gets divided by 4. So 100/4 = 25 points for a 2 goal loss against France. Sure they are certainly both better than 95% of CAF's 50 plus countries, but they aren't better than Nigeria or Morocco. I've shown you how poor Iceland and Wales recent record is, and now that you know a little bit how my ranking system works, their point averages per game have been brought down due to their poor recent record. Nigeria has beaten Cameroon 4-0. Whatever you say Cameroon were ranked highly from winning the ANC. They beat Algeria 3-1 (who were ranked high from the previous WC) They beat Argentina 4-2, beat Poland. Two teams who were ranked highly in my rankings. They also just beat Iceland 2-0 who for some reason you are arguing should be ranked higher than Nigeria. Looking at recent records, both Nigeria and Morocco are far superior to Wales and Iceland in the past year, and they only both surpassed those 2 nations after this WC. I ranked Peru above Chile because their recent record IS BETTER. Again you seem to be acting like you think I am just making this up and not using a formula where data is entered. Peru beat a highly ranked Iceland 3-1, they beat a highly ranked Croatia 2-0. In WCQ they have recent draws against Argentina, Colombia, victories over Uruguay, Paraguay. If you look at Chile recently we have a loss against a lowly Romania. In WCQ recent results a 3-0 loss to Brazil, a loss against Bolivia, a 3-0 loss against Paraguay. Their draw against Australia at the Confed cup did not help them and just previous to that they lost against Romania and drew against Russia (who were ranked very lowly at the time) Again Peru's recent record is better than Chile's. Chile was ranked top 5 in my rankings after their Copa victories but frankly they have fallen pretty hard since then and my rankings reflect that dip in form. I agree. Belgium's WC performance was far better than Brazil's, however Brazil's entire body of work pre WC is much more superior to Belgiums. As it is they are ranked #2 and #3 respectively. There isn't much separating the 2 teams atm, but Brazil's average points per game is brought up by such relatively recent results Brazil 2 Mexico 0 Brazil 2 Serbia 0 Brazil 2 Croatia 0 Brazil 1 Germany 0 Brazil 3 Chile 0 Brazil 4 Uruguay 1 Brazil 1 Colombia 0 Brazil 2 Peru 0 Brazil 3 Argentina 0 Look how many top 15 teams these results are against. You have quite a few multiple goal victories against top 15 sides. That will certainly bring up your points per game average. For Belgium to go above Brazil they would have to continue such good results and Brazil would have to start losing or drawing matches. It could definately happen pretty soon. There will be plenty of points to win in the UEFA nations league for Belgium, but they could very likely lose points averages as well. But frankly at this point any slight drop or gain in points per game average could make either side switch positions.
Well, they play in such different confederation now should we stop there. Do you know CAF top teams have done much better than Peru against world-class opposition at the World Cup history? Peru 0-0 Netherlands Italy 1-1 Peru West Germany 0-0 Tunisia Poland 0-0 Cameroon Italy 1-1 Cameroon Algeria 2-1 West Germany England 0-0 Morocco Cameroon 1-0 Argentina Cameroon 2-1 Romania Cameroon 2-3 England (a 2-2 draw in normal time) Netherlands 1-1 Egypt Ireland 0-0 Egypt Cameroon 2-2 Sweden Nigeria 3-0 Bulgaria Nigeria 1-2 Italy (a 1-1 draw in normal time) South Africa 1-1 Denmark Nigeria 3-2 Spain Senegal 1-0 France Ireland 1-1 Cameroon Nigeria 0-0 England Tunisia 1-1 Belgium Senegal 2-1 Sweden Ghana 2-0 Czech Republic England 0-0 Algeria Ivory Coast 0-0 Portugal Uruguay 1-1 Ghana Germany 2-2 Ghana Germany 2-1 Algeria (a 0-0 draw in normal time) Spain 2-2 Morocco Peru benefit in achieved their best results when the World Cup was played in America continent (including 0-6 loss to Argentina, Panama scored a goal at least against a top class opposition in a better result), Peru cant do the same outside America, they just cant, if you could you would. You don't realize CAF teams's strength in comparison with Peru and the likes. Well, I dont blame you for ignorance, everything is obvious here it terms of results and the performance but the media has brainwashed heavily and for so long, so therefore you need time to figure it out but certainly not by now.
By cheating with their hand balls it has nothing to do with football, we talk football here. Brazil stuck at the same confederation so they used to play each other all the time and last time Peru won against them it was a 3-1 result in the 1975 Copa America and it was 40 years ago? In that match Brazil played their reserve team with Nelinho and Piazza only members of the 1974 squad it shows you even more how terrible they are in football. Argentina, Colombia and Chile teams that CAF had won against before it just they dont play each other everytime on account of different confederation. The hype on CONMEBOL 2nd tier teams here is ridiculous, it seems there is massive difficulty to separate them from the traditional elite teams the likes of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay (1924-1970). For time is now Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay can stay out of this, the CONMEBOL 2nd tier teams have been hiding behind them long enough.
Hmm just wondering, why cant USA be ranked higher up than Nigeria? Didnt Nigeria miss to qualify to the CAF tournement the last two times? I understand if Nigeria is higher up if its from 2017 September.
No, I had not forgotten about the Super Eagles, just wanted to make a straightforward argument, i.e. Iceland should be ranked higher than Morocco right now. That you disagree points to what I view as a flaw in your rankings: that you weigh results from the last year alone so much more than results from previous years that it smacks more of a Power Rankings rather than an actual ranking of the teams by quality. Again, returning to Chile: they had a disaster of a second semester in 2017, but (again, it pains me to say ) no way in hell are they the 20th best team in the world right now. And naturally, your rankings are based on objective formulas; but the weight that certain results are given over others is entirely informed by your own considerations and biases. The same as how FIFA screwed over everyone not in UEFA or CONMEBOL the last few years with the "strength of your own confederation" factor (e.g. Costa Rica getting only 88% of the ranking points that Uruguay received for the same accomplishment of beating Italy in 2014). As you said about Belgium, one game on its own doesn't establish that the winner should automatically be ranked higher than the loser. Well, explain yourself @vancity eagle - why do Nigeria get so much of a pass for doing nothing in CAF tournaments in the last four years (or at least, missing the AFCON that matters, since you only count one of two)? If it's because of how little you weigh confederation results in general, then yes, I'd consider that a departure from reality. Also worth asking, how much weight do you give to friendlies in general? When did I ever say that Peru have been consistently better than Africa's elite over the last few decades? I'd uphold it over the last four years, but Peru have basically no continental accomplishments to speak of from 1982 to 2014. Hell, I'll even spot you one: Cameroon got robbed against Peru in '82, they should've won Wasn't the whole argument of the anti-VAR crowd that handballs are part of the game? If we're going to moralize and drop results accordingly, then that leaves us with entire World Cups to scratch from the record. You conveniently forget that it was also the last time Brazil lost a single competitive game at home until 7-1. To you @FastRNL I'll just leave this:
@code1390 I just came across this comment (of yours?) on another platform: The number of ranking points in the system started at 254,768 After the 2018 World Cup, the total points in the system was 256,842 (increase of about 0.8%). How many points did each of the teams involved in this increase add? In case you have data that excludes WC2014 and WC2018 results we could see how inflation works in each confed (and possibly see the impact of the World Cup when comparing it with data that includes those results).
Have you not been reading this thread ? It has been explained already. USA has a horrible record of late, losing to the likes of Trinidad, and failing to beat Honduras and Panama, losing at home to Costa Rica. You really want a team who couldn't qualify from the easiest Confederation, and weren't even the next team in line (that was Honduras) to be ranked above a team that easily qualified from the hardest WCQ CAF group, spanking the current CAF champions and a WC 2nd round qualifier from 2014 WC in the process, and then went on to beat a top 20 ranked UEFA side 2-0 at the WorldCup itself. Under what logic do you justify that ? Yes Nigeria missed the ANC, but Holland missed a 24 team Euro and the World cup and are still ranked in the top 20. You dont lose points simply for not qualifying. You lose points for specific losses and draws. If you fail to qualify from a tough group, your ranking will not necessarily drop all that much. The last ANC Nigeria missed, we lost out to Egypt, who ended up finishing 2nd at the actual tournament.
Hopefully I understood what you were asking for. Here's the list that includes the extra points gained from all matches from June 2014 to August 2018. Obviously Mexico stands out, but then again they played in seven tournaments (2 WC, 2 Copa Americas, 2 Gold Cups, and a Confederations Cup). The numbers at the top are the total points added by each confederation. Code: AFC 232.91 CAF 281.22 CONCACAF 346.81 CONMEBOL 363.52 OFC 46.72 UEFA 530.09 Japan AFC 21.72 Iraq AFC 20.17 Korea Republic AFC 18.79 Myanmar AFC 17.56 Vietnam AFC 16.54 Thailand AFC 15.64 Uzbekistan AFC 14.66 United Arab Emirates AFC 14.64 China PR AFC 13.69 Indonesia AFC 11.05 Brunei Darussalam AFC 10.96 Macau AFC 9.86 IR Iran AFC 8.98 Australia AFC 6.18 Saudi Arabia AFC 5.88 Qatar AFC 3.33 Syria AFC 2.86 India AFC 1.54 Kyrgyz Republic AFC 1.42 Nepal AFC 1.35 Jordan AFC 1.34 Korea DPR AFC 1.13 Cambodia AFC 1.07 Afghanistan AFC 1.00 Bahrain AFC 0.99 Palestine AFC 0.98 Lebanon AFC 0.93 Oman AFC 0.93 Malaysia AFC 0.84 Philippines AFC 0.80 Hong Kong AFC 0.73 Kuwait AFC 0.70 Chinese Taipei AFC 0.70 Yemen AFC 0.63 Maldives AFC 0.63 Laos AFC 0.57 Bhutan AFC 0.49 Timor-Leste AFC 0.40 Singapore AFC 0.37 Turkmenistan AFC 0.35 Guam AFC 0.19 Tajikistan AFC 0.15 Mongolia AFC 0.09 Bangladesh AFC 0.08 Sri Lanka AFC 0.01 Pakistan AFC 0.00 Ghana CAF 42.23 Tunisia CAF 40.55 Congo DR CAF 26.77 Algeria CAF 25.43 Egypt CAF 21.83 Congo CAF 17.25 Guinea CAF 15.52 Morocco CAF 14.90 Nigeria CAF 13.48 Equatorial Guinea CAF 10.01 Senegal CAF 6.25 Cameroon CAF 4.45 Libya CAF 3.33 Ethiopia CAF 3.05 Uganda CAF 2.94 Zambia CAF 2.69 Burkina Faso CAF 2.17 Côte d'Ivoire CAF 2.04 Togo CAF 2.03 Mali CAF 2.00 Tanzania CAF 1.84 South Africa CAF 1.53 Zimbabwe CAF 1.51 Kenya CAF 1.48 Mauritania CAF 1.42 Gabon CAF 1.17 Benin CAF 1.15 Malawi CAF 1.10 Liberia CAF 1.02 Swaziland CAF 0.90 Lesotho CAF 0.87 Guinea-Bissau CAF 0.78 Central African Republic CAF 0.73 Namibia CAF 0.73 Seychelles CAF 0.62 Burundi CAF 0.60 Sudan CAF 0.59 Madagascar CAF 0.50 Cape Verde Islands CAF 0.45 Djibouti CAF 0.43 South Sudan CAF 0.43 Niger CAF 0.42 Angola CAF 0.40 Botswana CAF 0.39 Chad CAF 0.34 Rwanda CAF 0.21 Mozambique CAF 0.20 Gambia CAF 0.14 Sierra Leone CAF 0.13 Comoros CAF 0.13 São Tomé e Príncipe CAF 0.07 Mauritius CAF 0.03 Somalia CAF 0.01 Eritrea CAF 0.00 Mexico CONCACAF 92.59 USA CONCACAF 54.09 Costa Rica CONCACAF 39.28 Panama CONCACAF 37.36 Jamaica CONCACAF 26.30 Haiti CONCACAF 21.00 Honduras CONCACAF 18.84 Canada CONCACAF 18.78 El Salvador CONCACAF 13.94 Cuba CONCACAF 9.15 Trinidad and Tobago CONCACAF 8.30 Guatemala CONCACAF 1.70 Curaçao CONCACAF 1.45 Nicaragua CONCACAF 1.42 St Vincent and the Grenadines CONCACAF 0.88 Grenada CONCACAF 0.56 Antigua and Barbuda CONCACAF 0.31 Puerto Rico CONCACAF 0.20 St Kitts and Nevis CONCACAF 0.19 Suriname CONCACAF 0.16 Guyana CONCACAF 0.12 Belize CONCACAF 0.08 Bermuda CONCACAF 0.04 Dominican Republic CONCACAF 0.03 Barbados CONCACAF 0.01 St Lucia CONCACAF 0.00 Dominica CONCACAF 0.00 US Virgin Islands CONCACAF 0.00 Turks and Caicos Islands CONCACAF 0.00 Anguilla CONCACAF 0.00 Aruba CONCACAF 0.00 Bahamas CONCACAF 0.00 British Virgin Islands CONCACAF 0.00 Cayman Islands CONCACAF 0.00 Montserrat CONCACAF 0.00 Brazil CONMEBOL 74.86 Uruguay CONMEBOL 53.81 Argentina CONMEBOL 51.82 Colombia CONMEBOL 36.42 Paraguay CONMEBOL 31.15 Chile CONMEBOL 28.56 Ecuador CONMEBOL 27.18 Bolivia CONMEBOL 20.25 Peru CONMEBOL 19.82 Venezuela CONMEBOL 19.65 Solomon Islands OFC 18.36 New Caledonia OFC 13.06 New Zealand OFC 11.73 Fiji OFC 1.26 Tahiti OFC 1.15 Papua New Guinea OFC 0.98 Vanuatu OFC 0.10 Tonga OFC 0.09 American Samoa OFC 0.00 Cook Islands OFC 0.00 Samoa OFC 0.00 England UEFA 79.89 Belgium UEFA 67.23 Switzerland UEFA 49.29 Croatia UEFA 38.62 Portugal UEFA 37.30 Sweden UEFA 32.81 France UEFA 30.09 Spain UEFA 25.39 Germany UEFA 21.53 Wales UEFA 15.91 Iceland UEFA 13.65 Northern Ireland UEFA 12.09 Hungary UEFA 11.23 Republic of Ireland UEFA 10.07 Slovakia UEFA 9.42 Russia UEFA 6.68 Serbia UEFA 6.62 Denmark UEFA 4.95 Poland UEFA 4.17 Netherlands UEFA 3.75 Bosnia and Herzegovina UEFA 3.49 Italy UEFA 3.10 Greece UEFA 2.76 Scotland UEFA 2.61 Czech Republic UEFA 2.43 Austria UEFA 2.36 Slovenia UEFA 2.30 Albania UEFA 1.98 Turkey UEFA 1.85 Estonia UEFA 1.84 Norway UEFA 1.70 Ukraine UEFA 1.62 Lithuania UEFA 1.50 Belarus UEFA 1.48 Israel UEFA 1.45 Romania UEFA 1.43 Finland UEFA 1.40 Bulgaria UEFA 1.35 Cyprus UEFA 1.33 Georgia UEFA 1.12 Moldova UEFA 1.09 Latvia UEFA 1.06 Azerbaijan UEFA 1.04 Luxembourg UEFA 0.95 Andorra UEFA 0.86 Malta UEFA 0.82 FYR Macedonia UEFA 0.71 Faroe Islands UEFA 0.68 San Marino UEFA 0.62 Armenia UEFA 0.52 Kosovo UEFA 0.50 Liechtenstein UEFA 0.45 Gibralter UEFA 0.41 Kazakhstan UEFA 0.35 Montenegro UEFA 0.23 Here's the same thing but with the knockout bonus for the two World Cups and the Confederations Cup removed. Code: AFC 21.56 CAF 40.82 CONCACAF 92.01 CONMEBOL 216.89 OFC 0.70 UEFA 302.29 Japan AFC 15.09 Korea Republic AFC 1.87 Australia AFC 1.72 Saudi Arabia AFC 1.00 IR Iran AFC 0.42 Oman AFC 0.20 China PR AFC 0.19 Kuwait AFC 0.14 Uzbekistan AFC 0.11 Bahrain AFC 0.11 Qatar AFC 0.10 Singapore AFC 0.06 United Arab Emirates AFC 0.06 Syria AFC 0.05 Hong Kong AFC 0.05 Iraq AFC 0.05 Thailand AFC 0.04 Yemen AFC 0.03 Palestine AFC 0.03 Jordan AFC 0.03 Korea DPR AFC 0.02 Turkmenistan AFC 0.02 Maldives AFC 0.02 Afghanistan AFC 0.02 Lebanon AFC 0.02 India AFC 0.01 Bhutan AFC 0.01 Myanmar AFC 0.01 Philippines AFC 0.01 Malaysia AFC 0.01 Chinese Taipei AFC 0.01 Cambodia AFC 0.01 Guam AFC 0.01 Tajikistan AFC 0.01 Laos AFC 0.01 Kyrgyz Republic AFC 0.01 Timor-Leste AFC 0.00 Vietnam AFC 0.00 Indonesia AFC 0.00 Bangladesh AFC 0.00 Macau AFC 0.00 Nepal AFC 0.00 Pakistan AFC 0.00 Mongolia AFC 0.00 Brunei Darussalam AFC 0.00 Sri Lanka AFC 0.00 Algeria CAF 10.72 Nigeria CAF 10.72 Senegal CAF 1.89 Cameroon CAF 1.75 Egypt CAF 1.50 Tunisia CAF 1.44 South Africa CAF 1.24 Zambia CAF 1.13 Tanzania CAF 0.95 Ethiopia CAF 0.89 Côte d'Ivoire CAF 0.64 Mali CAF 0.60 Congo CAF 0.56 Sudan CAF 0.56 Ghana CAF 0.53 Malawi CAF 0.46 Swaziland CAF 0.41 Zimbabwe CAF 0.40 Morocco CAF 0.38 Lesotho CAF 0.37 Guinea CAF 0.34 Togo CAF 0.32 Burkina Faso CAF 0.31 Chad CAF 0.26 Congo DR CAF 0.26 Seychelles CAF 0.25 Uganda CAF 0.24 Niger CAF 0.20 Cape Verde Islands CAF 0.18 Mauritania CAF 0.15 Gabon CAF 0.14 Central African Republic CAF 0.10 Equatorial Guinea CAF 0.08 Botswana CAF 0.08 Libya CAF 0.06 Madagascar CAF 0.06 Sierra Leone CAF 0.06 Guinea-Bissau CAF 0.06 Namibia CAF 0.06 Kenya CAF 0.05 Gambia CAF 0.05 Angola CAF 0.05 Mozambique CAF 0.05 Comoros CAF 0.04 Rwanda CAF 0.04 Burundi CAF 0.04 Benin CAF 0.04 Liberia CAF 0.03 South Sudan CAF 0.03 São Tomé e Príncipe CAF 0.03 Mauritius CAF 0.01 Somalia CAF 0.01 Djibouti CAF 0.01 Eritrea CAF 0.00 Mexico CONCACAF 54.23 USA CONCACAF 11.99 Costa Rica CONCACAF 5.38 Panama CONCACAF 4.48 Jamaica CONCACAF 3.90 Honduras CONCACAF 3.05 Trinidad and Tobago CONCACAF 2.33 Haiti CONCACAF 1.84 El Salvador CONCACAF 1.49 Guatemala CONCACAF 0.90 Canada CONCACAF 0.63 Curaçao CONCACAF 0.57 Cuba CONCACAF 0.55 Nicaragua CONCACAF 0.26 St Vincent and the Grenadines CONCACAF 0.18 Antigua and Barbuda CONCACAF 0.05 Grenada CONCACAF 0.04 St Kitts and Nevis CONCACAF 0.03 Puerto Rico CONCACAF 0.03 Belize CONCACAF 0.02 Suriname CONCACAF 0.02 Guyana CONCACAF 0.02 Dominican Republic CONCACAF 0.01 Barbados CONCACAF 0.00 Bermuda CONCACAF 0.00 St Lucia CONCACAF 0.00 Dominica CONCACAF 0.00 Anguilla CONCACAF 0.00 Aruba CONCACAF 0.00 Bahamas CONCACAF 0.00 British Virgin Islands CONCACAF 0.00 Cayman Islands CONCACAF 0.00 Montserrat CONCACAF 0.00 Turks and Caicos Islands CONCACAF 0.00 US Virgin Islands CONCACAF 0.00 Brazil CONMEBOL 62.01 Argentina CONMEBOL 42.15 Uruguay CONMEBOL 39.19 Chile CONMEBOL 22.31 Colombia CONMEBOL 17.81 Paraguay CONMEBOL 7.71 Peru CONMEBOL 7.12 Ecuador CONMEBOL 6.79 Venezuela CONMEBOL 6.63 Bolivia CONMEBOL 5.18 New Zealand OFC 0.66 Solomon Islands OFC 0.02 New Caledonia OFC 0.01 Fiji OFC 0.01 Vanuatu OFC 0.00 Papua New Guinea OFC 0.00 Tahiti OFC 0.00 Tonga OFC 0.00 American Samoa OFC 0.00 Cook Islands OFC 0.00 Samoa OFC 0.00 England UEFA 60.60 Belgium UEFA 46.15 Switzerland UEFA 43.53 Portugal UEFA 32.56 Sweden UEFA 27.73 Croatia UEFA 26.02 France UEFA 13.96 Spain UEFA 10.64 Germany UEFA 3.31 Serbia UEFA 2.74 Netherlands UEFA 2.37 Poland UEFA 2.15 Russia UEFA 2.07 Bosnia and Herzegovina UEFA 2.03 Iceland UEFA 2.00 Denmark UEFA 1.94 Wales UEFA 1.93 Italy UEFA 1.48 Romania UEFA 1.28 Albania UEFA 1.26 Republic of Ireland UEFA 1.12 Estonia UEFA 1.03 Slovenia UEFA 0.98 Greece UEFA 0.97 Austria UEFA 0.91 Israel UEFA 0.87 Cyprus UEFA 0.85 Hungary UEFA 0.85 Belarus UEFA 0.74 Northern Ireland UEFA 0.69 Bulgaria UEFA 0.67 Lithuania UEFA 0.61 Scotland UEFA 0.57 Czech Republic UEFA 0.54 Latvia UEFA 0.49 Luxembourg UEFA 0.49 Armenia UEFA 0.47 Andorra UEFA 0.44 Slovakia UEFA 0.33 Faroe Islands UEFA 0.31 Turkey UEFA 0.29 Norway UEFA 0.26 San Marino UEFA 0.24 Moldova UEFA 0.22 Gibralter UEFA 0.21 Finland UEFA 0.20 Georgia UEFA 0.18 Liechtenstein UEFA 0.17 FYR Macedonia UEFA 0.16 Montenegro UEFA 0.16 Kazakhstan UEFA 0.15 Ukraine UEFA 0.13 Malta UEFA 0.11 Azerbaijan UEFA 0.06 Kosovo UEFA 0.03
Thats your opinion that Iceland should be ranked ahead of Morocco. Morocco has a higher points per game average, because if you look at their results, they are better. Look at Iceland's last 10 matches. They have ONE win against Kosovo, which is a minnow. 6 losses and 3 draws. 2 of those draws were against sides that were ranked much lower than Iceland in Qatar and Ghana. That is a crap set of results any way you try and spin it. Now if you look at Morocco's last 10 matches we have 6 wins, 2 losses, and 2 draws. Despite Morocco's far superior recent record (you know 6 wins opposed to 1 against a minnow) the two teams are virtually equal with Morocco at #24 and Iceland at #27, and this is precicely because of Iceland's very good record prior to their piss poor patch of recent results. I dont weigh results from last year alone more than the previous year, its just that Iceland's last 10 games are horrific and it brings down their average from their previous results. How can you honestly compare 6 wins to 1 and not think that Iceland would not significantly drop in the rankings as opposed to Morocco. You are not being logical one bit. My rankings dont lie, if you play like crap it will be reflected. Iceland frankly is still ranked quite highly for such a poor recent record, their past results are holding them up that high. Now regarding Chile, again I've explained to you their recent record isn't very good. You can personally think teams should rank higher or lower, and so can I, but the formula doesn't care what you or I think, its based on results. Personally I think Nigeria is better than what my rankings put them at. I see a few teams above us that I think we would beat in a World Cup, but results from the formula say otherwise. What you or I think is subjective, the results are objective according to the formula. Like I said I devised a formula that to me made much more sense than FIFA's. I weight WC matches by x3 Confederational tournaments and Confederations cup by x2 and qualifiers and friendlies by x1. Now I know some will not agree with the friendlies and qualifiers being the same weighting, but this was done to get a more accurate reflection of inter confederational strength, since the only times teams play other confederations is either once every 4 years at the WC or during friendlies. Until a World Nations league is established I feel that this must be done otherwise we are not going to see accurate rankings cross confederation. No but when Iceland has one win in 10 matches, and in Nigerias last 10 we have not only beaten them, but beaten Poland, Argentina, Algeria, Cameroon, I think its pretty safe to say that Nigeria should be ranked above Iceland. As explained above, you dont get bonus or minus points for qualifying or not qualifying for tournaments. You are ranked on average points attained per match. In failing to qualify for the 2017 ANC we only lost 1 match, and that was to Egypt. So its not like we would have lost a ton of points for not qualifying. As explained above WorldCup x3 Confederation tournaments x2 qualifying matches & friendlies x1
**record scratch** Is this rivalry talk, trolling (honestly asking - not looking to warn anyone, we have all been commendably civil here), or your actual opinion? 1. Does the OFC not exist? 2. On what grounds is Concacaf easier than the AFC? You'll notice that other than Brazil this time, typically the first team to qualify for the World Cup always comes from Asia, and the quality of opposition there is abysmal outside of the top 4-5 (see: the likes of Bahrain and Qatar that regularly lose to Caribbean teams). Since we're on the topic, my list of hardest-to-easiest qualifying paths: 1. CAF 2. CONMEBOL 3. UEFA 4. CONCACAF 5. AFC 6. OFC * * Not taking into account the intercontinental playoff I presume that you decided on this formula, correct? IMO that's the problem right there, your subjective call to literally overrate friendlies. You weigh them at 1:2 to competitive continental matches (and even worse, as equal to continental qualifiers ) whereas FIFA's old ranking had it at 1:2.5, and friendlies are even more devalued now, as they should be.
Ok that was definatley hyperbolic, but my point stands. It is very easy to qualify from concacaf if you are one of the top teams. Its pretty much almost a given. The fact that the US screwed up so royally and people still think they should be ranked so highly just displays the delusion of some fans here.
First, thanks again @code1390 Why isn't the increase (254,768 - 256,842) = the sum of all the confeds (on the first table)? There's a difference of 272.73 points. Am I right that the tables show how those (extra) points from inflation trickle down (or another way of distributing those points)? Quite a few teams haven't been involved in KO games and I'm just guessing that's why those teams have points behind their names. Let's take Mexico for example. They played in 2 WC, 2 Copa Americas, 2 Gold Cups, and a Confederations Cup. The games they lost, in which no points were deducted because of FIFA's KO rule, would add points to the winner's total, which the winner would have earned anyway (even without FIFA's KO rule). IMHO it's Mexico that causes inflation. The extra points enter the system because they weren't deducted from Mexico's total. In case we know how many points weren't deducted from Mexico's total and likewise for other teams we get an idea where the points inflation originates. I didn't expect UEFA teams to generate many points from FIFA's KO rule or the "half a win" for the winning team in PSOs. Those 302.29 points (from your second table) that's solely from EURO 2016?
It's a combination of penalty shootouts (because they also add points since the winner gets 0.75 wins and the loser gets 0.5) and the "trickle down effect" since teams have slightly different point values over time. Euro 2016 directly accounts for 216 added points. The 2nd table should be taken with a grain of salt I now realize because by just ignoring the knockout rounds of the global tournaments, I impacted the numbers for all of the rest of the matches. When I get a chance I'll try to get a more accurate number.
Thanks. For example, England 60.6 seemed a bit high (from your 2nd table). England's defeat in the R16 (I = 35) wouldn't allow for more than 35 (extra) points to enter the system. I calculated the points Iceland would have won, using the points totals from the August ranking, which is 22.22. Based on the points totals, back when the game took place, you wouldn't expect it to be 60.6. My best guess is that England avoided losing +/- 22 points thanks to FIFA's KO rule. AFAIK it's the only game involving England that caused inflation (cfr. your 2nd table, which excludes World Cup results). At the 2018 World Cup they were involved in more of those sort of games and maybe those were added to end up with 60.6 instead of +/- 22 (extra) points?
Here are the knockout round results from Euro 2016. Croatia (CRO) (0) 0 : 1 (16.37) Portugal (POR) Switzerland (SUI) (0) 1 : 1 (12.29) Poland (POL) Wales (WAL) (13.07) 1 : 0 (0) Northern Ireland (NIR) France (FRA) (10.63) 2 : 1 (0) Republic of Ireland (IRL) Germany (GER) (10.18) 3 : 0 (0) Slovakia (SVK) Hungary (HUN) (0) 0 : 4 (12.16) Belgium (BEL) England (ENG) (0) 1 : 2 (22.75) Iceland (ISL) Italy (ITA) (18.55) 2 : 0 (0) Spain (ESP) Poland (POL) (5.52) 1 : 1 (4.48) Portugal (POR) Wales (WAL) (25.58) 3 : 1 (0) Belgium (BEL) Germany (GER) (5.44) 1 : 1 (4.56) Italy (ITA) France (FRA) (13.64) 5 : 2 (0) Iceland (ISL) Portugal (POR) (16.13) 2 : 0 (0) Wales (WAL) France (FRA) (22.73) 2 : 0 (0) Germany (GER) France (FRA) (0) 0 : 1 (21.61) Portugal (POR)
OK, can you help me understand which other results were added to this 22.75 so we get the 60.6 (from your 2nd table)?
Like I said above I acknowledge that flaw in my ranking system. However I believe Fifas and Elos inability to accurately rank cross confederational strength is A MUCH BIGGER FLAW. If decent attention is not paid to friendly matches, which is the only time confederations play each other besides the World cup. We aren't going to get an accurate reflection of strength between confederations and you will have nonsense like Romania being ranked 20 plus spots ahead of Nigeria despite having a piss poor record. Funnily enough the tram that usually benefits the most from the weight I give friendly matches is the USA. USA regularly plays high profile friendlies against top ranked opponents. Far more than any side from the weaker confederations. As such they have the opportunity to win large amounts of points, and they usually do all right. Without this US would probably be ranked in the low 40's. the only opportunity teams from weaker confederations get to test their strength outside of their confederation is during friendlies. You yourself went on about "international" accomplishments and proving yourself outside of your confederation. How exactly are teams supposed to do that other than 3 matches every 4 years. Just not enough data to rank teams accurately otherwise. I value a more accurate cross confederational ranking. FIFA and Elo are way off in this regard.
@Blondo It took a bit of coding but hopefully these are the numbers you're looking for. The first table above was simply the (Ranking Points With KO Rule - Ranking Points Without KO Rule). That means whenever a result was changed, it impacted all future results slightly and wasn't showing the true value of the "points saved" from knockout games. For example, Mexico has "saved" 129.11 total points. Here are the matches where they lost in the knockout stage of a tournament. Netherlands (NED) (23.01) 2 : 1 (-23.01) Mexico (MEX) Mexico (MEX) (-19.09) 0 : 7 (19.09) Chile (CHI) Germany (GER) (16.36) 4 : 1 (-16.36) Mexico (MEX) Portugal (POR) (19.14) 2 : 1 (-19.14) Mexico (MEX) Mexico (MEX) (-31.16) 0 : 1 (31.16) Jamaica (JAM) Brazil (BRA) (20.35) 1 : 0 (-20.35) Mexico (MEX) In the following table, the first number is the total number of "points saved" in all competitions. The second number only shows confederation tournaments. Code: Iraq AFC 29.30 29.30 Korea Republic AFC 22.91 22.91 United Arab Emirates AFC 20.45 20.45 Myanmar AFC 19.99 19.99 Uzbekistan AFC 19.28 19.28 Vietnam AFC 18.48 18.48 China PR AFC 18.15 18.15 Japan AFC 16.74 3.78 Thailand AFC 14.78 14.78 Brunei Darussalam AFC 11.00 11.00 Macau AFC 10.37 10.37 Indonesia AFC 10.22 10.22 IR Iran AFC 7.74 7.74 Nepal AFC 1.52 1.52 Tunisia CAF 52.81 52.81 Ghana CAF 44.58 44.58 Algeria CAF 40.97 21.75 Congo DR CAF 32.08 32.08 Egypt CAF 23.71 23.71 Congo CAF 20.41 20.41 Nigeria CAF 18.51 0.00 Guinea CAF 18.02 18.02 Morocco CAF 16.07 16.07 Equatorial Guinea CAF 12.19 12.19 Senegal CAF 2.18 2.18 Mexico CONCACAF 129.11 50.72 USA CONCACAF 83.72 62.07 Costa Rica CONCACAF 39.61 39.61 Panama CONCACAF 34.99 34.99 Haiti CONCACAF 21.14 21.14 Jamaica CONCACAF 20.93 20.93 Canada CONCACAF 18.37 18.37 Honduras CONCACAF 10.69 10.69 El Salvador CONCACAF 9.88 9.88 Cuba CONCACAF 8.11 8.11 Brazil CONMEBOL 101.57 9.49 Uruguay CONMEBOL 69.89 20.44 Argentina CONMEBOL 63.92 10.21 Colombia CONMEBOL 53.28 21.95 Paraguay CONMEBOL 28.81 28.81 Ecuador CONMEBOL 19.32 19.32 Bolivia CONMEBOL 17.04 17.04 Peru CONMEBOL 14.80 14.80 Chile CONMEBOL 14.16 0.00 Venezuela CONMEBOL 9.00 9.00 Solomon Islands OFC 21.04 21.04 New Caledonia OFC 13.94 13.94 New Zealand OFC 11.48 11.48 Belgium UEFA 87.23 26.33 England UEFA 80.09 22.77 Switzerland UEFA 56.87 4.10 France UEFA 48.72 21.85 Croatia UEFA 41.01 16.35 Spain UEFA 28.06 18.51 Portugal UEFA 28.05 0.00 Sweden UEFA 23.90 0.00 Germany UEFA 22.44 22.44 Wales UEFA 15.32 15.32 Northern Ireland UEFA 13.04 13.04 Iceland UEFA 12.50 12.50 Hungary UEFA 11.51 11.51 Slovakia UEFA 10.18 10.18 Republic of Ireland UEFA 10.05 10.05 Same thing by confederation. First number is total points saved. Second number is only for confederation tournaments. AFC 220.95 207.99 CAF 281.52 243.79 CONCACAF 376.56 277.20 CONMEBOL 391.80 151.07 OFC 46.46 46.46 UEFA 488.97 204.94 Total 1,806.26 1,131.45 In total 2074 points were gained in the system. The difference between the 1806 and 2074 can be accounted for via penalty shootouts and the different ranking values slightly changing the value of a match result over time.
If it comes to fruition, the FIFA Global Nations League would go a long, long way towards resolving that.
Not so bad, neither : 2 Copa America wins :2015, where we defeated Peru, Uruguay and Argentina; and 2016, where we scorched Mexico and also defeated Colombia and once again, Argentina; a Confederation cup final in 2017 (that was last year, btw), where we imposed ourselves over every body else, including Uefa's champ at the time; only lost to Germany at the final, against whom, we also got a draw, in the same competition at group stage; a China cup win (also last year, in 2017), where we in fact, defeated both Iceland and Croatia. Apart from those results, at some pre-WC friendlies, we also defeated Sweden and Serbia, and got draws against Poland and Denmark (all played away). Only real bad results, are those defeats that came during the WC qualifier campaign vs. Paraguay, Bolivia (away) and Brazil (also away); and to certain extent that loss against Romania, where we played with basicly a whole team of new faces (we only used one, of our starters there). Oh, and btw, Chile has lost only 1 (one) match to Peru in the last 13 matches we've played between each other, with all the rest, being wins, including the last 2 (both home and away), at these qualifiers from 2018. At last, also important to mention, that Brazil's only defeat at the 2018 WC qualifier campaign, came preciselly against Chile. . . Anyhow, strangely, you still rate Peru over Chile (only restricted to Conmebol), despite the fact they finished the WC qualifier campaign tied on points with us, and really has not won anything important in the last 5 years.
Last time Chile lost to a CAF side, happened almost 30 years back in time, during the 80's (vs Egypt in 1989). Since then, we don't have so many matches against them, but, Chile has had only wins and draws vs. CAF sides. 2017 : 2-0 (win) vs Cameroon at the Russia 2017 Confed cup; 3-0 (win) vs Burkina Faso at a friendly (home). 2014 : 3-2 (win) vs. Egypt at a friendly (home) 2013 : 2-1 (win) vs. Egypt at a friendly (in Spain) 2012 : 1-1 (draw) vs. Ghana at a friendly (in USA) 2010 : 3-0 (win) vs. Zambia at a friendly (home) 2009 : 2-0 (win) vs. South Africa at a friendly (away) 2006 : 1-1 (draw) vs. Ivory Coast at a friendly (in France) 1998 : 1-1 (draw) vs. Cameroon at the 1998 WC in France; 1-1 (draw) vs. Morocco at a friendly (in France) 3-2 (win) vs. Tunisia at a friendly (in France) . . 1989 : 0-2 (lost) vs. Egypt at a friendly (away) And before this friendly match, the only other CAF team to have ever defeated Chile, was Argelia during the 1982 WC in Spain. CAF sides against Chile, most of the times can sure get very good results at under aged level type of confrontations, but once it gets to the big boys, Chile's dominance over them, has been overwhelming (and specially these last 5 years). All other Confeds, have had better results against Chile, along the way.