Yes, there will be EAFF East Asian Cup underway in two days. It's a shame they weren't planned in a FIFA official window, so Japan is going to miss Kumagai, Yokohama and GK Yamane. Especially the first two will sting. It has to be said, though, that South Korea (first opponent for Japan on December 8th) will miss Ji So-Yun.
Japan, China and both Koreas play themselves 8th-15th in EAFF tournament (it's no official FIFA dates so I guess is considered friendly for ranking purpose)
Yeah.... that's entirely tangential. There is no subjectivity in either ranking system, and they're totally different constructions. What the current UEFA rankings are has piss-all effect on what the FIFA rankings will be. One will not alter the other in any way, shape, or form.
yeah, the Matlidas move to their highest ranking yet, but they should really be at #1!. Shij, told you so just how bad this new French coach is, bring back Enchoufri!
It definitely hurt their rating, but they managed to recover... by translating most of their drop off to France. For a team that had two straight Top 4 finishes at major tournaments several years ago and arguably the best two club teams in Europe, they're gonna have to answer to someone for slowly slipping away from 3rd. Had France NOT lost that game, we would've seen a MUCH bigger shake-up in the ranking! Also it seems that the EAFF success for North Korea was not enough to make up for their previous loss of points - their rating dropped one point overall - especially when Sweden managed to gain an impressive 21 points. North Korea should be glad they didn't drop farther. USA has, for the moment, halted its slow slide in rating points, with last release's 2104 being their lowest ever, but they're "back up" ten points to 2114 this time. This is the second release in a row where you can go all the way down to #6 in the ranking and still be within 100pts of the leaders.
Oooooooohhh wait a minute now.... Browsed around, and noticed that neither of the EAFF final-day matches are actually included in this current ranking. I guess there's a 24-hr rule for consideration or something? Or FIFA just released these rankings before the results of those last two matches were known? I didn't review the timestamps of everything. Anyway, that potentially actually has a big effect on the effect today's matches would have, depending on how FIFA defines its Top Ten. Since Japan's 0-2 loss to North Korea is now no longer a friendly between Top Ten teams, the "match importance" multiplier reduces back down to 1 instead of 2. That means, potentially, Japan won't take nearly as big of a ratings hit as it would have if the timing were just slightly different. I say "potentially" because I'm not sure what FIFA's policy is concerning a team that moves into or out of the Top Ten over a rating period... The question is: does North Korea retain its "Top Ten" status for calculations over the entire rating period, (i.e. it's static until a new ranking list is actually released,) or is that moniker applied dynamically in between ranking releases? A 1967 (eff. 2067) Japan losing 0-2 to a 1948 North Korea would give Japan an "actual result" of 0.08 instead of the "expected result" of 0.66. If FIFA keeps the "Top Ten" label static between releases, then the timing of this match just past the release would save Japan 15(0.58) ~ 8pts (losing only 9 instead of 17). If the Top Ten label is applied dynamically, though, North Korea was already outside the Top Ten at the time of the match and the slight offset in match/release timing would have no difference in the long run. Still, whether it's a 9pt swing or a 17pt swing, it would have been enough for North Korea to scrap back into the Top Ten. Too bad the match was just past the release deadline! Dynamically speaking, North Korea is already back into the Top Ten ahead of Sweden thanks to the match, but now they have to hold steady or do better than Sweden over the next 3m if they want the next ranking to show that. However, IF the match had been just before the release instead of after and IF the Top Ten label is applied statically instead of dynamically, then the 17pt-swing would have sent Japan below both Sweden and North Korea, bumping THEM out of the Top Ten instead. Two big IFs, obviously, but fear what could have been!
It's always discouraging to see teams drop out of the rankings. It would be nice if each federation had bi-annual regional tournaments like the AFC has.
It is, but to be fair, you could still see teams drop out for 2 out of every 8 rankings even if you had biennial tournaments, and AFC itself no longer has biennial events - its sub-regions organize their own things, but the AFC Women's Cup is now quadrennial instead of biennial.
because they are being played this afternoon local time perhaps ? I have no idea what the results are on the FIFA website, which makes it seem that the tournament has finished. . . . . hopefully FIFA didnt use the results on its own website for the rankings, as some of them are false anyway !!!!
Nope, not "being played this afternoon", they've been long done already. I did check timestamps now, though, and Japan-NKorea was already at halftime when the updated rankings were first shared in this thread. So that answers the question of whether it was possible for them to be included or not. lol, well whose results would you suggest they use, then? And I've never seen an error in the results listed, though I admit that I only check on results to verify specific things as opposed to combing through every one. I can't say I understand what you're trying to say in the first sentence of that paragraph, though.
here's the full ranking's http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/ranking-table/women/index.html you got to admit, there some weird/odities going on; why on earth would Argentina move up 83 notches? Look at their dismal record http://us.women.soccerway.com/teams/argentina/argentina/5968/ now their higher ranked than Chile(who beat them 5-0 last outing) and what are decent Portugal & Nigerian teams. Got to wonder if there some 'collusion' going on? Why couldn't FIFA just wait a few hours to see what the final EEAF scores would be? They got now South Korea leaping 3 notches even though they lost to China(who fell a couple) 1-3, & as well as loosing 5 games in this 3 month cycle severely underrated teams; Wales currently leads it's WC qualifying group(though they have yet to play England) but ranked only 35 .The Czech Republic is at 34, even though in recent WC qualifiers they tied Iceland & lost 1-0 by own goal to Germany Almost everybody agrees that #22 Belgium is the favorite in their group even though #17 Italy has the higher ranking and personally I would make Denmark a top 10, surely their not going to count the forfeit game?
Just look at Argentina's history http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/associations/association=arg/women/index.html The fact is the ranking that it is a simple mathematical formula, there is no collusion. You can understand the equation surely ?
...you REALLY don't understand one iota of how these rankings work, do you? If you actually read the press release, you'll see that Argentina has returned to the rankings after being inactive. That means they've gotten placed back into the ranking (instead of being slotted at the end for being inactive) based on their rating value, which does not depreciate simply due to inactivity, so what you're seeing is the residual from the last time they were active. Also, ONE GAME, which was a friendly and played away, means very little to the rankings overall. The EAFF (get it right!) tournament is a sub-regional tournament that is outside of FIFA official windows. If anything, blame EAFF for not scheduling their tournament better. Also, I have no clue what you're talking about with SKorea "leaping 3 notches". They've gone up one, from 15th into a tie for 14th - and they *lost* points along the way because they lost 4 games in this past 3-month cycle (the China loss is NOT counted). And they only went up that one notch because China went 1-5-1, with their only win being to Mexico and their five losses much worse than SKorea's four losses were. Now, you are on to the right thing when you do take account the final match of EAFF: China will make up for the 6pts behind SKorea that was published in the current release. However, it's the first match of the next cycle, so while a truly dynamic ranking (like the Elo site for men's teams) would show China ahead, there's a lot that can happen before the next FIFA ranking is released. Wales is leading its group because they've beaten tomato cans thus far. They only managed a draw against Russia (#25), and their three victories are against B&H (#63) and Kaz(#66). Not a very illustrious record, there. You highlight two games for Czech Rep. The FIFA ranking is a robust system that is designed to reward performance over time, and not be so volatile that short-term rises or dips in form cause chaos in the ranking. People talking about "favorites" is subjective, while the FIFA ranking is completely objective. "Form" and "style" are important in the former and not in the latter. Besides, 17 and 22 are only five ranks apart, and the further down the rankings you get, a difference of 5 becomes less and less distinctive. And of course they're going to count the forfeit game. It's an official result, why would they not?
I realize that I didn't finish my rantswer about Czech Rep. As I mentioned with Argentina, one (or two) games is going to have relatively little effect on the rankings. I had also said when discussion Belgium/Italy, the further down the rankings you are, the less a give "ranking gap" means. So while I say that Czech's good two games mean relatively little in the grand scheme of things, they still earned an impressive 32pts over their previous rating, which was good for a rise of three ranks. If - and it's a big IF - they can rack up four to six similar performances over the next six or so months, then they'll likely break into the top thirty. But that's a sustained performance over time that will get them there, not two games in a given three-month period. (Also, their loss to Germany still meant they lost points - the big reason they've gone up is the 4-0 away win over Slovenia.) If they want to actually break into the top twenty, they need to beat some top-twenty teams.
Anyway the Ranking in Conmebol and AFC is not determinant to seed the teams in the qualifiers to WC. They seed the teams according to their positions of last qualifiers : best example North Korea was in pot 5 of the first round because they were banned in 2014. Japan , Australia and China entered direct to the final round. If the fifa ranking had been used , it would have prevented teams like Phillippines, Thailand or Jordan to reach the WC and North Korea would be among the best teams participating in the WC. It is just unfortunate and unfair. Conmebol never uses FIFA ranking to seed the teams, and nor do they exactly use the positions of the last qualifying tournament. Check the positions of Copa América femenina 2010 : 1.Brazil 2. Colombia 3. Chile 4. Argentina 5. Ecuador 6. Paraguay 7. Bolivia 8. Venezuela 9. Peru 10. Uruguay. For the next Copa America femenina 2014 Top seed teams were Ecuador ( host ) and Brazil , but then they set the following pairs : Col- Chi / Ven- Arg / Uru -Par / Per / Bol. No idea what criterion our confederation used.
These FIFA rankings are outdated. Are they computing their rankings still on Lotus 1-2-3 ??? Get with the times FIFA.
Alright, I'm interested in looking at things ahead of the official rankings release... For the purpose of all calculations to follow, I'm going to assume that a "top ten" signifier applies to the previously published ranking, even if some teams slip above or below the 10/11 divide during the calculation process. Teams with ratings inflated by HFA will be noted with a ** followed by the effective ranting. Movement from a match (or movement due to matches elsewhere) will be indicated with <<, --, or >>. Because of the way the rankings work in a very serial fashion, I'm gonna look at ALL SBC+Algarve+Cyprus teams as a group the best I can to see who played who at which times. In addition to the final matchday of the EAFF tournament, I'm gonna rely on the friendlies thread to see what other matches happened between December and February, so I hope it's relatively complete, at least for teams in the top 20. I'll try to calculate matches for any teams those teams faced, too... oi X-D Will try to run calcs on all those earlier matches first, then do all the SBC+Algarve+Cyprus matches in a separate post. 17/12/15 KOR (1868) 1-3 (1861) CHN, K=15 :: exp. 0.510/0.490 :: act. 0.089/0.911 :: pts -6 (1862) >>/+6 (1867) << JPN (1967**2067) 0-2 (1948) DPK, K=15 :: exp. 0.665/0.335 :: act. 0.080/0.960 :: pts -9 (1958) --/+9 (1957) << 18/01/18 POR (1600**1700) 1-0 (1682) IRL, K=15 :: exp. 0.526/0.474 :: act. 0.850/0.150 :: pts +5 (1605) --/-5 (1678) -- 18/01/19 CHN (1867**1967) 4-0 (1652) VIE, K=15 ::: exp. 0.860/0.140 :: act. 0.970/0.030 :: pts +2 (1869) --/-2 (1650) >> COL (1756) 1-1 (1668) THA, K=15 :: exp. 0.624/0.376 :: act. 0.500/0.500 :: pts -2 (1754) --/+2 (1670) << NOR (1868) 3-0 (1785) SCO , K=15 :: exp. 0.617/0.383 :: act. 0.960/0.040 :: pts +5 (1873) <</-5 (1780) -- SVK (1492) 1-0 (1730) RUS, K=15 :: exp. 0.203/0.797 :: act. 0.850/0.150 ::: pts +10 (1502) <</-10 (1720) >> 18/01/20 ESP (1869>>**1969) 2-0 (1972) NED, K=15 :: exp. 0.496/0.504 :: act. 0.920/0.080 :: pts +7 (1876) <</-7 (1965) >> FRA (2019**2119) 1-1 (1860) ITA, K=15 :: exp. 0.816/0.184 :: act. 0.500/0.500 :: pts -5 (2014) --/+5 (1865) << 18/01/21 CHN (1869<<**1969) 2-1 (1670) THA, K=15 :: exp. 0.848/0.152 :: act. 0.840/0.160 :: pts -0 (1869) --/+0 (1670) -- VIE (1650) 0-2 (1754) COL, K=15 :: exp. 0.355/0.645 :: act. 0.080/0.960 :: pts -4 (1646) >>/+4 (1758) -- POR (1605**1705) 1-3 (1678) IRL, K=15 :: exp. 0.539/0.461 :: act. 0.089/0.911 :: pts -7 (1598) --/+7 (1685) -- USA (2114**2214) 5-1 (1899) DEN, K=15 :: exp. 0.860/0.140 :: act. 0.963/0.037 :: pts +2 (2116) --/-2 (1897) -- 18/01/23 CHN (1869**1969) 2-0 (1758) COL, K=15 :: exp. 0.771/0.229 :: act. 0.920/0.080 :: pts +2 (1871) --/-2 (1756) -- THA (1670) 2-0 (1650) VIE, K=15 :: exp. 0.529/0.471 :: act. 0.920/0.080 :: pts +6 (1676) --/-6 (1654) -- NOR (1873) 2-1 (1818) ISL, K=15 :: exp. 0.578/0.422 :: act. 0.840/0.160 :: pts +4 (1877) --/-4 (1814) -- 18/03/03 & /06 (Technically during the spring tournaments, but w/e) NZL (1830) 0-2 (1785) SCO, K=15 :: exp. 0.564/0.436 :: act. 0.080/0.920 :: pts -7 (1823) --/+7 (1792) << NZL (1823) 0-2 (1792) SCO, K=15 :: exp. 0.544/0.456 :: act. 0.080/0.920 :: pts -7 (1816) --/+7 (1799) -- Okay, so that leaves the top 25 right before the spring tournaments as: 1. USA : 2116 (2114) 2. GER : 2052 3. ENG : 2033 4. AUS : 2030 5. CAN : 2023 6. FRA : 2014 (2019) 7. << BRA : 1968 8. >> NED : 1965 (1972) 9. JPN : 1958 (1967) 10. << DPK : 1957 (1948) 11. >> SWE : 1955 12. DEN : 1897 (1899) 13. << NOR : 1877 (1868) 14. >> ESP : 1876 (1869) 15. << CHN : 1871 (1861) 16. >> KOR : 1862 (1868) 17. ITA : 1865 (1860) 18. >> SUI : 1860 19. NZL : 1816 (1830) 20. ISL : 1814 (1818) 21. AUT : 1810 22. << SCO : 1799 (1785) 23. >> BEL : 1788 24. COL : 1756 (1756) 25. << MEX : 1724 26. >> RUS : 1720 (1730) I'll do the spring tournaments later...
Since each spring tournament is self-contained, I can run the calcs for them all without worrying about temporal issues - that is, games played on the last day of one tournament won't be affected by earlier games played elsewhere. Things that aren't self-contained force you to do things in temporal order - e.g. needing to run the calcs for USA 5-1 DEN or ESP 2-0 NED first. But also because of the temporal stuff, I'm not gonna do the << -- >> notation here. Anyway, since SBC is the smallest, I'll tackle SBC first. (I'll do Cyprus before I do Algarve, for one particular reason: CAN 1-3 SWE re: SWE's top ten status). Anyway, here we go: ENG (2033) 4-1 (2014) FRA, K=30 :: exp. 0.527/0.473 :: act. 0.952/0.048 :: pts +13 (2046) / -13 (2001) USA (2116**2216) 1-0 (2052) GER, K=30 :: exp. 0.720/0.280 :: act. 0.850/0.150 :: pts +4 (2120) / -4 (2048) USA (2120**2220) 1-1 (2001) FRA, K=30 :: exp. 0.779/0.221 :: act. 0.500/0.500 :: pts -8 (2112) / +8 (2009) GER (2048) 2-2 (2046) ENG, K=30 :: exp. 0.503/0.497 :: act. 0.510/0.510 :: +0 (2048) / +0 (2046) FRA (2009) 3-0 (2048) GER, K=30 :: exp 0.444/0.556 :: act. 0.960/0.040 :: pts +15 (2024) / -15 (2033) USA (2112**2212) 1-0 (2046) ENG, K=30 :: exp 0.722/0.273 :: act. 0.850/0.150 :: pts +4 (2116) / -4 (2042) Overall: USA +0pts, 2116 ENG +9pts, 2042 GER -19pts, 2033 FRA +10pts, 2024 So despite Germany's drop, their previous 4-0 shellacking of France keeps them above France for the moment. Only 18pts separate France from England, with Germany smack dab in between. Both teams that might have been able to pass the 2033 mark, Australia and Canada, had subpar tournaments of their own, so Germany and maybe even France might be safe. We'll see when i run the other calcs and compile the full list!
So, Siberian, if I read this correctly, from the perspective of the rating system, the SBC says that the US is exactly as strong as the rating system previously had said, but the second place team (now England) is slightly weaker than the pre-SBC #2.
All depends on your perspective... Yes, that is one interpretation where the tournament "proves" that the US is as strong as expected while the other teams are converging around what was the #3 strength. You could also interpret these changes as saying that the previous estimate of #2's strength was simply an overestimate - i.e. the teams' strengths are actually fairly consistent and are simply better quantified now than they were before. (Anyone who saw Germany start having problems a year ago would probably subscribe to this view.) It all depends on how you interpret the relationship between a team's "true strength" and its rating, partially due to the inertia of the ratings, plus where on the sliding scale of reactive-vs-descriptive-vs-predictive you think these ratings are.