FIFA World Ranking

And if humans insist on using their own thought processes to predict, on average they will be even weaker predictors.

 

Women's World Rankings match importance.

Continental qualifier = 2x
World Cup qualifier = 3x

But for most confederations, a continental qualifier IS a World Cup qualifier because the continental championship doubles as a World Cup qualifier.

ugh. pic.twitter.com/zhovk8n7uT

— Lachy France (@lachyheel) August 7, 2018

 

That Twitter user is overlooking the fact that, usually, only the continental finals competitions are considered WWC qualifiers - the continental qualifiers are technically qualifiers to the WWC qualifiers. They're in the same line of progression, yes, but aren't part of the qualifying competition itself.

 

Alright, just because I'm bored at work, let's look at what the ToN has done to the rankings (since I don't think any other nations in the Top 12 or so have had friendlies since the June 22 ranking came out):

K=30 for the entire tournament
Brazil (1985) 1-3 (1979) Australia :: exp. 0.509/0.491 :: act. 0.089/0.911 :: pts. -13/+13
USA (2214*) 4-2 (1988) Japan :: exp. 0.786/0.214 :: act. 0.902/0.098 :: pts. +3/-3
Japan (1985) 1-2 (1973) Brazil :: exp. 0.517/0.483 :: act. 0.160/0.840 :: pts. -11/+11
USA (2217*) 1-1 (1992) Australia :: exp. 0.785/0.215 :: act. 0.500/0.500 :: pts. -9/+9
Australia (2001) 2-0 (1974) Japan :: exp. 0.539/0.461 :: act. 0.920/0.080 :: pts. +11/-11
USA (2208*) 4-1 (1984) Brazil :: exp. 0.784/0.216 :: act. 0.952/0.048 :: pts. +5/-5

Final ratings: USA (2113), Australia (2012), Canada (2009), Brazil (1979), Netherlands (1977), Japan (1963)
Final rankings: USA (1=), Australia (5^^^), Canada (6v), Brazil (7=), Netherlands (8^), Japan (9vvv)

Interestingly, the rounding here hurts the USA most - all of their wins gave them x.4x... points, while the loss took x.5x... points, so their wins were rounded down while the loss was rounded up. X-D Also, surprisingly large gap opening up between #6 and #7...

 

FIFA bases their rankings on results.

If Team A dominates Team B in every category but the final score, and Team B wins, then FIFA rewards Team B in the rankings.

Here is the latest MIFA rankings:

1.) USA
2.) Australia
3.) France
4.) England
5.) Netherlands
6.) Canada
7.) Germany
8.) Japan
9.) Brazil
10.) Denmark
11.) Sweden
12.) Spain
13.) China
14.) Italy
15.) Norway
16.) South Korea
17.) Iceland
18.) Switzerland
19.) North Korea
20.) New Zealand
21.) Mexico

 

Yes, the FIFA rankings are based on the rules of soccer. What a shame.

 

Oh for god's sake. I created a thread specifically for this kind of crap, please use it.

https://www.bigsoccer.com/threads/your-power-rankings-all-competitions.2084451/

 

PS, top 20 for NZ? After that Japan defeat, I dunno

 

I wondered why I suddenly got a flush of notifications about this thread... Then I saw who posted. X-D

To be fair, NZ has been regularly hovering around that 18-to-21 range for the past few years.

 

I have a question for the usual FIFA-rankings-gurus from this thread : Japan NT just won Gold Medal at Asian Games, by beating #17-ranked China in the final by 1-0. In the process, they won all of the games of the competition, including 2-1 wins vs #10-ranked Korea DPR and #15-ranked Korea Republic.

Now, what I want to know is: do I get it right that, since this is not a FIFA-organized tournament, these games won't have any multiplier and everyone of them, including the final, will be basically treated as if it was a normal friendly match? Or Asian Games are in any way taken into account by FIFA rankings?

 

As the Asian games are not the official AFC championship, I believe those matches will simply count as friendlies for the purposes of the FIFA rankings.

=edit=
Now, you'll still get the benefit of top-ten friendlies counting for double, so the NK game will help. However, since the group that organizes the Asian games doesn't have a perfect overlap with AFC, that's all the more reason these would not count for anything more than friendlies. That is, even if AFC wanted to, I don't think they could say they have two separate championship tournaments with this being one of them.

 

I thought the same. It's a shame, though, because, in the end, it was a continental competitive environment that could have been aptly compared to a continental championship.

Anyway, I guess Japan should have gained some points from this tournament, although not sure if they can make up for those lost at Tournament of Nations...

 

I mentioned this in the edit to my above comment, but it can't be a continental championship since it doesn't have perfect overlap with AFC. Just think - you could've had the benefit of beating another top-ten side in Australia, but they can't participate! X-D (Guam is another sticking point country, and Kazakhstan is in the other direction.)

 

I wasn't aware of the Guam situation at all!!! But I guess it's relevant.

 

I guess that, more than a second continental championship, Asian Games should look like "minor/continental Olympics". Now, I don't remember: do games played at the Olympic women's soccer tournament use to get any kind of multiplier?

 

Well, for one, the Olympics aren't viewed as a second/minor competition anyway - they have the same multiplier as the WWC because they're a senior-level competition available to every country in every confederation.

Two, you still have the issue that the Asian Games don't have a proper overlap with any confederation. You get the same issue with the PanAm Games, the Central American & Carribbean Games, etc.

 

Olympic games have the same multiplier as WC games. Same with Olympic qualifiers.

 

Next rankings come out Friday!

As a reminder for what I think the ToN did to the rankings:

Between Japan winning the Asian games and Netherlands losing a WWCQ match to Norway, NED will definitely take a drop (whether it's to 9, 10, or 11 depends on the increases from DPK ad SWE) while JPN should climb to 8 or maybe even bump BRA for 7.

 

Yay, Aussie power! but should of been moved to #5. not that impressed with Canada, why did France fall below England?(guessing being inactive has it's price)

 

https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ran...ws=matildas-on-the-march-as-usa-stay-top.html

Leader
USA (unchanged)

Moves into the top ten
Sweden (9th, up 2)

Moves out of the top ten
Korea DPR (11th, down 1)

Matches played in total
161

Most matches played
Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda (both 9)

Biggest move by points
Uganda (up 44)

Biggest move by ranks
Jamaica (64th, up 7)

Biggest drop by points
Denmark (down 39)

Biggest drop by ranks
Haiti (67th, down 5)

Newly ranked teams (re-entries unless otherwise stated)
Panama, Fiji, Guam, El Salvador, Vanuatu, Solomon Islands, Nicaragua, FYR Macedonia, American Samoa, Rwanda

Teams no longer ranked due to prolonged inactivity
Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan

 

147 nations is the most in the FIFA rankings. I expect that number to go up with the December rankings as OFC continues their qualifiers and should see Papua New Guinea, Tonga, New Caledonia, Tahiti, Cook Islands & Samoa reentering. Also, Mongolia, Macau, Bangladesh & Lebanon should also be in the Dec. rankings with AFC Olympic qualifiers in November.

 

Not in the sense you're thinking of. Being inactive doesn't affect a team's rating at all, and being inactive only directly affects ranking if a team hasn't played a match in 18+ months. Also, France wasn't inactive. They earned a point from a 4-0 drubbing of Mexico. However, England earned 8pts from their two WWCQ wins. (Which, to be fair, is a lot fewer points than I might expect from two multi-goal away wins, but their rating was already so much higher than Wales' or KZH's that it must be nearly impossible for them to earn points anyway.)

I didn't factor CAN's win over BRA into my previous predicitions, so that's why CAN is still at #5 and AUS only rose to #6. But that's also why BRA fell below JPN.

Interesting to see ESP within striking distance of DPK! I kinda want to see them drawn into the same WWC group now. X-D

It's been kinda funny watching ranks 7-11 in the past year or two... With the rise of NED, we now essentially have 11 "top ten" teams, and JPN/SWE/NED/DPK have all been shuffling around to avoid who's the unlucky #11. Meanwhile, Spain has just patiently been establishing itself as the solid #12 team. X-D

 

You'll have to wait a few years for that to happen, since Korea DPR didn't qualify.

 

lol I totally forgot about that X-D

 

If I quote this post from the World Cup forum, it's because I'd like to know what are the chances that Japan manages to catch up with some of the top 6 team in time for beeing seeded in the WWC draw.
There are no big tournaments in the next months, but Nadeshiko Japan have a friendly match vs Norway scheduled at home for 11th of November: not sure if they plan to play any other matches in this window. I hope the Norway match can be a win, although Takakura mentioned that she want to experiment "many" players from the U-20 World Cup winning team and I am not sure how they will measure up with Norwegian seniors. Anyway, even with a win, I am not sure how many points Japan FIFA could possiblly get from an home match vs a team that's 6 position behind them.

On the other hand, we have Australia. They just lost by 2-0 to France two days ago, but they shouldn't have lost much from that clash, since France were two positions ahead of them and I guess a win at home by them was more or less expected. They will play England in London in a pair of days and Chile at home (twice) in November, but since it's in Australia and vs a #39th-ranked team, I don't think these last matches will be very meaningful (unless Australia lays an egg and draws one of them, that could severly damage them).

So, all in all, what chances Japan realistically have to leapfrog Australia (or any other team for that matters: Canada should comfortably advance to WWC in CONCACAF qualifier that's currently underway and I don't see them drop many points there, if any).