FIFA World Ranking

Discussion in 'Women's International' started by jonny63, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    I think weak leagues in Europe is the norm.

    The French div. I feminine might be the weakest league, both historically and this year. Lyon has won virtually every league title since they entered the league in 2004.
    This year, they beat the number 2 team PSG 5-0. 14 of their 20 matches were shutouts. Their GD is 83 goals and they have given up 6 goals all season.

    And Atletico Madrid & Barcelona in the Spanish league also don’t have much competition. There was a 26 point difference between Atletico and the number 3 team Levante.
     
  2. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Damn it. Someone asked!

    I was wondering myself but didn't have the energy to do the work yet. (Trying to figure out how to do the graph was a real chore I tell you. I'm really TERRIBLE at that stuff)

    :)
     
  3. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    Graph using official FIFA ratings with the following African confederation exceptions:
    • special performance ratings for Nigeria and South Africa (using matches against non-Africa teams only)
    • excludes Cameroon's matches because there was insufficient number of matches against non-Africa teams to estimate performance ratings like I did for Nigeria and South Africa

    World Cup graph by FIFA with modified Africa.jpg
     
    SiberianThunderT repped this.
  4. L'orange

    L'orange Member+

    Ajax
    Netherlands
    Jul 20, 2017
    Yes, this is one area where the United States as the advantage with the NWSL, which overall is significantly more competitive than the European leagues. The FA WSL is the only one that is close, with three good/very good clubs, one a half/notch or a notch below them, and maybe two others that are decent--but there are at least four tin-can clubs in the league. In a couple of years there will be at least 5 strong clubs in the English leagues and maybe a couple of others who are competitive, so it will be on a par with the NWSL, I think, or very close. But the French, German and Spanish leagues are very top-heavy and have too many middling teams.
     
  5. JanBalk

    JanBalk Member+

    Jun 9, 2004
    Uppsala, Sweden
    Nat'l Team:
    Sweden
    So Sweden aren't in Europe anymore?
     
    blissett repped this.
  6. [​IMG]
    Oranje voor aanvang van de WK-finale. © BSR Agency
    Hoogste positie ooit voor Oranjevrouwen met plek 3 op wereldranglijst

    Orange Lionesses are in FIFA ranking 3d, behind the USA and Germany.
     
    L'orange, McSkillz, Dundalk24 and 3 others repped this.
  7. MiLLeNNiuM

    MiLLeNNiuM Member+

    Aug 28, 2016
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Latest FIFA Rankings - Released Today (7/12/2019)

    upload_2019-7-12_5-12-14.png
     
    sbahnhof, 59Amerinorsk, McSkillz and 3 others repped this.
  8. MiLLeNNiuM

    MiLLeNNiuM Member+

    Aug 28, 2016
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  9. MiLLeNNiuM

    MiLLeNNiuM Member+

    Aug 28, 2016
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
  10. EvanJ

    EvanJ Member+

    Manchester United
    United States
    Mar 30, 2004
    Nassau County, NY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    blissett repped this.
  11. hotjam2

    hotjam2 Member+

    Nov 23, 2012
    Club:
    Real Madrid
    The French league isn't all that weak; 4th place Bordeaux beat current 4th place, W Spirit in a friendly a week before the NWSL season began. They've just now doubled their budget & since signed the Jamaican star, Bunny Shaw.

    PSG was able to tie Lyon in the other league game' plus only loose 0-1 in the Cup meeting

    in their mad craze to win the CL, lol I feel Lyon is too strong for it's own good; FIFA lauded them 6 out of the top 10 players in the world on their anual
    short list. But it's left them with virtually no competition for almost the whole season outside of PSG & a few other clubs like Wolfsburg/Chelsea.
    And once again , no coincidense that it's players(domestic & international) had sub par performances at a major tournament

    poor @blissett, guess who guy's didn't heed the advice of coach K! lol
     
    MiLLeNNiuM repped this.
  12. toad455

    toad455 Member+

    Nov 28, 2005
    158 countries is a new record for the women's rankings.
     
  13. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Alright, so going from back to front...
    I was within 2pts for USA, GER, FRA, JPN, NOR, ITA, CHN, SCO, ARG, NGA, THA; within 5pts for NED, SWE, BRA, ESP, CHI, CMR; further off for ENG, CAN, AUS, NZL, KOR, RSA, JAM including more than 15pts for ENG and AUS. Of the ones I'm far off on, there's an interesting triangle with ENG/CAN/NZL, with ENG playing the other two in pre-WWC friendlies and then those two playing in the same group.
     
    59Amerinorsk, McSkillz and kolabear repped this.
  14. 59Amerinorsk

    59Amerinorsk Member

    Chicago Red Stars
    Norway
    Mar 31, 2017
    Finally asking the question: Why did NOR only gain two points? I know they did not beat a team ranked above them in the WWC (they tied yet "PK-beat" AUS in the sense they advanced over AUS to the QF). I know they lost a friendly to NZL and beat RSA (not a big point loser/gainer as a friendly, I think). With such an important tourney as WWC you would suspect a team would get a "baseline" # of points (say 25-50) just by reaching the QF (similar to a tennis ranking system) of the "major" tourney and then bonus points if you beat higher ranked teams enroute. It seems NOR did not get points /credit by reaching the QF. You seem to get points ONLY for beating teams ranked above you - interestingly, USA got a ton of points and did not beat a team ranked above them (there is no team ranked above them, of course) simply by winning the tourney - which makes sense (getting points based on how far you went in the tourney)! SWE beat teams ranked above them AND got the bronze medal so they should've gained some nice points (for both categories)! Educate me on my logic/non-logic! Thanks!
     
  15. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    You can actually earn points from any match, but beating teams ranked above gets you LOTS of points, while wins from close-to-you matches are medium amounts of points and wins that are highly expected are small points (or, in rare cases, lost point if you win wasn't "big enough"). That is, the important thing is the comparison between the expected result of a game (based on the relative strengths of the two teams) and the actual result of a game (based on the score - in a basic Elo system, a win is a result of 1 and a loss is a result of 0, though for soccer we like to rank results based on the score). And there is no specific reward for reaching a certain stage within the tournament, thought there IS a difference friendlies, qualifying competitions, and finals competitions. It's VERY different than tennis rankings in that sense - there is never a baseline amount of points earned.

    My prediction for Norway's new rating was within 2pts of their actual new rating, so I'll try to spell out the calculations I did for them in a bit more detail - and I'll mention other games since they factor in to the real-time ratings of each team involved.

    Group A start: FRA-2043**, NOR-1915, KOR-1883, NGA-1599 (I put a ** by France to indicate that they're the hosts, since being the home team in a game is worth an extra 100pts when calculating the "expected" result of a game)

    Game 1:
    France's effective rating was 2143 and Korea's was 1883 (not really, since they had significant pre-WWC results I ignored in my previous calculation), so the 260pt difference meant FRA's "expected result" was 0.817 and KOR's was 0.183
    The game ended 4-0, so the actual result was 0.970 / 0.030
    Since it's a WWC match, it's worth 60pts. The points that are gained/lost are the match worth times the difference between expected and actual, so for France you had 60*(0.970-0.817) = 9.175pts, or 9pts as I stated in my old post. That moves France up to 2052 and Korea down to 1874

    Game 2:
    NOR's 1915 against NGA's 1599, a 316pt difference, implies expected results of 0.860 / 0.140
    The game ended 3-0, for an actual result of 0.960 / 0.140
    The points moved in this match are thus 60*(0.960-0.860) = 5.973pts, or 6pts as I stated it. That moves Norway up to 1921 and Nigeria down to 1593

    Game 3:
    Rare win by the lower-ranked team, shipping 45pts from Korea to Nigeria!

    Game 4:
    FRA effectively at 2152 and NOR at 1921 means the expected result is 0.791 / 0.209
    The game ended 2-1, for an actual result of 0.840 / 0.160
    60*(0.840-0.791) = 2.952pts or 3pts, so France is up to 2055 and Norway is down to 1918

    Game 5:
    (Not applicable for the rest of this post)

    Game 6:
    NOR at 1918 and KOR at 1829, expected result is 0.625 / 0.375
    Result was 2-1, or 0.840 / 0.160
    60*(0.840-0.625) = 12.879pts or 13pts, so Norway is up to 1931 and Korea is down to 1816

    You can do similar calculations for Norway's two knockout games, which were a draw (officially) and a loss, so for Norway's five WWC games you get changes of
    +6 , -3 , +13 , +5 , -17
    for a grand total of +4pts in my calculations. Norway's real change was +2pts, which I believe comes from the fact that I didn't consider pre-WWC friendlies so the starting rantings I used weren't entirely accurate.

    ====

    Any win at all in the FIFA rankings is a result of at least 0.800 (a one-goal win in a barn-burner match), so you will earn points of some sort for any win unless your ranting is at least 250 more than your opponent's rating. USA was usually never more than 100 or 150pts ahead of any opponent they face, and the two exceptions to that in the group stage were much more dominant wins that one-goal-in-a-barn-burner, so that's why they earned points in every single match and extended their lead in the rankings.

    ====

    Interestingly, you mention the tennis rating system, where the opponent doesn't matter and the stage you reach in any tournament does. I haven't looked at that system in detail, but considering the sheer number of tournaments that are played in any given year and the freedom players have to pick their tournaments, especially with court surface differences, I would guess that it's a fairly robust system

    That said, people have made Elo rankings for the ATP and the WTA as well, and while they're similar to the official rankings, especially with the same four topping the ATP in the correct order, there's still a lot of shuffling that happens.
     
    sbahnhof, 59Amerinorsk, cpthomas and 3 others repped this.
  16. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    It's a question whether we make strength-of-schedule the key component of the ratings or not. To use your example of tennis, there was a bunch of early-round upsets in the Women's Singles at Wimbledon just a few weeks ago, I believe. Is making the quarterfinals or semifinals the same when you don't have to face the Angelique Kerbers, the Pliskovas, the Naomi Osakas?

    The ratings are supposed to be somewhat predictive. Does making the Wimbledon quarterfinals this year help to predict whether you'll make it when the Kerbers/Pliskovas/Osakas don't get knocked out before you have to face them?

    Of course, performance at major events like Wimbledon or the World Cup should matter more than at minor events or friendlies. In the FIFA women's rating system, results at the World Cup count four times as much as regular friendlies.

    I estimated the World Cup performance rating for Norway at 1939 - using both the official FIFA ratings and the pre-tournament performance ratings over the last year and a half. I can see Norway's rating properly being a little higher (mainly because of the way African sides, like Nigeria, are under-rated) but there's very little difference between 1917 (the new official rating) and 1939.

    At 1939, Norway's expected win percentage against teams 100 points above it (ie approximately 2040) is roughly (.38). They played three teams rated 2000+ (England 2049 at the time; France 2043 + homefield; Australia 2003), tying one game and losing two. From a strict Elo-result basis (win/loss/tie with no allowance for actual score or goal differential), Norway only scored (.167) But in a small three-game sample, that's not doing too bad. In three games, they got a result, as predicted.

    So, in a rough sort of way, being 100 points behind these 2000+ teams seems about right. It isn't perfect and I personally think Norway is very close right now in strength to Canada (new rating 1976), Australia (1965), Brazil (1938), and Japan (1937), but it's as likely that Canada and Australia are slightly over-rated as much as Norway is slightly under-rated.

    Rating systems aren't perfect but the FIFA system for women is good. Norway's rating is about right and I wouldn't be overly concerned about being rated a little lower than Canada/Australia/Brazil/Japan. All these teams are close.
     
    L'orange, sbahnhof and 59Amerinorsk repped this.
  17. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    One typo I should correct: A 100 point rating difference approximately equates to a (.36) expected win percentage for the underdog, not (.38)
     
    59Amerinorsk repped this.
  18. 59Amerinorsk

    59Amerinorsk Member

    Chicago Red Stars
    Norway
    Mar 31, 2017
    Thanks so much, @SiberianThunderT and @kolabear, for the detailed analysis related to my question! I am a bit embarrassed yet happy/grateful that you took the time! :thumbsup:
     
    SiberianThunderT, kolabear and blissett repped this.
  19. kolabear

    kolabear Member+

    Nov 10, 2006
    los angeles
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    No problem. I'm glad you asked. These things are poorly understood even by most players, coaches, and sports journalists but what makes it worse is they don't even ask questions in order to learn.
     

Share This Page