Power Ranking of the 32 Teams in Russia

I have cited various power rankings in debates with fans of different teams and have debated how these different teams rate and rank. Here I like to bring the rankings and debates into one thread and give my power rankings and hear how you see things.

The grades below are useful to me to give a good understanding of how each side we might rank close or apart numerically actually rate. So if you use a similar grading system to give your rankings, I would appreciate it.

------------------------

1- Brazil (A): Among the top favorites to win the trophy in Russia, they come to Russia following a comfortable qualifying campaign where they clinched their ticket to Russia before anyone else. They will be having a (perhaps revealing) friendly against the side that humiliated them in 2014, namely Germany, and on paper, the trophy will likely go to either Brazil or Germany.

1- Germany (A): There may be no objective reason not to expect them to lift the trophy again, as the Germans have been undefeated since Euro 2016 and in Euro 2016, only France (as hosts) were able to beat them. Even their traditional nemesis, Italy, which was really impressive under Conte in Euro 2006, couldn't beat Germany. But their loss to France did take away from their luster in my mind. And for some reason, I don't expect Germany to repeat.


3- Spain (A-): Despite failing both in World Cup 2014 and Euro 2016, I still rate Spain a contender and, on paper, they still rank only behind Brazil and Germany in my book. But for a host of reasons, not least because I think they ended up with the trickiest group imaginable for them despite it not sounding that way on paper, I am not sure what will happen to Spain in Russia. I could see them go as far as the final. But I could also see them eliminated at the group stage.

3- Argentina (A-): Argentina, a side that was really lucky to beat Iran in World Cup 2014, ended up making the final thanks in large part to Messi. This will Messi's last chance to win the trophy that has alluded him and which will he need -- alongside dominant performances (and not just flashy goals) -- to carve a place for himself alongside the likes of Maradona and Pele. I don't think either will happen: I don't see Messi dominating the tournament and I don't see Argentina coming close to wining the trophy. But on paper they still deserve to be ranked among the main contenders.

3- France (A-): The French have a lot going for them, including a side full of talented players and results which back up a place for them among the leading contenders in Russia. But a side that ends up losing the final as hosts against a Portugal team that didn't even have their star player for most of that match, will still have much to prove. I see France as possibly making the semifinals but I don't see them doing better.


6- Portugal (B+/A-): Right below the top favorites and contenders is Portugal. The real problem with Portugal is that, as a team, they have not been as impressive. They may be the European champions, they may have Chris Ronaldo, but they just haven't impressed that much. For me, they have a tricky group and one which they might not survive. But if they do survive their group, they have 50/50 odds to make the semifinal and remain in contention as long as they don't meet Germany or Brazil.


7. Belgium (B+): For me, they have been more hype than anything else. But then again, with the two sides that I would have rated above them (Italy and Chile) failing to even qualify to the World Cup, who am I to rate above them? Anyway, I will try to keep an open mind about them. They certainly are often lucky in terms of the sides they draw and seem to have an open path to the knock out stages. But every side I listed above them is better than them and is capable of beating them. So their success in World Cup 2014 will depend on avoiding everyone above them and maybe even the team I list right below them.

7- England (B+): English fans, English colonial history, the English media -- there is plenty of reason for many neutrals to always root against England. But none fuels the fire as England's penchant to simply disappoint and do worse than its overall record coming to these tournaments would predict. Here is a side that hosts one of the top leagues in the world, the EPL, and which often gets consistent results in qualifying, but then ends up unable to get passed sides like Iceland (e.g., Euro 2016) or Costa Rica (World Cup 2014) or ends being whipped badly as they were in World Cup 2010 (4:1 loss to Germany). No wonder they seem such a bad bet to do well! But on paper, they are still up there among the top quarter in this competition in terms of their recent results and talent.

------------------

9- Colombia (B/B+): When it comes to the next tier right below England, there are a slew of teams that rate very similar in my book. I will put them altogether and none are all that clearly better than any other among them, starting with Colombia. All these teams I mention have a very good shot of making the knock-out rounds and beyond depending on whether they are facing teams of similar caliber or whether they face teams ranked behind them.

9- Sweden (B/B+)

9- Uruguay (B/B+)

9- Croatia (B/B+)

9- Nigeria (B/B+)

9- Mexico (B/B+)

9- Senegal (B/B+)

9- Poland (B/B+)

9- Switzerland (B/B+)

-------------------

18- Peru (B): This is the category that I rate Iran, which is the team I root for. And find all these teams comparable in strength.

18- Serbia (B)

18- Iran (B)

18- Morocco (B)

18- Egypt (B)

18- Denmark (B)

18- Russia (B)

------------------

25- Australia (B-): Australia may have finished behind Japan and Saudi Arabia in Asia, but I see them better prepared to handle the competition internationally. In any case, I see these teams at the top and the remainder at the bottom of this category.

25- Iceland (B-)

25- Japan (B-)

25- Costa Rica (B-)


29- South Korea (C+/B-)

29- Tunisia (C+/B-)


31- Saudi Arabia (C+)

32- Panama (C+)

 

I guess my power rankings didn't rob anyone the wrong way nor irritated anyone all that much! But still would be interested to see how others rank these teams?

 

All of these teams are so similar in their level that ultimately what will decide their difference will likely be extraneous factors (luck/bounce of the ball, particular form in the given match, tactics, referee errors etc). That is why I actually, instinctively, do not like numerical rankings (which overstate differences quite often) and prefer to give teams grades.

Incidentally, to check my rankings and some of the others here against how ELO rates these teams, dividing them in 4 pots, each of the pots would be as follows:
Pot 1:
1- Brazil 2- Germany 3- Spain 4- Portugal 5- France 6- Argentina 7- England 8- Belgium
Pot 2:
9- Colombia 10- Peru 11- Switzerland 12- Uruguay 13- Croatia 14- Mexico 15- Poland 16- Denmark
Pot 3:
17- Sweden 18- Iceland 19- Iran 20- Serbia 21- South Korea 22- Senegal 23- Costa Rica 24- Australia
Pot 4:
25- Japan 26- Russia 27- Nigeria 28- Morocco 29- Panama 30- Egypt 31- Tunisia 32- Saudi Arabia.

While I am far more comfortable with my own rankings, the most surprising for me was seeing Egypt so low. I already knew Nigeria was ranked much lower than I would put them (mainly because they failed to qualify for two consecutive AFCON tournaments), but didn't realize Egypt was also ranked so low.

 

Let me provide this note on my letter grade rankings.

In general, when a side meet another that is a full letter grade below them in my ranking, their chances of winning are very high. Even then, upsets happen but this is when 9 times out of 10, the result will favor the higher ranked team.

On the other hand, the odds something like 6-3-1 in 10 games all things being equal (60% chance of win, 30% draw, 10% loss) when the differences fall below a full letter grade ((e.g., (A-) v (B) or B+ v B- etc). For instance, I am rooting for Japan in their group, and give them a chance, but at the end of the day when I have given Japan a (B-) and Japan's opponents Colombia (B+), Senegal (B+) and Poland (B+), then obviously Japan will be the underdog in the group.

When the difference between the two sides is just half a letter grade (B+ v B etc), of course the side with the higher grade would still be favored but the odds become more like 5-3-2 or something along those lines. Hence, if South Korea (B-) was in Iran's group, Morocco (B) would still be favored but not by much. Spain would still enjoy clear odds of beating South Korea (8-1-1), Portugal's chances would be slightly lower (6-3-1/7-2-1).

Finally, when two teams are graded the same? Here, all other things being equal, the odds would be equal too: 3-4-3 or 4-2-4 on paper. Which means that, if my grades are accurate, there is no real favorite between Poland/Colombia/Senegal. No real favorite between Iran/Morocco. No real favorite between Russia/Egypt and only the slight advantage for Uruguay against either one. Both Russia and Egypt (B) would be favored against Saudi Arabia (C+) but here too we are talking about 6-3-1 type chances. There is almost a 40% chance that Saudi Arabia won't lose to either or both. Conversely, if my grades are accurate, Uruguay (B+) will beat Saudi Arabia (C+) something like 8-1-1 (80% win, 10% draw, 10% loss).

 

How you rate Costa Rica using the grade system I have outlined?

Incidentally, as mentioned, the general consensus is that Costa Rica aren't as good as in 2014. In 2014, they did surprise most people (including me) and not only advanced from a tough group with good results and performances, but ultimately were eliminated only on penalties in the quarterfinals against Holland. In a way, Costa Rica's results and performances in 2014 weren't merely surprising; they were shocking. Certainly, if Iran had done remotely as well as Costa Rica, I too would be expecting more respect than the kind of ratings and rankings the Ticos get in almost all power rankings I have seen. However, the problem, in a nutshell, is in Costa Rica's recent results, where you find a lot of pink (losses) and yellow (draws) in the chart below. Indeed, Costa Rica's last 3 matches have been losses and the Ticos haven't won a game over the past 5 games they have played. Their last win was over the US (which Costa Rica lost to as well by the same scoreline) but otherwise Costa Rica's results have been mediocre.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costa_Rica_national_football_team_results_(2010–19)

 

The reason Costa Rica's results in 2014 were literally shocking is because even then there wasn't anything to make anyone really expect them to do as well. While they had earned a couple more points as you mention in the 2014 qualifiers, ultimately Costa Rica's only truly impressive or outstanding results were at the World Cup. The only contrary indication was in the fact that they had defeated Mexico in the 2014 qualifiers, but Mexico back then had done poorly in the qualifiers overall. If there was any sense to be made of it all, it would be that 2014 represented an unusually strong Concacaf crop of teams. That would be supported by the fact that not only Mexico, but the US along with Costa Rica (3 out of 4 Concacaf teams) advanced to the R-16. But even that is not entirely convincing since Honduras was pretty rubbish and they had finished above Mexico.

At the end of the day, football isn't rocket science and not everything about it fits even the most meticulous and carefully considered evaluation of the evidence. We do have surprises sometimes and Costa Rica was certainly a surprise in 2014.

 

I haven't thought about nearly enough, but there is also a chance that sides Costa Rica played were in decline or not as good as their pedigree. Certainly, Holland (missed out of 24-team Euro 2016) and Italy (up and down in recent years and missed out of this World Cup for the first time in ages) and Greece (didn't qualify this time and made the R16 playing their usual bunker ball) might not have been as good as advertised. However, at the end of the day, no one can deny that the results and performances from Costa Rica in 2014 showed them a quality side fully deserving to finish among the top 8 in Brazil.

 

Are these your own rankings or from a Swedish publication?

As for our players on your list, not bad. However, it doesn't seem Shojaie will be invited to our team, although I would like to have him in Russia. Ghoochannejad faces stiff competition and might not make the cut either (50/50). Haj Safie will almost certainly make the cut because he is versatile and plays several positions, but I am not sure he would be rated among our best. The best players for Iran would, IMO, be: Jahanbakhsh, Azmoun, M. Mohammadi, Ghoddos and Dejagah (aging but still good for 60-70 minutes). I would also add Ansarifard and Taremi as players who could shine and Ezatollahi (who will miss the Morocco match due to a red card he carries) is also an important player for us.