New Worthless FIFA Rankings We're up one spot to 8th this month. One ahead of England and 2 of Italy. Brasil 1, France and Spain tied for 2nd., Germany, Argentina, Mexico, and Turkey. Can't believe Mexico's 6th. They've got a ten point lead on us, Turkey's only one up. We're 2 points up on England and 3 on Italy. By December I expect we'll slip back to around tenth or so as any friendlies we play won't count like Euro Qualies. http://www.fifa.com/rank/index_E.html
Most importantly, Libya's up to 104th from 120th. That'll definitely help Qaddafi's bid for World Cup 2010.
We're #8! We're # 8! Am I correct in assuming that this is the highest the U.S. has ever been ranked by FIFA? (Breaking out the champagne and celebrating with my cat. I'm such a lush.) I think it's a cosmic, karmic kind of justice that as the rest of the world catches us in OUR game, basketball, we're catching up in their game. Here's to an exciting global sporting future for both of my favorite games.
I also see us slipping back down a couple of spots in the near future as the Euro qaulys start to add up. But that's okay, for the moment it is still nice to for once see the U.S.A. solidly in the top ten. All you guys "ho-huming" the latest news are just sorry. yeah, the rankings are controversial, but that is OUR team up there. I, for one, am proud. Eight place finish in World Cup 2002 Gold Cup Champions in 2002 3rd place finish in Confederations Cup '99 A string of impressive friendly results over the past four years. Fourth place finish at the Sydney Olympics. I know that doesn't affect rankings, but it builds momentum for the full team. And some good showings by our other youth teams. It all adds up to a nation and a team that is obviously picking up it's level of play. We may not hold on to a top ten spot in the immediate future, but I see a permanent place for us not far down the road. Deal with it.
Wow, the US is really inflated right now. England and Italy should start gaining points due to Euro qualifiers and such. I would love to see a friendly against England to see how we would do. Anyway, 8 is GREAT!!!
We may move up if those in front of us in Europe keep getting Scotland style of results by playing no game. Be better, if we play two more friendlies against Brazil and Mexico (a win assured here), then we may move up too.
Huh? Here's a naive question for you... how does FIFA determine these point rankings? I've never paid much attention in the past, but this seems pretty wacky to me. The page mentions 511 qualifying matches this year and, given the ranking based on points, does it just boil down to games played? That is, if country A plays many more games than country B, even if they lose some or go to a draw, they'll outrank B even if B is generally reconized as a better team? If it were purely performance based, or based on votes from the international soccer press or something like that, then... 1. Would France stay in the #2 spot, given their WC2002 performances? 2. Wouldn't Brazil and Germany be ranked #1 and #2, respectively? 3. Given our victory over Mexico in WC2002, and our victory in a friendly back in April (the last two meetings, if I'm not mistaken), would they still be two places ahead of the US? Thanks in advance for any insight...
there's going to be some people who aren't very nice in answering your post. the why is mexico rated ahead us question has been beaten to death so many times here. rundown: it's results for the last eight years, mexico has been a good team for all of those years and won some tournaments. france did win in 1998 and that's still big. brazil, germany .... again, it's results from the last eight years.
jd - there is a page on Fifa's site that breaks down the formula behind the rankings. It's based on performance over 8 years and it gives different tournaments different weight in terms of affecting rankings. Some here will yell at you that it's the fairest system possible, while some of us think it's nuts no matter how you rationalize it.
At the very least it keeps message boards like BS active at least once every month. So the ratings are good for something, right?
Cool... thanks for clueing my in, guys. I had no clue about the "Past 8 Years" thing. I guess the rankings make a little more sense now that I know that. Seems like an awful long time over which to judge a country's team. A lot happens in 8 years, so I can definitely see why there'd be some on-going debate over the results. I'll have to make sure to check in here each time a new result is posted! -- jeff
Well, results are weighted less for each year you go back with the eighth year back only having 1/8th of the weighting of the current year. The rankings have many flaws, but I'm not convinced this is one of them.
My problem with the 8 year thing is that you take the top 11, and the top 3 subs... right now, and look at who it was 8 years ago. Even if some of the players are the same people, which is doubtful for most countries, they aren't the same skill level. I thought Maldini for example was a shell of his former self for Italy. 8 years ago, Maldini would have prevented the korean header that won the game, and wouldn't have lost his man in the first place. It would be like deciding the best baseball team now by the past 8 years.. Even though it is weighted, 8 years is just too long. I think the system should be modified to just 5 years. That way two world cups will be included the year after the world cup, but it is more of an accurate reflection on current form.
The funny thing is that it's the same debate every time verbatium. Yet in some strange way it's fun to argue the ins and outs of the system every time.