what a joke at ARgentina going so far down. Plus Paraguay >> COlombia and should be top 20 and how is Bulgaria 17th???
How outdated seems this poll! Brazil and Argentina are playing pitiful football, more so the former that got spanked by Paraguay in Asuncion 2-0, although the latter barely tied Colombia in Buenos Aires 1-1. In Europe, France is in the middle of a transtion and quite weak at this point, and Italy isn't doing much better. England is not even in the Euro. Right now, Spain, Russia, The Netherlands, Germany, and Paraguay seem to be the Top 5.
Which to me makes no sense. 4 years??? I can understand a year but 4?? Fifa needs to understand that players will come and go from the national team and teams that were good in 06 may not be the same team in 08. Keeping a team in the top 15 just because they won a game against a top team 3 years ago in some tournament and got points for that should not matter 3 years down the road in a ranking. These rankings and especially fifa will always be a joke
The 4-year time frame is meant to keep some consistency in the rankings. If the time frame was too small, countries would rise and plummet in the rankings at obscene rates.
You don't think 4 years is to long of time frame? I really think they should just do it year by year. Every single time these rankings come out there a joke. Some teams don't do anything for 2 years and still make the top 15. The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me.
I'd say one year minimum, two years maximum. Basing the rankings on a two year time frame would keep some consistency as well as some relevance. The best of both worlds.
Come to think of it, not having a 4-year time frame would hurt the WC champion and Euro champion (as well as other continental champions) because it would drop the points earned from those tournaments just two years later. That's the reason the rankings are based on a 4-year time frame to begin with.
The FIFA rankings has always been a joke. Why does anyone use them or pay attention to them , I don't know. England, despite not qualifying for Euro 2008, are still above the Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Croatia, Turkey, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. 5 of those teams are one of the best 8 in Europe right now. If that is not proof enough, I don't know what is. A complete joke. This rankings are made up by using a 4-year span of the team's successes and failures. That is complete horseshit. There are teams right now who are now in the top 4 of Europe when 4 years ago they were next to nothing. The rankings should be done in a monthly pattern taking loosely into account the previous month's ranking. This 4 year crap makes no sense. It also doesn't take into account if a normally strong side fields a B team in contrast to a weak side fielding an A team (a prime example is Mexico v Brazil. Mexico have beaten Brazil's B squad quite a few times since 1999.). I think I have comed up with a new and much better formula then FIFA though.
I think the main issue is that you can't give a specific, absolute order for say the top 5, if not the top 10. Frankly speaking, nowadays each top team could beat the other on their good day, and lose to weak opposition on a bad day. Therefore I think that keeping a longer scope is required to have some consistency, because top teams usually win more games than others. But I agree 4 years is too much. A good balance would be about 2 years, keeping some small factor on the trophies won.
It seems I can't edit the post, so here's the correct ranking: June 2008 2 years: Code: 1 Argentina 1229 2 Italy 1157 3 Brazil 1135 4 Germany 1078 5 Spain 1036 6 Czech Republic 927 7 France 885 8 Greece 861 9 Romania 846 10 Netherlands 829 11 Ghana 821 12 Scotland 816 13 Portugal 812 14 Croatia 803 15 England 803 16 Bulgaria 785 17 Mexico 761 18 Cameroon 754 19 Israel 705 20 Russia 680 1 year Code: 1 Argentina 799 2 Brazil 753 3 Spain 683 4 Czech Republic 656 5 Italy 598 6 Greece 584 7 Bulgaria 560 8 Germany 550 9 Mexico 549 10 Ghana 546 11 Romania 541 12 Cameroon 536 13 Scotland 523 14 Egypt 503 15 Croatia 489 16 Norway 468 17 USA 462 18 Israel 458 19 Paraguay 451 20 England 451
And the July 2008 rankings (including matches played at EURO 2008 until the semifinals): 2 years Code: 1 Spain 1141 2 Croatia 1059 3 Italy 1028 4 Germany 1015 5 Netherlands 948 6 Russia 908 7 Brazil 897 8 Argentina 889 9 Czech Republic 860 10 Turkey 835 11 Scotland 821 12 Romania 797 13 Bulgaria 754 14 France 736 15 Greece 732 16 Portugal 727 17 Cameroon 723 18 Israel 709 19 Mexico 654 20 Ghana 645 1 year Code: 1 Spain 903 2 Brazil 695 3 Croatia 682 4 Netherlands 676 5 Russia 651 6 Germany 640 7 Argentina 621 8 Italy 618 9 Czech Republic 612 10 Turkey 593 11 Scotland 541 12 Portugal 531 13 Ghana 508 14 Bulgaria 502 15 Cameroon 497 16 Egypt 488 17 Colombia 481 18 Romania 476 19 Israel 468 20 Moldova 460
That is a great list! I think I would go with the 1 year list with a few modifications. It definetly is 100 times more realistically then that crap FIFA ranking. There are teams that are not even on the top 16 of Europe that has bo business in the top 20 of the World. PM if you can. I want to know how FIFA rankings work. I am thinking of making up a "BigSoccer" ranking adding your formula with mine.
ok and wtf did Bulgaria do that gets them in the top 20 sadly I have to agree, especially with the 1 year rating system because South America and Europe play their continental tournies in different years and thus it really screws up the ratings
They had quite a good qualifying for EURO 2008, they gained more points than Russia or Turkey for example.
But one of the major points to this whole rating system isnt so much that you won its WHO you played against. A win against Argentina or Brazil at home isn't the same as beating Argentina or Brazil away. It's also not the same as beating the team on the corner 9-0.