It's amazing how you impose your own criteria to the things that benefit your arguments but are unable to make logical assumptions using that same criteria. I bet you were the last guy who posted a rant against the fact that Mexico dropped 18 spots in a month where they went 2-0. However, now that they go up, apparently it doesn't make sense. That 18 spot drop was a lot less deserved, than the 8 point jump, however, it wasn't even an issue when it happened, on the contrary, it was a reason for celebration around here. So no, if you provided a good point, I am still waiting to see it, because that was certainly not it. Like GVPATS say, the rankings go back 4 years, with the most recent year having a bigger weighing than the previous. What caused Mexico's 18 point drop was the fact that their points from their great performance in the Confederations Cup dropped from year 3 to year 4 and therefore now matter very little. Yes, these rankings are flawed but like someone else said, the only other ranking system are the ELO rankings where Mexico is still above the US. Actually, the only way that the US would be over Mexico (for a significant period of time) in ANY reliable ranking system is if head to head match ups are weighed MUCH higher that everything else or if the US starts winning away from Concacaf. The former would cause a worse ranking system than the one that is in place because it would be full of inconsistencies, one being, Mexico ranked above Brazil for the same reasons that the US in ranked above Mexico. The latter, is still to be seen, and the best opportunity for this is the Confederations Cup next year. However, if we were to be FAIR, as of now, there is no reasonable argument that can be made for the US being ranked above Mexico in this or any other reliable ranking system.
Considering I joined BS today I can assure you I did not write the post last time about the Mexico drop. But thank you for looking into it before you made the accusation. You are correct, if Mexico went 2-0 last time and dropped 18 spots then I would be just as incensed with the ranking system. The head-to-head was just one area to look at. I was using that as an additional data point to the absurdity of the jump. The problem here is everyone is pulling out each point and finding the example that renders it useless. Of course the head-to-head doesn't make sense on its own. It is the sum of its parts. The fact that they both were 1-0 during the month. The point that over the last 4 years the US won more head-to-head. The point that the US won the CONCACAF qualifying for the 2006 WC. The point is these as a collective data points "should" not constitute the US being jumped. Of course it is easy to prove me wrong. All you have to say is look at the rankings, Mexico jumped 8 spots. How about providing some data that proves the jump was properly given instead of just saying I'm wrong. It is easy to point at laugh at my efforts but you are yet to provide a valid point that shows they should have made the jump.
You are completely missing the point. I'll break it down for you: 1) The Fifa Rankings are a mathematical ranking system, therefore, no "valid" point is necessary in order to justify a teams position or change of position. They change position because of their results in the last 4 years, simple as that. The data that you are asking for is found in the results that Mexico and the US have obtained in the last 4 years applied to the Rankings Formula. 2) I am not saying (and I don't think anyone is) that Mexico DESERVED the 8 point jump the same way that I am not saying that Mexico DESERVED the 18 point drop last week. The system is flawed, no one is denying that. What I am saying is: a. that there is no way that Mexico should be ranked lower than the US if the ranking system were to be changed b. your reasoning for Mexico being ranked lower than the US, assuming that we were talking about a perfect system, are very flawed and even then, they would lead to Mexico still being ranked higher than the US. You are absolutely right, in a sense, Mexico should never have jumped the US because Mexico should never have dropped lower than the US. Therefore, talking about whether the "jump" is deserved or not is completely irrelevant. I understand that head-to-head would not be the only thing taken into account, but even if it was part of the rankings, that part would lead to many contradictions and inconsistencies and Mexico WOULD STILL be ranked above the US. There are more teams that just the US and Mexico and incorporating head-to-head in the rankings would not only be a headache, it would be almost impossible and it would lead to a worse ranking that is now currently in place. Head-to-head could not and should not be incorporated in the rankings, it is a dumb idea but somehow you seem to want to take that into account. You somehow also think that the US deserves to be better ranked because they won the Concacaf qualifying for the 2006 WC (even though, if I remember correctly, they both had the same number of points and Mexico had a better goal differential). However, you disregard the fact that Mexico did a lot better than the US in THE ACTUAL WC 2006, along with the Copa America last year and the Confederations Cup in 2005. These 3 accomplishments should be enough to prove why Mexico should be ranked above the US in the Fifa WORLD rankings. In other words, to put it in even simpler terms, recently Mexican has performed better against the WORLD than the US, period.
Can I just point out, all 'match-ups' are head-to-head. So the system would have to give extra weight specifically to matches between the USA and Mexico. Unless the results of soccer matches were entirely predicatble then it is ineviatble that in any ranking system the psotioning of two teams will not correspond with their head-to-head record. I know the head-to-head record between these two teams and I still think Mexico are the better team (regardless of any ranking system) and I think you'd find that the majority of neutrals would agree. So the fact that Mexioc ius currebntly ranked above the USA hardly seems so egregious, even if the FIFA rankings are pretty worthless in themselves (specifically as there is a weaker correlation between two teams rankings and what one would expect the outcome of match between them to be than is acceptable).
Yes there is. Yes, it is. Untrue. I mean, yes, the rankings are worthless, but you get funky jumps like this because the value of any individual game in the rankings changes as it ages (and drops out of the calculation when it is 4 years old). To get a better grasp on what happened, you need to look at what happened each of the last 4 Augusts. Perfect.
Where is this data available? I would like to see the data to show the 18 point drop for Mexico in August (so I assume you would compare it to a July run). I would also like to see the US numbers as well. Is this all the data that they use in the FIFA rankings? I was under the assumption that the algorithm was not public.
http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/results/male.html http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/procedure/men.html Mix thoroughly, and add lots of time to do the calculations.
Foosinho, Both authors of astroheader.com are in central Ohio and big fans of the Crew. There are to many open variables that are not defined based on the link provided. Any calculations based on that sheet would not be accurate. FIFA provides ranges for certain criteria, not exact numbers.
Look at the "Calculation of Points" link on the ranking procedure page. It's complicated, but I'm pretty sure that all the details are out-in-the open.
Mexico's July 2008 detailed point totals -> link. The August 2008 point totals can be found in my first response article -> link. Mexico lost 156 points. I need more details. What month?
Very interesting, the biggest surprise for me is that the CAF isn't weighted above CONCACAF & AFC, and that OFC isn't weighted below them.