Rank the 32 World cup teams

Maldives have definitely improved, but even the Maldives team that once held South Korea to a draw was beaten by Iran by 3 goals. Our worst results against the Maldives was when we beat them 1:0 in the preliminary qualifiers under Queiroz. But, for sure, despite my reservations, the guy has actually delivered for us.

 

An interesting article about FIFA WC rankings...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25134584

Of course it makes no sense for the Netherlands to play a game against a team like Indonesia, as whatever happens it will bring down their average number of Fifa points per game. You would have to be completely mad to do something like that in World Cup year, when the points have the most value.

Unfortunately for the orange hordes of Dutch fans, that is exactly what their team did in June 2013. If they hadn't played that game they would be one of the top seeds, not Switzerland, who played fewer friendlies than most teams in the final 12 months that counted towards World Cup qualifying ranking points. ​

Just remind me where FIFA's headquarters are again?

 

The Dutch FA should be taking the blame there, no? Very poor from them to organize a friendly against Indonesia. I guess the main reason was political, but they could have timed the date much better.

 

As I mentioned in another thread, African football is full of promise and talent, but it hasn't had results commensurate with the expectations that are unleashed by that talent. Thus, besides friendlies which African teams are notorious for fielding sub-par teams and getting bad results, you also have the fact that African sides haven't really even out-performed the AFC in the World Cup either. In fact, the reverse. The head-to-head record between the AFC and CAF teams has favored the AFC (at least the record since 1994) and, similarly, the AFC has been able to qualify as many teams as CAF to the knock out rounds historically, even more often than CAF the past few World Cups. All that will undoubtedly affect how CAF teams will end up being rated in any ranking system.

That said, the ranking you cite above is not a serious ranking. I don't rate FIFA's rankings highly at all, but the biggest flaws with that ranking system affect teams from the AFC, not CAF. As for ELO and SPI, which are to me better and more reliable rankings than FIFA, I don't think CAF teams do all that badly. In fact, the rankings among these 3 systems for the 5 CAF finalists are as follows, with the ones that look off in bold:

1- Ivory Coast (FIFA: #17) (ELO: #21) (SPI:#18)
2- Ghana (FIFA: #24) (ELO: #33) (SPI: #35)
3- Nigeria (FIFA: #36) (ELO: #30) (SPI: #28)
4- Algeria (FIFA: #26) (ELO: #59) (SPI: #69)
5- Cameroon (FIFA: #51) (ELO: #56) (SPI: #39)

Other that Algeria being overrated by FIFA, and arguments about how the African sides compare to one another, the overall ranking of African sides is actually reflective of their results. When you do the same with the AFC, on the other hand, you clearly see that there is something amiss in FIFA's rankings in particular:

AFC Rankings

1- Iran (FIFA: #45) (ELO: #29) (SPI: #37)
2- Japan (FIFA: #49) (ELO: #25) (SPI: #32)
3- South Korea (FIFA: #54) (ELO: #42) (SPI: #36)
4- Australia (FIFA: #59) (ELO: #32) (SPI: #53)

 

Any ranking system that actually penalizes you for playing a friendly match has a flaw that needs to be fixed! Friendly matches should not count much, but just playing them should give your side a (very) marginal boost with that marginal boost improved if you win and diminished if you lose. But to lose points just because you play a friendly is absurd.

 

I agree Iran were always a strong team in AFC. However they have to pass Japan (or S Korea) in big games (like Asian cup or WC qual)... that's their problem ...

 

The correct way to proceed here would be to test how well does each ranking system forecast results. In the end, that's what we would like to see in a ranking, right? A measure of how the two teams match up. So if a ranking does much more poorly than another in forecasting, then it cannot be taken seriously.

As anyone ever tried doing that?

 

I agree, but not in the tournaments you mentioned, but rather in the World Cup.

In the Asian Cup, Iran has a better record than South Korea, who have not won the tournament since 1960, even if the last 2 times the Koreans have finished ahead of Iran. Indeed, while our titles are rather dated as well (3 Asian Cup titles consecutively between 1968 and 1976), we are quite consistent in the Asian Cup and enjoy the best overall win/points record of any side. However, since our last trophy, we have either had to bow out at the semifinal stage, finishing 3rd (1980, 1988, 1996, 2004) or 4th despite being unbeaten (1984), or at worse at the quarterfinals (2000, 2007, 2011). The only exception was in 1992, when Iran didn't even make the knock out round.

Incidentally, since 1996 when we thrashed South Korea 6:2 in the Asian Cup quarterfinal, we have faced them at that exact stage in the Asian Cup every time. Hence, each time Iran made the semifinals, it meant South Korea didn't and the reverse. (Except the last Asian Cup match between us, which the Koreans won deservedly albeit in extra time 1:0, the other two times they beat us in 2000 (golden goal after equalizing in the 90th minute on a fluky mis-clearance and then scoring against the run of play in extra time) or in 2007 (on penalties after Iran dominated the match itself), they had been outplayed. On the other hand, when we won in 1996 (6:2) and 2004 (4:3) it was clear and decisive and in regulation).

 

The Football Ranking website does it based on ELO ratings. And the average rate is barely over 50% (62% I believe). And this is theorethically the best website...

 

The problem with the website vancity commented is not that African teams are not high, but that the best African teams are below teams like Honduras, Austria, Slovenia or Finland. Ergo teams that a Cote d'Ivoire would probably beat 8 times out of 10, draw most of the other games and only lose once in a blue moon.

 

That's probably the key reason why ELO is superior: it doesn't matter to the ELO rating whether you play a friendly or a World Cup final. The only thing that changes is the amount of points you can gain.

In November Nigeria, for example, dropped from 33 to 36 in the FIFA ranking despite beating Ethiopia soundedly and drawing Italy away. They actually lost points due to the draw, but what hurt them most was that Nigeria lost a friendly to Jordan, which was played by local Nigerian league players, that were actually even second choice players from the local league (so it was the Nigerian league B-team).

 

I would argue that Iran's victory over USA in France 98 is as relevant as Japan's loss to Jamaica at the same tournament.

 

ranking can never be done objectively. you cant just base strength on names. for example if a crappy team beats the b team of some decent teams, and maybe wins 2 games against good teams who did not take the friendly seriously and were not in form at all, they would climb up the rank. that does not reflect reality.

 

Well said. Iran of 98 was a little bit better than Korea of 98. They actually had a few good players that were known in top European leagues. The current team is build around home based players. South Korea is better technically than Iran. It also has more international experience and confidence, as well as, a few players close to the word class level. Iran doesn't.

 

I have actually rated S. Korea slightly above Iran at the moment, and at the same time promoted the one and only ranking I have seen that does the same (namely SPI), so I am not going to dispute your conclusion much. In fact, while numerous matches between the two sides show them to be quite comparable, and not all that far apart even if Iran has slightly the better head-to-heard record, I agree that at the moment the Koreans are better than us technically and in terms of the talent they boost. Which wasn't the case before, since they used to clearly trail us in terms of talent and technical abilities, being competitive against us mostly because they ran a lot.

On South Korea, let me be clear. My own view right now is that they have a very good and capable team, under a new coach that will probably know a lot more what to do with their fine talent than their last coach who seemed too enamored with the old kick-and-run era in Korean football. With a good draw, South Korea can make the R16 and might even advance further. The same may be said for Iran too, but the statement would be less emphatic and less confident. We have a lot more to prove at the world stage than South Korea have, and at the same time, will have less experience and certainly less success in the tournament to guide us through its tougher moments.

 

As I mentioned in my post, the ranking he was commenting on looked pretty worthless to me. It isn't worth discussing much, even if it flattered Iran by putting us at #17. But I have noticed vancity imply that all rankings underestimate African sides and I was trying to explain why that might be.

The fact is that African teams often boast among their ranks world class talent; players that are even household names among football fans. And they have numerous youth tournaments where they have shined like none other. You put these together, along with the obvious athleticism of African players, and its no wonder that expectations are high that African teams would shine and do well. But when it comes to actual results, they haven't really done all that well. In fact, never mind friendlies, in the World Cup itself, CAF has failed to do better than even the AFC and has, in fact, done slightly worse. Given their talent level, that is almost inexcusable. But it certainly is no indication of the potential of African football, which always seems so much more than what it actually can show.

 

Kinda blaming the victim. I'd have a different tact entirely. I'd organize a boycott of friendlies against third world ranking killing squads until fifa gets rid of their moronic system. Fifa's been habitually kicking UEFA and conmebol in the nuts while courting votes, and bribes in the AFC, and CAF. If Fifa is this obsessed with growing the game elsewhere, a threat to essentially ban friendlies against international sides that are ranking killers would definitely hold some serious weight.

Much better to do than, then just blame themselves for being stupid enough to schedule a friendly w/the likes of Indonesia.

 

While I don't agree with some of your sentiments, I certainly agree that it would be good to put some pressure on FIFA to fix its ranking system. That ranking system has obvious flaws and glitches that need to be addressed. It would not take rocket science to fix some of those flaws, but even if it did, FIFA have the resources to do much better than they have with their notoriously unreliable and often ridiculous ranking.

 

There are bigger flaws. I'll mention one. In World Cup 2006 my country made the final 16 and finished with 1 win, 1 draw and 2 losses. In 2010 we were eliminated in the group stage with 1 win, 1 draw and 1 loss. Guess which World Cup gave us more ranking points.

 

The one with 2 losses? It is normal? Australia played an extra game so received bonus points?

 

This thing is actually pretty simple: Just create a weighting system (i.e. friendlies make up 20% of the ranking total, while the other games make up the remaining 80%).

 

No bonus points as the extra game was a loss so no points at all. All point scoring games were group games so when you average the results the SOuth AFrican effort was worth more ranking points as in Germany the points were divided by 4 and in SOuth AFrica by 3.

 

I am not all that expert on their ranking methodology, but overall I think when we have such obvious doozies from the FIFA (e.g., Cuba ranked above Japan and almost all Asian teams other than Iran), you know there are clear flaws in their system that needs fixing. Including, among others, the fact that you can actually lose points despite winning a friendly match merely by virtue of playing one! That is idiotic to say the least, much more idiotic than Australia gaining more or less in the scenarios you mentioned. (In my mind, Australia did better in 2006 advancing to the R6, but it did almost as well in 2010 as well, so the point differences shouldn't be significant either way).

Btw, did you have 2 losses in 2006? Because I thought the match against Italy in R16 went to penalties and was statistically a draw. Maybe my memory fails me, but what I do remember clearly is that the Italian were gifted a penalty in that match, although I am not sure the penalty allowed them to equalize or to actually win the game? I thought it was the former, but I am probably wrong.

 

I agree with the sentiment, just saying that if my FA had done something like that then I'd accuse them of sleeping at the wheel. The rules were there for everyone to see, the calculations weren't hard to do. It just goes to show how amateur are some of the FAs, despite the large amounts of money involved.

Doing that and what you propose is not mutually exclusive...