I have created my own way of ranking national teams. While no method can be exact and without its problems, I believe mine to be alot more accurate than FIFAs. Before I share the top 100, let me explain how it works So that the rankings reflect current form, I only use each countries last 10 games. This system is based on the amount of points you get per game for the last 10 games that you have played and then divided by 10 to get the average. This is a teams score. Points are aquired as follows. A lone goal victory over a team and you get how many points they are worth. For each additional goal u beat the team by u get an additonal 10 points. Now each countries points depends on where they are in the previous months top 100. The #1 ranked team is worth 100 points, #2 99 points and so on until u get to #80. From #80 to #100, all these teams are worth 20 points. This is done because I believe that there is very little difference in quality of these teams, and lower ranked sides need to gain something from beating these sides, ( 20 points instead of 1 for beating the #100 team). A tie and you divide the team u r playing's points by 1.25. So if Brazil was #1, u would divide 100 by 1.25 if u tied them this = 80 points. Any ties or victories away from home gain an additional 10 points. Losses to a team by a one goal margin, and u divide that teams points by 2. So a one goal loss to Brazil would give u 50 points (100/2). Losses by 2 goals and u divide by 3 ( 33 points for a 2 goal loss to Brazil ), and so on. Now when I started this as a hobby around 8 years ago, I had to use the FIFA rankings as an original top 100, but through the years the rankings have evened out. One last note, granted that only the last 10 results are used, a victory over any team cannot overtake a teams oldest result if the points are lower than the last result. So basically a team can not move down in the rankings because it won a game. For example if Brazil beat a team that was worth only 20 points, and in the game that this most recent fixture was to replace, Brazil earned 80 points, the 80 points would still stand, and the 20 would be discarded as a game of no real relevance. Also victories over teams not in the top 100 are also not counted. Hope this wasn't to complicated to understand. Feel free to ask any questions. Here are the top 100 as of the last FIfa friendly window. Yes there are some inconsistencies but I believe it is better than FIFA. 1. Brazil 2. Italy 3. Spain 4. Holland 5. Switzerland 6. Ireland Rep. 7. France 8. Czech Rep. 9. Turkey 10. Sweden 11. Poland 12. England 13. Portugal 14. Serbia & Mont. 15. Denmark 16. USA 17. Germany 18. Croatia 19. Israel 20. Cameroon 21. Ivory Coast 22. Ukraine 23. Egypt 24. Uruguay 25. Slovakia 26. Tunisia 27. S. Korea 28. Senegal 29. Argentina 30. Nigeria 31. Romania 32. Colombia 33. Scotland 34. Paraguay 35. Australia 36. Japan 37. Morocco 38. Norway 39. Mexico 40. Greece 41. Bulgaria 42. Chile 43. Lithuania 44. Bosnia & H 45. Belgium 46. Iran 47. Ghana 48. Ecuador 49. Peru 50. Russia 51. Guinea 52. Costa Rica 53. Venezuela 54. Angola 55. R. Congo 56. Slovenia 57. Bolivia 58. Austria 59. Wales 60. Hungary 61. Zambia 62. Jamaica 63. S. Arabia 64. Togo 65. UAE 66. Honduras 67. Iceland 68. Canada 69. Finland 70. N. Ireland 71. Albania 72. Moldova 73. Estonia 74. Belarus 75. Mali 76. South Africa 77. Trinidad & Tobago 78. Latvia 79. Gabon 80. China 81. Cyprus 82. Zimbabwe 83. Oman 84. Macedonia 85. Georgia 86. Armenia 87. Haiti 88. Bahrain 89. Libya 90. Syria 91. Kenya 92. Guatemala 93. Burkina Faso 94. Panama 95. Qatar 96. Azerbaijan 97. Iraq 98. Liechenstein 99. N. Korea 100. Gambia
I knew someone would say something about Argentina. I am in no way saying that I believe that the Argies are 29th, because that in itself is a joke, however if one studies their recent record, it is nothing to brag about. In the last half year Argentina has lost to Croatia, lost to Uruguay, lost to Paraguay, lost 4-1 to Brazil,lost to Ecuador, and lost to England. The only good result they've had for more than half a year was their victory over Brazil in WC qualifying. Perhaps my system has its flaws, but I still believe it is much better than FIFA. A few good results for Argentina and they'd be right back at the top. This system has no bias and just plainly states the facts of recent matches.
Aye, cheers Knave. Here we go yet again. I'll start by saying the USMNT is ranked far too high. Let's be honest, there are so many potential flaws in any ranking, particularly this one. There's no need for randoms to spout 'my ranking is better than the FIFA one' every few weeks. Let's face it, in this situation the FIFA rankings are actually far superior.
I have a better ranking. 1.Portugal 2.USA 3.Poop 4.Everybody else. Actually this is what most ranking discussions turn out to be. Rankings dont work because international teams dont play enough to actually rank anything accurately. That requires a league with home and away play, ranked by points.
the FIFA rankings need to be a poll comprised of national team coaches and approved publications. [/end thread]
Ireland sixth, the team that drew all their games? Your rankings are a farce, they award draws too highly.
You have Zimbabwe at #82 and Macedonia at #83? THAT is absolutely ridiculous! Macedonia is a FAAARR better team than Zimbabwe has been since.. oh, at least 1999. Macedonia is in EUROPE. THey played Lichtenstein to a 0-0 draw just last year and one player actually plays professionally in Greece. And who did Zimbabwe beat last? The Iraqi "b" team. And that was only with air support man! Your system is a complete and utter waste of numerical sequences.
I forgot that some people on here need little smiley faces to cue them in to a joke. In any case, At least, it's a better attempt at ranking than FIFA's.
it's accurate. so what? two key words. This is where you make yourself look like an ass. The last team they defeated was/is Ghana who is actually a world cup team this year.
Some inconsistencies? You base your rankings over just ten matches? At any given time ten matches have different meaning. Right after the world cup or maybe in the middle of the eliminatories they might mean something. But at times (like now) half those matches are probably meaningless friendlies, basically pratice games in which teams are trying different players. The other half might be eliminatory matches in which one team was already done and had nothing to play for and the other team needed a win so they went all out. Obviously by limiting it to just ten games including friendlies and B lineup matchups you are going to get messed up results. Only over time and by weighing significant matches can rankings mean something. It is very difficult to come up with a worse ranking system than FIFA's, but you may have just managed it. Congratulations.
I think a proper ranking system must rank federations as well as teams. USA shouldn't be rewarded for playing in CONCACAF so much, true, but for all we know Brazil shouldn't be rewarded for playing in CONMEBOL so much. If Europe is the strongest federation, then games against European teams would get some weighting in my system. But to keep things honest - because teams in a single federation always learn how to play each other, and European teams surely benefit against each other from that - the Europeans would have to succeed outside of their federation as well. Everyone would have to. And since CONCACAF teams do relatively well in the World Cup, pound for pound, I think the USA, et al., would still get ranked appropriately (but not at #4).
i completely disagree. CONMEBOL has great national sides and it is very competitive throughout.. european WCQ are much easier groups, that any top team should advance past unless its two great teams, then one can go to the elimination rounds.
If true, that just means CONMEBOL would take the top ranking, which would be fine with me. If CONMEBOL beats UEFA, that should be worth something. If vice versa occurs, the same thing.
why should games against European teams get added weight. This system is based on the rank of a team, not what confederation the team is in. If a team is good, then u will get lots of points for beating them regardless of what confederation they are in.
this is the only way youd get a realistic ranking. you cannot rank a team on results. thats just rediculous and fifa are dumb enough to not understand that.
Again, it's not about European teams. It could be CONMEBOL or CONCACAF or whoever. The point is to prevent teams from ascending like USA has, to #4, without testing themselves against better competition; and also to prevent teams from being stuck down the list because their region is so competitive. As I said about the USA, though, if they do well in the World Cup, it should reflect well on CONCACAF, and CONCACAF traditionally is competitive in the group stages in the World Cup, anyways.