2010 Seeding Formula: January 2008 update

One of the things I pick up from the sample pots and draw is noting the supposed "Groups of Death/Dearth". We don't see the latter much anymore - teams likely to make it to RSA are all pretty good. It's also interesting to note what we could call the "Death Group Makers" - a number of non-seeded non-Euro teams that, no matter what group they get put into, will make it into a Group of Death.

For anyone who thinks this is pointless, just don't click on the link.

 

Edgar, I wanted to point something out regarding your results for the 2010 WC Seeding Formula based on the latest FIFA Rankings (14 January 2009). There is a component in the formula that takes into account the relative ranking between all qualified WC teams from the past three years (2007, 2008, and 2009). The current results from your formula use the December 2007, the December 2008, and the January 2009 FIFA rankings to calculate this component. The FIFA rankings did not change much from December 2008 to January 2009 due to not many games being played, and, in fact, the ranking of the top 14 teams did not change at all.

Now, what I want to focus on is the points received from the average FIFA rankings of France, Portugal, and Czech Republic. In both the December 2008 and January 2009 these three teams had the same FIFA ranking of 11. However, the Seeding formula cannot have the same ranking, and thus the ranking of France, Portugal, and Czech Republic must be determined to be 11, 12, and 13 in some way. Now, since their rankings were unchanged from December 2008 to January 2009 (nothing changed in the top 14), then their determined ranking order from 11 to 13 would be the same for both their 2008 and 2009 rankings.

It appears, that in your 2010 WC Seeding Formula based on the latest FIFA Rankings (14 January 2009) you use the following ranking for the aforementioned teams:

11. Czech Republic
12. Portugal
13. France

However, in your 2010 WC Seeding Formula based on the latest FIFA Rankings (17 December 2008) you use the following ranking for the aforementioned teams:

11. France
12. Portugal
13. Czech Republic

And for the latter Formula, since 2009 hadn't occurred yet, the 2008 ranking was being used for the 2009 ranking as well.

So, shouldn't the order, of the three teams in question, used for their 2008 rankings be the same as was used in the 17 December 2008 Seeding Formula; however, the order used for their 2009 rankings could be different, I suppose.

Edit: I guess after trying to come up with the answer for how to determine the order of teams tied with the same ranking, that the methodology for doing so could have changed from your Formula in December 2008 to your Formula in January 2009.

 

I thought they averaged the teams (so 11,12 and 13 each get 12).

I have no idea why I think that though.

J

 

Edgar, one more question:

In your 2010 WC: Seeding Formula Based on Current Standings (14 January 2009) you have Israel selected as on of the World Cup (WC) finalists from UEFA. Israel is one of nine second place teams from the nine different UEFA World Cup Qualifying groups. Out of these nine teams only four will be able to advance to the World Cup.

So, what logic are you using to select the four finalists out of this group of nine? It seems to me that this is similar to how the fifth team from the AFC and OFC regions would be selected. Since New Zealand has a higher FIFA ranking than both Qatar and Korea DPR (third place teams in their respective AFC WC Qualifying groups), then New Zealand was selected. Similarly, the four second place teams from the UEFA WC Qualifying Groups that have the highest FIFA ranking are Cratia, Russia, Turkey, and Czech Republic. So, shouldn't the Czech Republic be in your seeding formula based off of WC Qualifying Standings and not Israel?

 

How did Wikipedia determine Scotland was ahead of Czech Republic since they are equal on everything else? Did they use proper tie breaking procedure?

 

2>1 (Away goals)

J

 

Thanks, they should have a column for away goals on there table.

 

Now there's a group of life if I've ever seen one!

 

That one, South Africa might actually make it out of.

...oh, right. That's from the 'current standings' link. The US having beaten Mexico is currently playing havoc with that particular part of the teams. Sorry, I just can't believe that Mexico will miss out.

 

I'm starting to think we keep seeing them as a powerhouse, but, like Costa Rica, they have slipped enough that we should stop seeing them that way.


Lisa11

 

That's about the strongest Group A I've seen.

 

Regarding team selection based on qualification chances:

I think Croatia has a better chance of Qualifying than Switzerland or Sweden (or Denmark, also from Group 1). Croatia still has played the least amount of relevant games with regards to the second-place teams, and I like their chances against either switzerland or sweden or nearly any other second-place team, should they meet in the playoff round.

 

Thanks for adding voros' qualification chances. The more mock draws there are, the better!

 

Totally agreed!!!!

 

I've always wondered how the pot structure would look like if CONCACAF won the playoff against CONMEBOL.

I've had this theory that they would just lump the CONCACAF playoff winner with the rest of CONMEBOL to even the pots up, and then adjust the draw so that it won't get paired with another team from CONCACAF...but that just rewards that team since they would have to avoid other CONMEBOL or CAF teams, and why should they get that benefit?

Hmm, maybe just have the first place CONCACAF team in with the CONMEBOL and CAF pot if the CONCACAF 4th place team qualifies...but it'll be interesting to see what they do if the pots don't even out.