One process that deserves a look is the Zurich system which is used by rugby. http://www.planet-rugby.com/Zurich/index.shtml
### Moderator's Note ### Discussions of this sort, since they're not directly FIFA and WC related, usually go on The Beautiful Game board. I'll move it there with redirect.
It doesn't really matter what ranking system is used, as most people will disagree with them because Team X is ranked below Team Y, despite the complainer's belief (based on personal opinion rather than any mathematical form of ranking teams) that Team X is the better of the two.
The problem with the current FIFA system is that you ahve to compete constantly if you want to keep your rankings. Countries ar lucky enough if they can get in a couple of games every year. None of those games would come against better oposition.
It's liked the college football.... they will never find a good system. Someone will debate over and over again.
The current FIFA rankings are not horrible, but they do have some flaws. They won't tell you who is the best at the moment, since they measure over 8 years. They also won't tell you much about the relative rankings of teams that don't play each other much. IE, within concacaf they might be realistic, but concacaf v. eufa v. whatever won't give a good measure. That's because it's like a worldwide league table. It's as flawed as saying the winner of D3 English football is as good as the winner of the EPL because they both have the same number of points. But, the standings within the EPL are a pretty good measure of who is better. (Maybe not perfect, mind you.) I think you just have to take them with a bit of innacuracy. They probably are pretty decent if you say a rank could mean anything +- 10. As for the Zurich system, they didn't describe it enough detail for me to comment, except that it seems to account for just the last 12 games, not long term form. Also, there seem to be fewer teams that play each other more often, though I am not totally sure about that. Also, nice quote from the rugby site: "just remember that if 50 per cent of you think Australia should be lower in the rankings and 50 per cent think they should be higher, we reckon we're about spot on!"
the only ranking that count is this is 1st brazil 2nd germany 3rd turkey 4th south korea they will not change for 4 years when the next world cup is played
Actually, the fact teams DON'T all play each other is when a ranking system becomes the ONLY valid way to measure the strengths of teams. In a round-robin league, the league standings are a perfect ranking system for determining teams' ratings over the course of a whole season (but won't tell you who was strongest at any one time during the season). When it's not anything approaching a round-robin, a GOOD ranking system can be invaluable. International Soccer and NCAA sports are good examples. Of course, there has to be enough interplay between confederations/conferences to rank teams from one region against teams from another, but this is generally the case for these sports. Mind you, I'm not arguing that a mathematical analysis of teams' results is more important than the results from World Cups, etc. On the field is where teams earn the right to be called champions, no mathematics involved. I'm sure Brazil could care less if they are ranked #100 in every FIFA ranking so long as they win World Cups. But a good ranking system can compare where teams sit relative to each other and give pretty good probabilities of who wins or draws a particular match (trust me, bookmakers have VERY good ranking systems). My own system can be found at http://home.sprynet.com/~ronkessler/rankings.htm . It's percentage-based, so as long as you play a minimum number of matches over 4 years (just 16, or 4 per year), your rating counts full, more matches after that don't improve your rating (unless you beat a lot of good teams of course!). The more recent matches count for more than matches 4 years ago, but sample sizes tend to be too small to be meaningful if a shorter time period is used (8 years is ridiculous though!). While I believe my rankings have the most mathematically sound system, there is no perfect system for something like international soccer. Note that I have Colombia ranked too high. This is largely due to their 2001 Copa win - a tournament nobody but them for the most part took seriously. It was a continental championship though, so I had to count it as a major tournament (thus the matches received more weight) without turning them into subjective rankings.
Hardly. It's a cup competition. On a given day, a team can upset a better one. Not all the time, but then you don't need to do you.
Face it, years from now, people won't remember what FIFA ranking anyone was, they will only remember what happened in major cup competitions, as well as any previous memorable qualifying matches.
I got an idea. Let's have all the teams in the world play each other in a home-and-home league. After each team's 400 or so matches have been played, you have your ranking. Sound good?
let the world have the master league like WE6.it may take more than 15 years to complete, but why not try it?
your scoring system is okay I suppose.. but I wonder if you are including the 31-0 result when australia played american samoa in a WC qualifying game....I don´t think Australia are the 25th best side in the world, considering they haven´t been able to manage to break into a WC sinse 1974. although I think we wouldn´t disgrace ourselves if we were given a chance and a decent qualifying route was put in place. pgi.
How about having two polls? Have the coaches vote on one poll, and selected sportwriters on the other one. Then we can have two rankings instead of one. But instead of using either one, we can then mix the two together with a bunch of obscure computer rankings that nobody can figure out, and whichever two teams come up on top can play for the World Cup. I wonder, where do I come up with these brilliant ideas?
That's, argentine soccer fan, ladies and gentleman. He'll be here all week. Try the prime rib. Brilliance, dude.
LOL! And I think most fans would agree that a matchup of Number 1 France vs. Number 2 Argentina would have made a much more deserved and a much more attractive final (not to mention better ratings) than the pathetic matchup of Brasil vs. Germany that we got in Japan thanks to the current FIFA system of qualifiers and a final round.
Re: the only ranking that count is this Rubbish, the only one that counts by that measure is: 1st Brazil.
LOL! Popularity is a poor substitute for talent, discipline and coaching. The matches are played on the field, where mass appeal matters not one iota. The once topsy-turvy soccer world is righted once more. Why would you have two first-round dropouts play a final for their adolescent worshippers? Or maybe you were being sarcastic.