A New Ranking System Better Than Fifa

Discussion in 'The Beautiful Game' started by vancity eagle, Apr 19, 2006.

  1. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    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
  2. tomwilhelm

    tomwilhelm Member+

    Dec 14, 2005
    Boston, MA, USA
    Fulham FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    You call that "some inconsistencies"?
  3. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006

    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.
  4. Knave

    Knave Member+

    May 25, 1999
    We generally move non-FIFA rankings to The Beautiful Game forum.
  5. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    Aye, cheers Knave. :rolleyes:

    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.
  6. subbuteo

    subbuteo New Member

    Dec 17, 2002
    DC United
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Mexico way behind the U.S.?

    looks good to me
  7. saosebastiao

    saosebastiao New Member

    May 22, 2005
    I have a better ranking.

    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.
  8. jameseyla

    jameseyla Member

    Jun 8, 2003
    Los Angeles Galaxy
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    the FIFA rankings need to be a poll comprised of national team coaches and approved publications.

    [/end thread]
  9. Leto

    Leto New Member

    Aug 23, 2001
    WCQ Group of Death. The rankings don't lie.

  10. leg_breaker

    leg_breaker Member

    Dec 23, 2005
    Ireland sixth, the team that drew all their games? Your rankings are a farce, they award draws too highly.
  11. StrikerCW

    StrikerCW Member

    Jul 10, 2001
    Perth, WA
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    Only ranking needed until July 11. (or so)

    1. Brazil
  12. Dammit! FC

    Dammit! FC New Member

    Feb 4, 2006
    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.
  13. Teso Dos Bichos

    Teso Dos Bichos Red Card

    Sep 2, 2004
    Purged by RvN
    At least it was a better attempt than your increase the size of the goal shite. :rolleyes:
  14. Dammit! FC

    Dammit! FC New Member

    Feb 4, 2006
    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.
  15. jd6885

    jd6885 Member

    Jun 30, 2001
    Seattle Sounders
    Nat'l Team:
    United States

    i wouldnt have commented in this thread until i saw this one.
  16. CL_2004

    CL_2004 New Member

    Sep 10, 2004
    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.
  17. CL_2004

    CL_2004 New Member

    Sep 10, 2004


  18. argentine soccer fan

    Staff Member

    Jan 18, 2001
    San Francisco Bay Area
    CA Boca Juniors
    Nat'l Team:
    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.
  19. Fulham Fan

    Fulham Fan New Member

    Apr 26, 2004
    Bay Area
    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).
  20. ronaldinhobr10

    Jan 9, 2005
    Real Madrid
    Nat'l Team:

    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.
  21. Fulham Fan

    Fulham Fan New Member

    Apr 26, 2004
    Bay Area
    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.
  22. ilovefotball

    ilovefotball Member

    Feb 11, 2006

    ditto :D :D
  23. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    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.
  24. Duck Manson

    Duck Manson Member+

    Feb 8, 2005
    Juventus FC
    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.
  25. Fulham Fan

    Fulham Fan New Member

    Apr 26, 2004
    Bay Area
    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.

Share This Page