no A matches kills your FIFA ranking. one of the problems which AFC team has is that: unlike UEFA or CONMEBOL which has a lot more footy tournaments going on like the Euro qualies, Copa America qualies, a lotta WC qualies, etc etc, AFC aren't too busy. Another one is that even when you DO play games within the AFC, chances are the opponents aren't that super quality so it wouldn't boost up your rankings that much even when you do win. Winning against a highly ranked team of either UEFA or CONMEBOL at a highly valued tournament is what boosts your FIFA ranking and that opportunity don't come too often for an AFC team. So unless we schedule a lotta games spending some $$ like Japan is doing, it's not gonna help. In fact, even spending $$ won't help too much if you don't face quality oppositions.
actually, winning lots of games against crappy teams will boost our fifa ranking a lot. i dont think there's a difference in beating Japan or Oman in a friendly, as evidenced by that the highest ranking korea every achieved was 17 right after we swept Asia at 1997 qualifying. fifa ranking is the same as trying to decide the prettiest women in the world. its fun to do, but pointless.
Actually Junjun, I think FIFA has changed their ranking system since 1997 so I don't think it wouldn't work the same way right now. But you're right about it being pointless... I don't think that change in the system made the rankings that much more credible or better. I never thought seriously about FIFA rankings ever at all. With teams like U.S and Mexico in Top 10, teams like Italy out of top 10, and of course with Korea being 39th among other things, it automatically shows no credibility whatsoever of showing who the better teams are to a knowledgeable soccer fan.
You do realize that Italy has been "struggling" for the last few years and that Mexico has beaten Brazil TWICE this year, right? The knowledgeable soccer fan would at least know THAT.
there is. The new ranking system since 1998 does to say the least. The quality of the opposition matters. The quality of the opposition's Confederation matters too. There are quite a lotta other when calculating the FIFA ranking. Like... the quality of the opposing team's confederation matters, but not always. Winning against a UEFA team may boost more than a CONCACAF team. However, there's the 25% rule applied to it. That "Confederation boost" only works only if the opponent is within the top 25% of the opposing team's confederation. So winning against Luxemburg won't have that UEFA boost. There's quite a lot more rules. the FIFA ranking system changed around 1998. As a result Korea's ranking sunk quite a lot.
then how can you explain mexico's boost in ranking? they've got all the way to 5th place after winning the Gold Cup and america becoming 10th? North America is considered as same "points" as Asia. So... the "bonus" may work for Europe, but asia dont ahve any bonus to begin with, so beatin lower asian countries have penalties?
well, there's a lot more criteria than the ones I mentioned. My point was that FIFA does take note of the fact that winning against a strong team should count more than winning against a weak team. That's all I can say for sure because I've read quite a lot of articles regarding the ranking issue. I actually have a scrapped nut-shell factsheet of how FIFA ranking works, but I can't find it now. I hope I can explain it to you in more detail, but unfortunately I'm not an expert. All I can say is that FIFA does differentiate the strong teams from weak teams. The best way for Korea to boost its rankings is to beat a highly ranked CONMEBOL or UEFA team at an important Cup tournament with a BIG goal margin. (duh)
Mexico is ranked so high because: They beat the number 1 team (Brazil) twice this year, in an official tournament (Gold Cup). The rankings don't care that Brazil did not send their #1 squad, or that the Gold Cup is not taken so seriously. The boost to Mexico is the equivalent that a European nation could get for beating France twice in the EuroCup.
yeah Mexico did indeed beat Brazil... without Ronaldo... Rivaldo... R.Carlos... Ronaldihno... etc etc... oh that's right, pretty much their B or C squad. It does not merit them to be in the top 10. And Italy sure doesn't look like they're exactly struggling in the Euro qualifying recently. The key point here I tried to make was that FIFA rankings is not valid of showing who the best Full-strength national teams in the world are. It may be able to tell which national teams are playing the best as of right now result wise, but that's about it. It's very shallow... for example it doesn't go into what kind of squad that team has sent and etc... Go to the Beautiful game board or the rivalries board and see how much support you get for FIFA rankings being legimate of telling who the top national teams are.. You won't have much. Or just ask this to yourself. Are Mexico and USA two of the top ten footballing nations in the world, and are better teams than the likes of Italy and Netherlands? I hope your answer is a no...
The don't because they can't. The only one who can tell which is the A team of a nation is the coach. Every other opinion is that, just an opinion. None doubt that player per player Netherlands and Italy are better teams than Mexico and USA... But USA and Mexico finished ahead of both on the last world Cup (Mexico winning his group ahead of Italy and USA reaching quaterfinals ahead of Mexico).
as K19 says... Or just ask this to yourself. Are Mexico and USA two of the top ten footballing nations in the world
For your first point, I was talking in regards to the quality of players each national team would use... of course you're right about the "A" team sorely being determined by the coach and it may not include some of the star players, but they usually bring up the best quality players for the matches that do matter to them. Yes I realize that there is no way of keeping track of these little things, but I was just simply emphasizing that those are the things that you would ultimately have to consider to analyse which is a better team than the other. But of course there is no way of implicating every single little statistical considerations into these rankings. There is no sure system of determining which national team is the better team than the other, and there will never be one. But that doesn't mean the current FIFA ranking system is perfect, either (far from it). Perhaps I was way out of line earlier saying that FIFA rankings have NO credibility at all... I mean they gotta rank the teams somehow and I guess its the best possible method they have for now. So I won't complain. I just won't take it really seriously On your second point about USA and Mexico finishing ahead of Italy in the world cup... I'm not sure of the point you tried to make. Using that analogy, Korea finished ahead of ALL of them in the World cup, so maybe they should be ranked higher than both of them. Seriously though, if you're saying that player per player comparisons doesn't necessarily come out to team vs team comparisons ALL the time, then you're right. Teams like USA and Mexico can very well outplay and beat "better" teams like Italy and Netherlands on some days. The last world cup proved just that. However, in the long run and in the ultimate scheme of things, talent pool does matter and equates to a better team. My bottom line is: FIFA rankings do not determine how one nation is better than the other nations in football. It as many flaws within it and it's far from being perfect. I think we can all agree on that.
Fifa ranks the teams using an objective method, which the only think that matters is which team won the match, and we all know that the best not always win. Officially Brazil send a senior representative to Play on CONCACAF Gold Cup... But it was the best possible Brazilian team? We all believe that not, but how do we determine that using a non subjective method? We would find more problems than solutions if we try to find one. What about if Brazil for x, y or z reason decide not to send their "A" team to the next World Cup? Would that mean that Germany 2006 doesn't count because the best team wasn't playing?Of course not, is not Germany 2006 Champion's fault that Brazil hypothetically did that. The point that im trying to do is that Mexico and USA had been more successful than Italy and Netherlands using FIFA standards that includes friendlies, B sides Cups like Confederations Cups and Gold Cup, among the World Cup. Does being more successful mean that they are better? I believe that not always, specially if you aren't agree with FIFA standards. But all the 2004 nations than can play the World Cup are member of FIFA, so that have to be play with its rules. We don't have to replay Japorea 2002 because Korea cheated according to the media and many soccer fans; Korea, Spain and Italy followed the rules, and referees mistakes are parts of the game. Does Korea is better than Spain and Italy? We all believe that not, but Korea was more successful on the last World Cup. (although FIFA consider more result on its ranking). The Euro Cup starts next year. If Spain and Italy have a good tournament they will be more successful than USA and Mexico, and probably they are going to be higher in the ranking too. There is no objective method to determine which teams "really" is the best. What about if instead of playing the World Cup, we organize a debate between coaches, journalists, sports columnists, confederations executives, bigsoccer members and other soccer wize people to determine the real World Champion (the Best Team in the world)? I personally prefer the World Cup and FIFA ranking.
Hate to rain on anyones parade but since the World Cup Korea has played 6 matches at home and only gone on the road once (to Japan). results I think speak of where Korea deserves to be in the world rankings. v Brazil Lost 3-2 v Colombia Drew 0-0 v Japan Lost 1-0 v Japan (away) Won 1-0 v Uruguay Lost 2-0 v Argentina Lost 1-0 v Vietnam Won 5-0 Sure, it's not many games but there was ample opportunity to pick up some ranking points there. Coming into the W.C. (in 2002 only) they had 4 wins (one on penalties) 5 losses and 5 Draws. The wins were against Finland, Scotland, Costa Rica and Mexico (on penalties). Hardly inspiring stuff. So since the start of 2002 Korea has had: 7 wins (two on penalties) 11 losses 7 draws 10 away games 15 home games I assume venue counts for ranking points as well. Only three out of ten away games were won. Korea is better than 39th in the world, I agree with that. But just how much better? It's all very well 'knowing' you are a good team but it helps to freakin well prove it from time to time. Korea has not done that since the W.C. And take a look at any of the teams above Korea in the rankings. Would you be very confident that Korea could go to that country and beat them? On what Iv'e seen this year I certainly wouldn't be. Spare a thought for Australia who beat England 3-1 in England in January. They are ranked 67th.
http://www.fifa.com/en/rank/procedures.html Key Points: The ranking list is produced by a computer program which assigns a team points for every match, according to clearly defined criteria. The factors taken into consideration are: 1. Winning, drawing and losing 2. Number of goals 3. Home or away match 4. Importance of the match (multiplication factor) 5. Regional strength (multiplication factor) "But by contrast to normal league championships, for the World Ranking a team's points for a match do not depend solely on whether they win, lose or draw. Also affecting the total for a match will be the number of goals scored and conceded, the venue and the importance of the match. In addition, the strength of the opponent is considered, so that a win over a weakly rated opponent will earn fewer points than one against a strongly rated one. This means that a win will not simply bring two or three points and a draw one, as would happen in a national league. The calculation is more complicated since it incorporates the factors mentioned above." The importance of a game is also considered - a World Cup encounter is weighted more heavily than a friendly match. The method applied here is to use a pre-calculated factor by which the points totals of a given match are multiplied. The factors used are: Friendly match x 1.00 Continental championship preliminary x 1.50 World Cup preliminary match x 1.50 Continental championship finals match x 1.75 FIFA Confederations Cup match x 1.75 World Cup finals match x 2.00 Regional weighting: For 2003, the following weighting factors will apply: CONMEBOL x 1.00 UEFA x 1.00 AFC x 0.95 CONCACAF x 0.95 CAF x 0.93 OFC x 0.93 So Asia is weighted the same as Central America and more than Africa and Oceania.
Ah yes, FIFA/Coca-Cola rankings. This statement from the FIFA website says all you need to know about it: In August 1993 FIFA, working in co-operation with the Coca-Cola Company, introduced a ranking system for senior national teams. It's a marketing gimmick, no more no less. What do FIFA Rankings count for? Do they gain you qualification to European tournaments? No. Is it used to determine seedings or group draws for qualification? No. Is it any coincidence that they were initiated the year before the USA World Cup in 1994? Far be it from me to suggest that the Americans like their rankings and positional statistics in their sports... but it suddenly makes a lot more sense for your average American sports fan to watch a seemingly uninspiring match involving Romania or Switzerland if you know that you're going to see the 7th or 12th best team in the world at the time - see the Simpsons for the dig at football's powerful nations: (in suitably derisive tone) "this match will decide which is the best soccer nation in the world - Mexico or Portugal"
Well said. there isn't much point to FIFA rankings and that was the first point me and junjun made on this post. Since they must rank the teams somehow they have this current system, which by no means is too credible.
A different sport, but I think it sums up world rankings quite nicely. Stephen Fleming (the New Zealand cricket captain) recently said that they are aiming to become number 2 in the world cricket rankings. We are currently number 3. He said that the rankings are something that people scoff at and say they mean nothing when teams are ranked lowly. But when teams move up the rankings they suddenly start taking notice and telling everybody. Q: How many times was I told what Koreas 'fipa' ranking was last year? A: Lost count. I am not accusing anybody on this board of being that stupid, but it didn't become an issue until Korea started their slide. Oh by the way. Korea has won 10 games since the start of 2002. Don't know how I came up with 7. Must have been the 3am thing. 10 away games 18 home games
In my opinion I think the rankings are credible but just not totally accurate. It's impossible to be exact but as I said, how many teams above Korea are they clearly better than? Some nations are not well represented because of geography and money. In other words they don't have the cash to travel great distances and play good teams. But I think the top 30 is reasonable. There are however probably a dozen teams outside the top 30 that could challenge most teams in the top 30. HJ you are almost as busy as me patrolling the forums. Devon's, this one, I saw you on Dave's as well. I am now doing over Graeme's new Anyang board as well.
well based on the statistics they use to figure out the rankings and all, it's credible that way. I mean Korea does not play too many games are all and since that's part of it, they drop, according to the ranking system. Like you said it is not accurate, and as I said earlier there will never be any ranking system that'll make things perfect. I suppose this system is the best one we have for now. I'll still won't care too much for it, rankings are mostly for bragging rights anyway. I agree about Korea being top 30 considering all factors. Probably not higher based on how they played and number of games they played. But I think 39th is just way off. I still don't think USA and Mexico are 2 of the top 10 in the world, either. But hey, lets not start this debate all over again. We all know where we all stand on this now
Actually, FIFA has been using the rankings, along with a countries World Cup finishes, to determine No. 1 rankings for World Cup groups. They may be flawed, but they do mean something.
I take it you didn't see them struggle to beat Oman 1-0 at Incheon last night. Oman are ranked 102 in the world. True the team didn't include overseas based players but they still had four from the run on eleven from the World Cup and several other squad players and guys that have come through in the last year. I doubt Oman were are full strength either, given that Vietnam fielded an under 23 team against Korea the other day. It was pretty damn ugly to say the least. After watching that, then watching Man U play Leceister and Aston Villa play Chelsea, PSV play AZ the difference in the passing quality was scary. Constantly the Koreans pass across field to guys moving forward and they have to stop and wait for the pass or go back to retrieve it. And they desperately need a top class striker to come through. They usually score just through share weight of chances against weaker teams and in tight games they struggle. As I say, if Korea really is a powerful soccer playing nation they will have to prove it. It will be so easy for them to fall into that trap of playing like rubbish for 3 years and saying it is all build up to the World Cup and then the whole tournament falls over on one sh1tty performance. World Cups have wrecked international Rugby and they are doing the same to some soccer nations as well. When do the Asian WC qualifiers start for 2006 ?
One other thing. It seems very popular to always complain about the US's ranking, but take a look at the facts. In am NOT American by the way. They are ranked 11th. They have played 37 times since January 2002 to now. 22 wins 5 draws 10 losses In 37 games they have only lost 3 times to teams ranked below them. Poland (31), Rep. of Ireland (14) and Italy (12). Not exactly weak teams. If the US deserved to be much lower then we would probably see them being upset by lower ranked teams a bit more often wouldn't we? Their record against the current top 30 teams: 1 Brazil (lost 0-1 and 1-2) 2 France 3 Spain 4 Argentina (lost 0-1) 5 Mexico (beat them 1-0 and again 2-0 and drew 0-0) 6 England 7 Netherlands (lost 0-2) 8 Turkey (lost 1-2) 9 Czech Republic 9 Germany (lost 2-4 and 0-1) which is what you would expect or else they would be ranked higher. 11 United States 12 Italy (lost 0-1) 13 Cameroon (drew 0-0) 14 Ireland Republic (lost 1-2) 14 Denmark 16 Belgium 17 Portugal (beat them 3-2) 18 Sweden 19 Costa Rica (beat them 2-0 and 3-2) 20 Romania 21 Paraguay 22 Uruguay (beat them 2-1) 23 Croatia 24 Japan 25 Norway 26 Greece 27 Senegal 28 Colombia 28 Russia 30 Nigeria and outside of this (20 further games) they lost to Poland (31) in the World Cup and won 16 times plus 3 draws. It is nitpicking to complain about where they are ranked in my opinion. They are undoubtably in the top 20 and with their results they deserve to be about where they are. The rankings are not about what a team can do. They are about what they HAVE done.