All-times WC ranking?

MIGkiller · May 13, 2003

Does anyone have the total ranking of all WCs disputed so far, updated with the WC 2002 results? Any url? Thanks in advance.

lanman · May 13, 2003

Are you looking for each team's all time record?

If so hope this helps.

http://www2.sportsnet.ca/soccer/world/alltime.shtml

MIGkiller · May 13, 2003

Yes, that's the kind of ranking that I'm talking about, but the criteria is wrong.

The main criteria should be total of points gained, not wins. At least the rankings that I saw before 2002 were using it.

lanman · May 13, 2003

http://www.rsssf.com/tablesw/worldcup.html

and especially

http://www.rsssf.com/tables/3002f.html

That should give you everything you need to know.

MIGkiller · May 13, 2003

Not good yet. What the hell is Croatia doing in the 4th place?

lanman · May 13, 2003

I think it's based on points gained as a percentage of the maximum available.

That's all I have, sorry.

SueB · May 13, 2003

The information is there, perhaps you can use a calculator and figure out what it is you want.

MIGkiller · May 13, 2003

No problem. I've been looking for those rankings in a while but I can only find pre-2002 rankings.

I think the all-time WC ranking is the ideal measure for those who don't buy the crappy FIFA/Coca-Cola monthly ranking.

IASocFan · May 13, 2003

Originally posted by MIGkiller
...I think the all-time WC ranking is the ideal measure for those who don't buy the crappy FIFA/Coca-Cola monthly ranking.
Click to expand...

There is no official "all-time WC ranking." You can choose to rank by number of wins, number of points (2 or 3 points for a win), percentage of wins, number of qualifications, sum of finishes, or one of a myriad of other means. The World Cups have had as few as 13 and as many as 32 teams. How do you balance? Or do you factor in time?

The crappy FIFA/Coca-Cola monthly ranking is a reasonable attempt to objectively rank 203 teams over the last 8 years with a decreasing importance of earlier games. It ain't perfect, but I don't have anything better or less biased!

RevdUp · May 13, 2003

Originally posted by IASocFan
The crappy FIFA/Coca-Cola monthly ranking is a reasonable attempt to objectively rank 203 teams over the last 8 years with a decreasing importance of earlier games. It ain't perfect, but I don't have anything better or less biased!
Click to expand...

Which brings me to another question: Why are people here so quick to disregard the FIFA/Coca-Cola monthly rankings. The rankings are based on fairly detailed computations using valid criteria.

What is it about these rankings that many people here don't seem to like??

Excape Goat · May 13, 2003

If you cannot find in RSSSF, you won't find it anywhere.

afgrijselijkheid · May 13, 2003

try www.histora.org

scroll down - its in the world cup box and the ranking is by total points

Crowdie · May 13, 2003

Which brings me to another question: Why are people here so quick to disregard the FIFA/Coca-Cola monthly rankings. The rankings are based on fairly detailed computations using valid criteria.
Click to expand...

My issue with the FIFA/Coca-Cola monthly rankings is that it favours teams that play more games. For teams from the smaller confederations it is difficult to get games against quality competition and with some members of UEFA only interested in themselves then this will not change anytime soon.

That said, congratulations to England (Aus), Scotland (NZ), the Irish Republic (Aus) and the United States (NZ) who have played or have agreed to play either Australia or New Zealand in friendlies this year. It is good to see some countries thinking about what is good for the game all around the world.

Crowdie.