Alternative World Rankings Thread

Discussion in 'FIFA and Tournaments' started by vancity eagle, Dec 27, 2018.

  1. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    #101 vancity eagle, Nov 24, 2021
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2021
    Iranian Monitor

    I'm glad you've conceded the Cosafa cup point, and it is not a small factor by any means. Anybody can just google elo rankings and whatever team you want to look up and you will see all the evidence right there, which I have just done.

    Just from that Cosafa cup alone (a tournament with not a single 1st squad player)

    Senegal lost 2-1 to Namibia which resulted in a loss of 36 points, and drew with Eswatini which resulted in a loss of another 18 points. That is a total of minus 54 points from TWO MATCHES FROM A MEANINGLESS TOURNAMENT. Now just for some context Iran in the 2018 World Cup gained 40 points for beating Morocco and drawing against Portugal.

    So 2 matches from a meaningless tournament are literally more influential in the Elo rankings than TWO WORLD CUP MATCHES. How anybody can look at these rankings with a straight face would simply be astonishing.

    I will return to Iran and their World Cup matches, but I have figured out as I suspected that the "minor tournaments" was not the only problem with Elo and their ridiculous bias which seems to affect CAF sides more than others.

    Elo like FIFA has a bias against draws. They do not reward enough points for draws against tough opposition, and as CAF has more draws than any other confederation, they will suffer under ELO as they do under FIFA.

    Evidence for lack of reward for draws

    Canada recieved 12 and 13 points respectively for draws against the USA and Mexico. We can agree 2 very strong opponents. Yet they recieved 17 points for beating Martinique, 11 points for beating Bermuda, 13 points for beating Suriname. So lets order these results by Canada by points recieved.

    Beating Martinique 4-1 = 17 points
    Beating Suriname 4-0 = 13 points
    Tying Mexico = 13 points
    Tying USA = 12 points
    Beating Bermuda 5-1 = 11 points

    Now if you notice the scores actually matter in Elo unlike FIFA, and I actually agree with that HOWEVER, Elo gives way more importance to the degree of victory, than the strength of the actual team you are playing. In my ranking you do not gain anything from multiple goal victories against teams below a certain threshold. Bermuda, Martinique, and Surinam are all well below that threshold. This is obviously to avoid rewarding a ridiculous amount of points for a match like the one where Australia beat a team 20-0 a few years back.

    So Canada gains more points by thrashing crappy teams like Martinique and Surinam than drawing against the USA.

    Now I can completely understand why Elo seems to overrate Concacaf and AFC teams, because the rankings gives way too much credit for beating teams ranked way outside of the top 100 by multiple goals.

    Now ask yourself if beating these crappy teams by a few goals indicates more strength than drawing against USA or Mexico.

    Other crazy examples

    Nigeria gained 8 points from drawing Brazil in a friendly

    Iran gained 7 points from beating Uzbekistan away in a friendly.

    Now unlike FIFA, Elo takes into account away matches, and again so does my ranking. However my ranking does not give that much weight to an away match, or simply winning of course where drawing against Brazil is basically the same reward as beating Uzbekistan on the road.

    Algeria also only gained 4 points for drawing against Mexico in a friendly.

    So Iran gained almost double the points from beating Uzbekistan in a friendly than Algeria gained from drawing Mexico in a friendly. Ridiculous.

    More on the ridiculous amount of points given for multiple goal and away victories regardless of the opponents being poor.

    Iran won 25 points from beating Morocco at the world cup and 15 points from tying Portugal at the World Cup. 2 very good results I agree.

    But Iran actually gained equal or more points than either of these 2 results in 2 world cup qualifying matches against Iraq and Bahrain. In fact Iran gained more points from beating Bosnia IN A FRIENDLY, than they did drawing Portugal in the World Cup. Ridiculous.

    Bahrain 0 v Iran 3 WCQ = 25 points
    Iran 1 v Morocco 0 WC = 25 points
    Iran 3 v Iraq 0 WCQ = 19 points
    Bosnia 0 v Iran 2 friendly = 16 points
    Iran 1 v Portugal 1 WC = 15 points

    So Iran can gain more points by beating Bosnia in a FRIENDLY than drawing Portugal at the World Cup, simply because they beat them on the road.

    They could also gain more points by beating Iraq by multiple goals than drawing Portugal.

    Ask yourself what is really a greater indicator of strength.


    Elo is actually worse than FIFA rankings for the following reasons

    1. They count Mickey Mouse tournaments, and those Mickey mouse tournaments can end up being more influential THAN WORLD CUP GAMES. As in the case of Senegal.

    2. They do not give enough credit for draws.

    3. They give way too much credit for beating really bad teams by multiple goals.

    4. They give way too much credit for beating really bad teams on the road.

    Now that I understand their methodology more I see why their rankings are way off.

    Horrific sham of a ranking system. They actually make FIFA look good, and that is saying something. They have all the same things that are bad about FIFA, the cumulative ranking system, the bias against draws, and then where they try and fix some of FIFA's problems (no win/loss margins and no away matches) they actually make things much worse, making beating really crappy teams by multiple goals, or on the road, more important than the actual strength of the team.
    Kamtedrejt and Iranian Monitor repped this.
  2. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    You make good points about the flaws in ELO's methodology, but the bigger problem CAF teams have (and would continue to have if we fixed the flaws in ELO's rankings) would go back to the "bogus" points I had made previously. Otherwise. give Senegal back the points they lost from that mickey mouse tournament: you still wouldn't be happy with how Senegal would rate.
  3. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    #103 Iranian Monitor, Nov 24, 2021
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2021
    While I won't dispute some of your points, I think you should bear in mind the following as well:
    1- Iran was basically taking back points it had previously lost to Bahrain and Iraq. Those points, moreover, exchanged from within the same confederation aren't as significant as points you bring from outside your confederation to add to its tally. Sure, in the short run, points are points and it doesn't seem to matter whether you take them from an AFC team or from someone outside the AFC. But it does actually matter: the aggregates points in the AFC are added to when you get results from teams outside, while results within the confederation simply cause the same pie to be divided differently each time.
    2- While I would definitely urge ELO to forget about computing results from any unofficial friendly matches or non-FIFA date tournaments, I would be careful going too far when it comes to official "A" friendly matches on fifa-dates between confederations such as Algeria v Mexico (which you like to emphasize) or Bosnia v Iran (which you want to dismiss a bit). Until we have more competitive games than the few each 4 years between confederations at the World Cup, these friendly games are the only avenue for CAF, AFC etc to take points from other confederations to add to their total tally. To ignore or give them very low weight wouldn't be good for the lesser confederations, including CAF.
    3- The ELO system, which might seem odd compared to how fans perceive the importance of results, is time tested system that has done alright (except for CAF). The current FIFA ranking methodology is alright mainly because it is a modified version of ELO's system. I am actually undecided between the two in their most important differences, such as how much weight (if any) should be given to margin of victory. (But the part of the ELO methodology which I find totally unjustified is using unofficial friendly games and tournament results, which shouldn't count at all).
  4. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    #104 vancity eagle, Nov 24, 2021
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2021
    Iranian Monitor

    I rest my case regarding how downright ridiculous the Elo Rankings are.

    Anybody who wants to understand why can read my lengthy writeup.

    In Summation
    Bolded same problem with FIFA rankings

    1. Seriously undervalues draws *

    2. Overrates victories over crappy teams

    3. Seriously overrates multiple goal victories against crappy teams.

    4. Seriously overrates road victories against crappy teams.

    5. Uses "mickey mouse" tournaments

    6. "Mickey mouse" tournaments and friendlies can be more influential than World Cup games.

    7. Can reward teams simply for playing more matches. *

    CAF is fine, there is nothing wrong with CAF, and all of the reasons you gave to try and defend why they are ranked so low in Elo are bogus. The reasons are what I have pointed above.

    If you understand what I have pointed out and are still defensive, then I really dont trust your motives.

    Ironically despite 3 very different ranking methods, Iran is roughly the same in all 3 rankings

    My Ranking Iran = 23
    FIFA Ranking Iran = 21
    Elo Ranking Iran = 20

    Now whereas Iran is ranked high in Elo mainly because of friendly victories against Bosnia and victories against Bahrain and Iraq. They are that high in my ranking mainly because of their impressive World Cup 2018.
  5. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    Something else I want people to consider when thinking about Elo Ratings. We often hear about their "scientific" formula that is tried and tested.

    Elo rankings were created to rank CHESS PLAYERS.

    Now think about what could be wrong with using a system designed to rank chess players to rank national soccer teams.

    Do you think there is much of a difference in strength and quality between the top 200 chess players in the world ?

    Now apply that logic to national football teams.

    I think the top 200 chess players in the world would all be very very good.

    The top 200 national football teams, not so much.

    No wonder their system overrates victories over crappy teams. Because if you applied the ranking to Chess players, the #200 ranked chess player in the world would not be as crappy as the Solomon Islands football team.

    Elo rankings quite frankly would be much better to rank club sides than national football teams.
    Kamtedrejt and Every Four Years repped this.
  6. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    What motives would that be?

    Anyway, some of the exchanges have been helpful in understanding the issues and others have been purely judgmental and not exactly illuminating for me. In the meantime, I go back where I started several pages back:
    1- At the moment, I think FIFA's rankings are fine, which isn't to say I rate every team as they do.
    2- Elo rankings for the top 10, in particular, better accord with my sense of the top teams and how they rate compared to one another, but their ranking of CAF teams isn't how I would rate them.
    3- Rankings are useful, besides for seeding purposes, mainly to give casual fans a rough sense how teams they are unfamiliar with rate. They are by no means even remotely a definitive statement of a team's abilities. For that, you will need to carefully follow the team in question and even then often find yourself surprised by the result from the scoreboard. That is football and that's one reason I like the game.
    Metropolitan repped this.
  7. Metropolitan

    Metropolitan Member

    Paris Saint Germain
    Sep 5, 2005
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    #107 Metropolitan, Nov 24, 2021
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2021
    I believe you're exaggerating, and I'll explain you why.

    This is arguable. Drawing against a strong teams in a friendly, as did Nigeria in Brazil cannot give you excessive points, because that's a friendly.

    That is incorrect. If Canada earned tons of points again inst crappy teams, it's because it was a crappy team to begin with. 2 years ago, Canada had 1500 points. Now obviously, in beating up the other minnows, they took them points therefore increasing the gap.

    Yes, when Canada was crappy, it took +17 points from Martinique, but if both team would meet again tomorrow in a world cup qualifiers, Canada would only get +4 points out of the very same 4-1 victory. Because Canada is now a lot better rated than it used to be.

    See here a simulation of game between both teams at their current ranking to see by yourself:

    You're correct about Mickey Mouse tournaments, they are over-evaluated. Regional tournaments have a K coefficient of 40, which is similar to a world cup qualifier. That makes no sense. The coefficient should better be reduced at 30 considering that many teams don't line up their best teams in such tournaments.

    However, friendlies have only a K coefficient of 20. You'll need many victories against very big teams to only progress out of friendlies. Their impact is very limited in the evolution of ratings, compared to continental tournament (with a K of 50) and of course the world cup (K of 60).

    That is mathematically incorrect. At each game the very same level of points are exchanged between both team, if one wins 5 points, the other will lose 5 points. Therefore it's impossible to grow points only by playing tons of matches.

    I've already shown you this with the Canada-Martinique example. But to give you another one, when France beats Kazakhstan 8-0 in a world cup qualifier, France took only +1 point.

    I do believe there's a flaw in Elo ratings that you haven't mentioned and it is that you actually have better interest to play regularly against strong teams than against weak teams.

    If you only meet strong teams, then you don't lose lots of points if you're beaten because it's a strong team. However, if you win, then you get a lot of points. And it's obviously the opposite if you only meet weak teams, as you're basically condemned to always win in order to only maintain your current level of rating.

    Now this being said, the great strength of Elo ratings is that they are auto-corrective. If Senegal articially lost points in lining up a B-team at Cosafa Cup, then that means that with the same score they'll earn more points in their next upcoming games. So in the end, it all balances out.
    majspike and Iranian Monitor repped this.
  8. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    No it isn't "arguable" it seriously underrates draws. I've given plenty of examples, and you can't use the "friendly" excuse because I compared like for like. Friendly vs Friendly.

    Iran gained roughly the same amount of points for beating Uzbekistan 1-0 in a road friendly (7 points) than Nigeria got drawing Brazil in a friendly (8 points) Keep in mind that Iran is rated much higher than Uzbekistan and also much higher than Nigeria.

    Algeria also only gained 4 points from drawing Mexico in a friendly. So Iran gained almost double the points for beating Uzbekistan in a friendly than Algeria got for drawing Mexico. Again Iran is ranked quite a bit above Algeria as well and still gets a lot of credit for beating a well below them ranked Uzbekistan.

    You also ignored the fact that a FRIENDLY can actually gain you more points than a draw against a credible opponent in A WORLD CUP MATCH.

    Iran gained 16 points from beating Bosnia IN A FRIENDLY, while only gaining 15 points from drawing Portugal IN THE WORLD CUP.

    You are not going to win this argument. My point stands.

    Again you are completely wrong. Canada didn't gain all those points simply because they beat those crappy teams, but because they beat them by several goals.

    Also you act like Canada was ranked so lowly when they beat those teams , and thats the reason they gained so many points, and that is false. THEY WERE NOT RANKED LOWLY.

    Canada was ranked #42 when they gained all those points beating those crappy teams. That is not such a poor ranking.

    Lets focus on Iran

    Is Iran ranked lowly like Canada ? Nope. They've consistently been in the high 20's.

    So please tell me how Iran can gain more points from beating Iraq and Bahrain (25 and 19 points)than they do for drawing Portugal in a world cup match ? (15 points) In fact their victory over Bahrain got them the same amount of points as beating Morocco in the world up (both 25 points)

    wrong again. I've provided plenty of examples where teams can gain more points from friendlies than credible World cup matches.

    Algeria gained 30 points for beating Colombia 3-0 in a friendly.

    Again Iran gained more points for beating Bosnia IN A FRIENDLY than they did for tying Portugal at the World Cup.

    Nope. I'm not talking about point transfers between teams. I'm saying if team A plays more games than team B, team A can gain an advantage simply because they played more games.

    If team A and team B are both tied on points.

    Team A could play San Marino 5 different times and gain points (albeit a small amount) x5 and gain that much more points than Team B,

    Thus Team A has gotten an advantage simply by playing more games.

    This point is true to an extent, but you also have an advantage for being a big fish in a small pond because as I have pointed out countless times you get heavily rewarded for beating weak teams by multiple goals, or beating them on the road, even if you are ranked way above them.

    The Elo formula is the most detrimental to teams who play very often against underrated teams, where you are going to see plenty of draws and not get rewarded for them. Thats the reason why the CAF rankings are way off.

    I haven't seen any "auto correction" to be honest. All I've seen are the CAF rankings to keep declining over time, mainly because of the "draw bias" and the parity between many of the teams.[/QUOTE]
  9. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    @vancity eagle
    I have not done the math on how many points Iran gained from the games you have mentioned, but given the low coefficient for friendly games in the Elo formula compared to World Cup matches, I think its possible you might have made an error calculating the points Iran earned beating Bosnia 2:0 in a friendly in Bosnia last year. That said, the Bosnia game was right after (the first match under our current coach) a very disastrous but thankfully short-lived period under a previous coach where Iran had lost back-to-back prelim. qualifiers -- losses that might have temporarily tanked Iran's ELO rating and caused Iran to gain more points from that match against Bosnia than would have ordinarily been true.
  10. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006

    I did not calculate any of those numbers.

    I took them straight from the website.

    At some point you are going to have to stop making excuses.
  11. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    This isn't about making excuses, as I see nothing to excuse. You pointed to something which, given the low coefficient for friendlies compared to World Cup games, appeared a bit counter intuitive. So I am trying to understand it.
  12. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    #112 vancity eagle, Nov 24, 2021
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2021
    It appears that the multiple goal victories or away victories really boost the points, even if only a friendly, and even if against a much inferior opponent.

    If I can make an analogy it's this.

    FIFA rankings have some faults.

    My rankings and Elo address those faults.

    However Elo's "fixes" end up being worse than the initial problems.

    I believe my ranking to be quite a bit superior to both.
  13. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    My rankings use a formula only known to me:)

    The Best (A)
    1- France
    2- Brazil
    Next Best (A-/A)
    3- Italy
    4- England
    5- Germany
    6- Spain
    6- Argentina
    8- Belgium
    Almost with the Best (B+/A-)
    9- Switzerland
    10- Denmark
    11- Portugal
    12- Holland
    Not Quite among the Best (B+)
    13- Croatia
    14- Morocco
    15- Sweden
    16- Colombia
    17- USA
    18- Serbia
    Very Good (B/B+)
    17- Mexico
    17- Algeria
    19- Senegal
    20- Iran
    20- South Korea
    22- Ukraine
    23- Ecuador
    23- Czech Republic
    25- Nigeria
    26- Peru
    26- Wales
    28- Uruguay
    29- Japan
    30- Poland
    31- Canada
    32- Saudi Arabia
    Good (B)
    33- Australia
    33- Chile
    35- Turkey
    35- Austria
    35- Scotland
    38- Tunisia
    39- Russia
    40- Egypt
    Almost Good (B-/B)
    41- Ivory Coast
    42- Bolivia
    43- Ghana
    44- Greece
    45- Hungry
    46- Norway
    47- Romania
    48- Venezuela
    49- Cameroon
    50- South Africa
    Metropolitan repped this.
  14. Philipp Morgenstern

    Manchester United
    Oct 30, 2021
    I think Russia is way too low, should be somewhere between 20 and 15
  15. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    Perhaps Russia could be ranked a bit higher, although certainly nothing close to where you suggest. At best, one could put them near the bottom of the B/B+ category, somewhere between 25-32.
  16. Philipp Morgenstern

    Manchester United
    Oct 30, 2021
    in General the uefa teams are underestimated and Asian, North american and African teams are overestimated, which is probably due to the nations league
  17. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    #117 Iranian Monitor, Nov 25, 2021
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2021
    Actually, in doing my rankings, I proceed asking myself where would these non-UEFA teams finish playing both at home and away if they replaced the 4th and 5th tier sides in the 10 UEFA's qualifying groups? Those with a reasonable shot finishing among the top 2, would be in my top 20. Those I would expect to finish in 3rd place would be in and around the top 30 and so on. Which, incidentally, is why I believe Russia could more properly rank between 25-30.
  18. Metropolitan

    Metropolitan Member

    Paris Saint Germain
    Sep 5, 2005
    Paris Saint Germain FC
    Nat'l Team:
    You can do Elo ratings simulation using that link. I would invite you to do some trials to see how different initial Elo ratings, goal differences, competitions or terrain modify the ratings:

    Now this being said, let's not forget that all ranking methods are necessarily flawed for the simple reason that the principle to rank teams which haven't played one another is alreadly flawed in itself. And this is particularly true knowing that teams from different continental confederations only rarely meet competitively. That basically happens mostly every 4 years with the world cup only, now that the confederations cup no longer exist.

    As told by @Iranian Monitor, rankings, no matter FIFA, Elo or your own method, can only be tools, among many others, to estimate teams strength, but they'll never be enough in themselves to really know. And that's fortunate as otherwise watching football games would be really boring.

    At best, rankings can be useful to seed teams in different pots. In this regard I consider them superior to other methods such as UEFA using the number of points earned in qualifying groups as that basically favours teams who had easy qualifying groups.

    However, using FIFA ranking to automatically qualify teams to the CONCACAF octogonal is already dubious to me. How are we really sure that Jamaica is really better than Haiti? Why does Jamaica got automatically qualified whereas Haiti had to beat Canada? Granted, it's likely that neither Jamaica nor Haiti would have qualified for the world cup, but the core principle remains that this should be decided on a football pitch.
    Iranian Monitor repped this.
  19. Kamtedrejt

    Kamtedrejt Member+

    Internazionale Milano
    Mar 14, 2017
    FC Internazionale Milano
    Nat'l Team:
    Here we go ELO deducted Saudi Arabia 29 points for a loss to Jordan at the Arab Cup. They lost actually more points now in one game than they gained with wins over China and Vietnam and an away draw at Australia in WCQ all together.

    That is pretty much to what vancity eagle pointed towards when discussing ELO's flaws.
    I agree.
    At first I wasn't aware of that problem in ELO Ratings.

    Note that Saudi Arabia are taking part in Qatar with its U23 team.
    vancity eagle repped this.
  20. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    From my perspective, ELO should give zero weight to any tournament or match that takes place when there is no mandate for clubs to release players. I had agreed with vancity on that particular point but while this is a problem that occasionally has adversely affected the ranking of a few of the CAF sides (e.g. Senegal), and may indeed artificially boost the ranking of others who do well in these tournament, the main problem that CAF teams generally face in the ELO ranking is what I have alluded to, e.g. the factors that limit the number of ELO points in CAF as a whole such as absence of teams that are consistent enough over the years, partly because of a proportionally greater parity in CAF.
  21. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    #121 vancity eagle, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:01 AM
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2021 at 3:07 AM
    Like I said Elo is complete garbage.

    Not only do they count "mickey mouse" tournaments, but those tournaments can be more influential than actual world cup matches. In this case 3 world cup qualifiers.
  22. vancity eagle

    vancity eagle Member+

    Apr 6, 2006
    #122 vancity eagle, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:02 AM
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2021 at 3:11 AM
    You keep repeating this falsehood. It doesn't make it true just because you keep repeating it. I've discussed IN DETAIL, the many flaws of Elo.

    CAF isn't the problem. Elo is the problem.
  23. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    I have read your responses, conceded those points you have made that I felt had merit, and made the points I felt supported my view on this issue. The same way you don't appear to have been convinced by my points (even though you sometimes allude to basically the same thing, namely greater parity among CAF teams depriving them of too many sides that win as often, but then making it a flaw of how ELO rates "draws", by saying they should rate draws more than they do), I am not convinced by what you have to say on some of these points either. Each of us can draw our own conclusions on these issues.
  24. Iranian Monitor

    Iranian Monitor Member+

    Aug 18, 2004
    Tehran Iran
    #124 Iranian Monitor, Dec 2, 2021 at 3:28 AM
    Last edited: Dec 2, 2021 at 3:37 AM
    My own position is that if a tournament is not serious enough to have a mandate for clubs to release players for that tournament, the results from that tournament should not count in any ranking system, including ELO. That is a position that I have held for a long time over the years. But lets say a tournament is one where a side can have its players released for that tournament, but chooses to send a subpar side instead. The problem in that case would be with the teams doing so and the consequences of their decision would properly rest with them.

    As for the "FIFA Arab Cup" in particular, I am disappointed with 2 things about this tournament (which could otherwise be a good one) and have a 3rd point to make:

    1- no mandate for clubs to release players
    2- the organizers allowing sides to send teams different than the one which basically qualified them to the tournament itself. Specifically, it is a fraud that Morocco, Algeria and Saudi Arabia can qualify to a tournament based on their FIFA ranking, and then send a side that isn't officially the same team that qualified them to the tournament. Whatever the age and/or the club affiliation of the players they choose to send, the team should not be allowed to participate unless it represents their full national team headed by their national team coach.
    3- if there was a FIFA mandate for clubs to release players to this tournament, I would have no problems with the results of the game being used for ranking purposes even if a side decided not to call up their best players. In other words, same tournament as for instance the "FIFA Arab Cup", same players used by the participating teams but by choice (despite the opportunity to call up your best), and besides not allowing a team to participate using something other than the team that is the basis for their qualification (in other words not permitting "MoroccoA" or "Saudi U23" etc regardless of who plays for them), I would find using the results in the tournament the way they are used by ELO to be just fine.
  25. Hayaka

    Hayaka Member+

    Jun 21, 2009
    San Francisco North Bay, Bel Marin Keys
    Nat'l Team:
    How would you enforce something like that though? Obviously not every team can bring their full lineup, due to injuries, other commitments, etc. I suppose you could require at least 8 of the starting lineup or some other bright line rule like that, but that could get messy if a side really wants to participate but can't field 8 of those players at a given time. I'm not sure it's worth the commotion it would cause.

Share This Page