FIFA 2023 WWC qualifiers

Discussion in 'Women's World Cup' started by SiberianThunderT, Jun 30, 2020.

  1. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    #26 SiberianThunderT, Jul 1, 2020
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
    I didn't lie, and I never used JUST the top ten as my argument. Again, you necessarily zero in on specific details and ignore the big picture. Are their world rankings statistics similar? Yes. Are they the same? No; I've shown at least three different ways that the UEFA men have slightly more rep than the UEFA women do. That's why 13 for the men vs 12 or 11 for the women fits just fine.
     
  2. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Again, I think your strong/weak binary is skewing things a little bit. I don't think China vs Mexico, N.Korea vs Switzerland, or Russia vs Cameroon will be lopsided at all. There's plenty of mid-tier teams already at the WWC and a lot of mid-tier teams that will be added with the expansion. Not to mention we've already seen that the likes of N.Korea and Colombia can absolutely challenge the top-ranked teams. Yeah, we'll probably add two or three minnows to the three or four we already have - but that's at most seven minnows in an eight-group tournament.
     
  3. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    So you think this is not a lie?
    I have shown that not only the Top 10 but also the Top 40 and Top 50 are completely irrelevant if you argue that a confederation should be underrepresented because it has to many good teams.
     
  4. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    #29 SiberianThunderT, Jul 1, 2020
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2020
    I already said your statement before that had been unclear; just because we misread each other's intent doesn't make my response a lie. (Especially since your quote stripped it of the following associated sentence, removing my context.)
    And this is where our philosophical disagreement comes in to play. I say those are absolutely relevant because if you narrow your focus on a specific cutoff, you lose fidelity of the argument because specifying cutoffs makes you suspect to the natural fluctuations of the rankings. I made that point with your original top 32 argument, and you even made that argument yourself by countering with theoretical changes in the top 10 a few posts ago.

    Put another way, the overall representation at the world cup should represent *all* levels of talent that have a shot of qualifying, of showing up well, and of winning - not just whatever the specific arbitrary size of the tournament is. If a confed has extra rep in just the top 10, that needs to be a consideration (but not the main consideration); if a confed doesn't have any top-tier teams but has a large number of mid-tier teams, that needs to be a consideration (but not the main consideration); and knowing that each tournament will have a not-insignificant number of teams whose rank is up to twice the size of the tournament, the distribution down to double-size also needs to be a consideration (but not the main consideration).

    My argument has always been so much more than a confed has "too many good teams".
     
  5. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    My statement was not unclear and once again you try to blame me for your mistake. If this statement of you was just a misunderstanding why don`t you just say: Sorry, I have misunderstood you. Instead of this you accuse me of being responsible for your inability to read carefully.

    Back to the arguments: Fluctuation
    Let`s compare the newest ranking with a 1 year old ranking (12th July 2019).
    We have the same teams in the Top 10!
    From 11-20:We have the same teams in 11-20. So not one team is new in the Top 10 or the Top 20!
    From 21-30:One(!) team is new in the Top 30:Finland had a phenomenal rise from 31 to 30 while Portugal drop from 30 to 32!
    If we consider the Top 32:New are Republic of Ireland (from 33 to 31)
    and Argentina (from 34 to 32).Out is Wales (from 32 to 34).
    Concerning UEFA one team has replaced another.
    There is simply not much fluctuation in women`s rankings.
     
  6. bigsoccertst1

    bigsoccertst1 Member+

    United States
    Sep 22, 2017
    With Trans-Tasman 2023 taking away 2 spots from qualification, we have an expansion of 23-->>30 qualifying slots (30.4% expansion).

    Among many schemes, continental slot expansion could be done:

    a) Arithmetically: each region gets a 30.4% increase.

    b) Politically: political heavyweights within FIFA Council slice up the pie. So AFC+CAF+UEFA eat all slots.

    c) By FIFA ranking: 5 of 7 expansion slots go to UEFA.

    ----
    c) seems flawed because it relies on a score system that perpetuates rank levels within confederations.
    If you cannot pay for friendlies against UEFA sides, then your non-UEFA ranking will stagnate below rank #32.
    UEFA sides can continue playing each other forever, and their aggregate ranking will not sink.

    Minnows will enter the 2023 edition, anyways. I suspect that FIFA will give 1 full expansion slot to OFC: hello Fiji.
    FIFA WWC is not coming back to OFC for a long while, so that might be why we will see 2 OFC teams in 2023 WWC.
     
    SiberianThunderT and blissett repped this.
  7. blissett

    blissett Member+

    Aug 20, 2011
    Italy
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Trans-Tasman? :laugh:
     
  8. sbahnhof

    sbahnhof Member+

    Nov 21, 2016
    Aotearoa
    Buy a map
    [​IMG]
     
    blissett repped this.
  9. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    Give UEFA 2 spots (new total 10)
    Concacaf 1.5 spots (5)
    Conmebol 1.5 spots (4)
    AFC 1 spot (6)
    CAF 1 spot (4)
    OFC 1 spot (2)
    Host (1)

    If two nations (or more) co host in the future then the extra spot(s) comes from the confederation allocation

    For 2023 we have two hosts from different confederations so it needs to be modified a bit.
    UEFA 10
    CONCACAF 5
    CONMEBOL 4
    AFC 5.5
    CAF 4
    OFC 1.5
    Australia
    New Zealand
     
  10. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Just because I'm a math person, here's what a 30.4% increase would translate to if we round to the nearest half-slot:
    Code:
    ..AFC : 5.. + 1.5 = 6.5
    ..CAF : 3.. + 1.. = 4
    C'CAF : 3.5 + 1.. = 4.5
    C'BOL : 2.5 + 0.5 = 3**
    ..OFC : 1.. + 0.5 = 1.5
    .UEFA : 8.. + 2.5 = 10.5
    ..net : 23. + 7.. = 30
    **note: C'BOL had an increase of a minuscule hair over +0.75, but I rounded down to +0.5 instead of up to +1.0 b/c we would get +7.5 slots otherwise due to individual rounding and everyone else was fairly clear-cut

    Of course, this looks VERY weird because OFC is clearly overestimated (no one in this thread so far has suggested OFC get more than one full slot in addition to NZL hosting) and UEFA is unnderestimated (all but one suggestion in this thread so far points to at least 11 slots)

    So of course that gets me thinking... Since a double-host situation is rare, what if we aim for 31 distributed slots instead of 30, and then just shave off half a slot for both AFC and OFC? 23 to 31 is an increase of 34.8%, so here's what THAT would look like:
    Code:
    ..AFC : 5.. + 1.5 = 6.5 -> 6
    ..CAF : 3.. + 1.. = 4
    C'CAF : 3.5 + 1.. = 4.5
    C'BOL : 2.5 + 1.. = 3.5
    ..OFC : 1.. + 0.5 = 1.5 -> 1
    .UEFA : 8.. + 3.. = 11
    ..net : 23. + 8.. = 31 -> 30
    That looks more reasonable, though I still think UEFA could/should get 12, as I stated in my distributions in the previous thread. Some of the recent discussion above - and the +30.4% situation - makes me wonder how likely it is that UEFA get a half-slot distribution of some sort....
     
    bigsoccertst1 repped this.
  11. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Almango wants New Zealand +1,5 spots for 2023.
    None of the other confederations is interested in a playoff against an UEFA team.
    The UEFA team should be the clear favourite if not some big surprise happens like 2010 when USA lost against Mexico and had to play against Italy. FIFA has also excluded UEFA from the playoff tournament for the MWC 2026.
     
  12. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Derp, yup! I saw their 10 for UEFA but missed the 1.5 for OFC. X-D

    Yeah, if there was a UEFA playoff spot, it very likely wouldn't be a very interesting playoff... It might not need a *huge* upset to make it competitive, though. Going back to a previous post:
    It's probably reasonable that any playoff teams come from this group - maybe adding in the likes of Jamaica and Thailand. The UEFA teams would certainly beat almost any other teams (esp. those from OFC or CAF) 99% of the time, but any of those other bolded teams (DPK, C'CAF, and C'BOL) would make the home-and-away playoff against the listed UEFA teams interesting, and maybe even prevail. Unlikely, but not minuscule chances either. Heck, if there was a Mexico vs Poland or Colombia vs Iceland playoff, I'm not even sure if the UEFA team is favored in those matchups.

    FIFA hasn't forced UEFA into a playoff for either gender since that 2011 qualifying series - the fact that UEFA also has its own internal playoffs may or may not be a factor - but we are talking about FIFA after all... Who knows how the politics will play out?
     
    Lohmann repped this.
  13. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    If AFC would use World Ranking for their seeding list North Korea would likely qualify directly. If CONMEBOL get 3,5 spots we will likely have a good team in the playoff. Argentina and Chile showed at the World Cup that they would be a tough opponent for a mediocre UEFA team. If you compare the rankings of CONCACAF and CONMEBOL they are quite similar in the relevant area:
    CONCACAF:1,8,27,36,50
    CONMEBOL:8,25,32,37,48
    I don`t think CONCACAF should get a full spot more than CONMEBOL.
     
  14. almango

    almango Member+

    Sydney FC
    Australia
    Nov 29, 2004
    Bulli, Australia
    Club:
    Sydney FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Australia
    I did. I was convinced by those UEFA members of the FIFA council who argued that the Women's World Cup is a development competition and should be used to foster the development of the women's game in different parts of the world where it isn't as strong as it could be.
     
  15. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Yes Lohmann already correct me about missing that detail of your list
     
  16. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    I agree that it is a problem if teams from a confederation don`t play friendlies against teams from other confederations but it also means that these teams can get many ranking points when they play at a World Cup or Olympic Games. Every World Cup and every Olympic Games should reduce the gap between ranking strength and real strength.
     
  17. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Yes and no. Using the specific example of the last WWC, it's true that two of the three CAF participants saw relatively huge points gains. That said, the "relatively" is a biiiiig qualifier here, as neither of those two teams gained over 100pts. That sounds like a lot by itself, but when you consider that the two of them went into the WWC at 1599 and 1499, adding less than 100pts doesn't change your position in the rankings that much. That's a net gain of less than 200pts when even the best CAF teams are generally over 200pts below mid-tier UEFA sides (e.g. ratings 1750-1850). That's not going to reduce the gap anywhere near quickly enough if the WWC and OG are the only inter-confederation play CAF nations get - not to mention how the 200pts those two nations earned will get washed out between other CAF nations in regional play during the down-years of the cycle.

    Also, over in the FIFA rankings thread, @kolabear has done some excellent work on calculating "performance ratings" of teams, and IIRC the best CAF nations were performing like mid-tier UEFA sides, despite their official ratings being 200+ pts lower. The FIFA rankings do let teams adjust over time, but you can't correct gaps that large without consistent playing opportunities.
     
    bigsoccertst1 and Lohmann repped this.
  18. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    So the question is: Why had the CAF teams started with much too low ranking points? FIFA has a World Ranking for women since 2003. 17 years should be enough time to correct a error deviation.
     
  19. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    #44 SiberianThunderT, Jul 3, 2020
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2020
    Good question! It's actually a historical quirk with the ratings that I looked into a while ago... When the ratings were first made back in 2003, the average rating was 1500pts. However, any team that's entered the ranking since then has been given a default rating of just 1000pts. As such, any nation that wasn't active enough to have had enough games for consideration in 2003 has started off at a noticeable disadvantage ratings-wise. I suspect this is what's held back much of CAF (and, to a lesser extent, the non-NAFU C'CAF countries and the non-EAFF AFC countries).

    That is, if the average rating in UEFA is ~1600 and the average rating in CAF is closer to ~1200 (I don't know the exact numbers, I'm just throwing those out as examples) and the two rarely ever play each other, that gap isn't going to close, even with 17yrs of time for them to have potentially scheduled games.
     
    Lohmann and blissett repped this.
  20. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    So it will be bad for OFC rankings when Tuvalu and Kiribati join OFC.
    Why has Mauritius only 357 points?
     
  21. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Yup. Not much, since it'll drop their average from 1267 to 1226 (based on current rankings), but yeah it'll definitely lower the average since the lowest OFC rating at the moment is American Samoa's 1030.
    That's honestly a very good question that I have no clue of the answer. X-D FIFA's site in honestly awful for looking at the competitive history of teams, so I can't easily track what's happened with them...
     
  22. cpthomas

    cpthomas BigSoccer Supporter

    Portland Thorns
    United States
    Jan 10, 2008
    Portland, Oregon
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    I think there is a little more going on related to the differences in confederation rankings.

    STT has pointed out the provisional rating assigned to new teams entering into the system. As a rule of thumb, it takes about 28 games for teams with provisional ratings to become correct. That assumes, however, that there is enough "correspondence" across the confederations for all teams to be playing, more or less, within a single pool.

    If there is not enough correspondence, then the way the FIFA system works, the teams within a confederation will tend to have their ratings stay within the range of other teams from that confederation. So if the teams within a confederation, when a new team comes in, have their ratings within a particular range, and if the confederation teams play almost all their games within the confederation, we are not going to see teams getting ratings significantly outside the range of teams within the confederation. In other words, the system depends on games between confederations to get all the teams in proper order.

    With WWC and big cross-confederation tournaments being more highly weighted within the system, this provides some help. If teams from some confederations are out-performing their ratings, however, then it does not provide enough help.

    This problem is not unique to the FIFA rating system.
     
    Lohmann repped this.
  23. Lohmann

    Lohmann Member+

    Arminia Bielefeld
    Germany
    Feb 24, 2020
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Here are the Mauritius results:
    https://www.worldfootball.net/teams/mauritius-frauen-team/21/
    2016
    0:6(A) Botswana
    0:4(H) Botswana

    2017
    0:3(N) Eswatini
    0:11(N) Kenya
    0:3(N) Mozambique

    2019
    0:15(N) Zambia
    0:3(N) Botswana
    0:8(N) Namibia

    In December 2017 they had 358 points.
     
    blissett repped this.
  24. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    I looked into Mauritius results and ratings a bit more and still can't make heads or tails of their situation. Not only is their rating insanely low, but their rating actually had gone *up* to 258 from 335 in that "first" ranking when they were listed. On one hand, it's certainly possible (and honestly reasonable) if you're given a provisional rating before your first match, and that rating changes through the first four matches you play until that fifth match finally puts you into the rankings officially. (FWIW Mauritius played at least two more matches before those 2016 Botswana matches, but the two I found were against non-FIFA opponents so shouldn't have affected the ratings.) Still, I can't imagine how a team can get down to 335 in just two ranking-available matches... Even if your provisional rating started at 400 instead of 1000, continental qualifiers are worth at most 30pts, and it's literally impossible to lose all available points in a single match even if your pre-match expected result was a 100% win, so it's utter nonsense how they're so low.
     
  25. blissett

    blissett Member+

    Aug 20, 2011
    Italy
    Club:
    --other--
    Nat'l Team:
    --other--
    Puzzling. Any chance that rankings can be in any way modified for non-play related reason? (Let's say particularly serious disciplinary reasons; punishment for not showing up to some matches; something related to federation's behaviour; and such). :cautious:
     

Share This Page