FIFA World Ranking

Discussion in 'Women's International' started by jonny63, Mar 17, 2006.

  1. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 14, 2007
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    Indeed, while not completely useless per se, the FIFA men's ranking has quite some flaws which lead to horrendous seedings. The basic formula that uses weighted averages alone leads to changes in the ranking despite the fact that no new matches were played. Then you end up with seedings like the UEFA one in the WC 2014 qualifying...

    The women's ranking works much better to seed teams, but I still prefer e.g. the UEFA coeffcient.
     
  2. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    Yes, FIFA's ELO-based women's ranking system is much better than their own system developed for the men's ranking. The ranking positions conform much more closely to 'reality'.

    What can happen as a result of 'mis-seeding' is that a team may be seeded 3rd (when in reality they deserve to be seeded 2nd), meaning that they will find it harder to qualify from a group where the Top 2 qualify. So, bad seedings really can be the difference between a team qualifying or not for a major tournament.
     
  3. fire123

    fire123 Member+

    Jul 31, 2009
    Of course FIFA's ranking distinguishes between a 1-0 loss to 2 different rank teams. Go read up a little.

    There are so many other things I pointed out to you about your crappy ranking system before, you just would not listen. Do what you want but my 2 cents is , you do not know jacks and while FIFA's women ranking is not perfect, still the best system out there.
     
  4. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    I was talking about the men's ranking. All losses are rewarded with zero points, regardless of the opponent. Of course I know that FIFA's women's ranking uses the ELO ratings and is different. So don't act like a smartass - it doesn't suit dumb people.

    I've just gone back and re-read all the criticisms you made before about my ranking, and the detailed explanations I gave to justify my criticisms of FIFA's ranking. I listened, and I responded. You just responded without reading. Again, don't be a hypocrite.

    I'd say it's pretty obvious to everyone on this forum that you lost the argument through simply getting a hard-on for ELO ratings and refusing to offer anything constructive in its defence. You pointed out absolutely nothing that I couldn't explain. Meanwhile, I pointed out numerous flaws in FIFA's ranking (and the straight ELO rating) which you could not explain. I'm not going to waste my time with lightweights like you. If you think FIFA's system is the best out there, then just you continue to believe that like a good little boy. You go back and read my explanation of why Maldives should not be ranked ahead of Tanzania (they are still ahead of them). Go and do it. You need to.

    I've done my homework, and I've given you the reasons why it's not the best. That you choose to ignore all the sensible things I've said is your character flaw, and the sooner you iron it out the better. Until then, don't even bother talking to me.
     
  5. fire123

    fire123 Member+

    Jul 31, 2009
    I left this post alone a few days just to see if this if a free for all forum where any 14 year old can throw any insults he wants.
    I really don't want to get to your level, too easy to do. Just want to point this out, you said you were talking about Men's ranking ... all my posts were about the Women's. The post that you replied to and called the ranking crap was about the Women's.

    This is the women's soccer forum, if you want to talk about Men's ranking, do you need the direction where to go?
     
  6. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    FIFA Women's Ranking: August final preview.
     
  7. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
  8. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Sad to see Japan make the final (beating Canada, Brazil, and France along the way) and still lose points overall. I take it the South Africa draw hurt a lot (especially considering SA's big gains despite not getting a win)?
     
  9. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    Japan lost 31 points because of that draw.
     
  10. Left Inside

    Left Inside Member

    Dec 15, 2010
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    The whole business of excluding Great Britain's games from the ranking is an unfortunate annoyance, although unavoidable I suppose. Any insights into what difference it would make to the ranking if the presence of two Scots on the GB side were ignored and their points allocated to England, Edgar (or anybody else)? This would require the inclusion of GB games in the rankings of their opponents, I guess.
     
  11. Left Inside

    Left Inside Member

    Dec 15, 2010
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    I don't think there is anything to feel sorry about. If they were a badminton team they would have lost more than that.
     
  12. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    Points:

    Canada +30
    France +3
    USA, Cameroon + 1
    New Zealand, Japan -1
    England -14
    Brazil -19

    Ranking

    Canada +3 (they would have been 4th)
    Brazil, Sweden, France - 1
     
    Cliveworshipper and kolabear repped this.
  13. Left Inside

    Left Inside Member

    Dec 15, 2010
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    Thank you.

    That ranking would have made for some interesting commentary on Big Soccer.
     
  14. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    Perhaps you should have left this post alone completely. I'm 36 years old and I post sensible and useful stuff on this forum, and I've no need to justify myself to you or anyone else who cares to take a pop at me. Any names you were called by me are not a sign of any puerile tendencies. It's just that you merited them through your trollish behaviour.

    I was talking about BOTH rankings together, incidentally, not just the men's. I was making a point in one post instead of posting the same stuff in 2 separate forums. And I was calling BOTH rankings crap - what I said was that the women's ranking is slightly less crap. I stick by this. And the reasons are obvious to anyone with a brain. 14 year olds with nothing constructive to say don't get invited to FIFA HQ for discussions.

    Unless you are going to post constructive stuff, backed up by actual facts (as I will remind you I have done on countless occasions when you've questioned me), you are just a waste of space in here and shouldn't post at all.

    Apologies to everyone else for taking up space for a personal rant, but I will not be attacked or insulted publicly for no good reason - not by anyone, and especially not by someone who has a history of doing so.

    Do you need the direction where to go? I'll gladly show you the way.
     
  15. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006

    actually, the seeding for confederations and what teams go to the WWC finals or Olympics is entirely up to the confederations themselves, as is amply demonstrated by the selection method that UEFA chose for the Olympics.

    there is no requirement that confederations seed or even choose teams according to rank, result in a tournament, or any other method that i can see.

    Can you Point to any FIFA regulation that mandates how a confederation sends its allotment of teams to a FIFA World tournament?

    the only thing I see is if a confederation gets a half spot, then there is a playoff between teams of the two confederations.
     
  16. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    I was talking about qualification for the Olympics and for the World Cup and continental tournaments. I didn't say that FIFA says they MUST use their ranking. I said that some confederations MAY choose to use FIFA's rankings for seedings purposes for qualification (this applies also to the men's ranking). I gave an example from the AFC (which was an example of the FIFA rankings being used to determine seedings in the qualification for the 2011 Women's World Cup).
    For the last 3 Olympics at least, UEFA has sent the best 2 European teams from the previous year's World Cup, rather than have a separate qualifying tournament that would clog up the calendar. Nothing particularly unusual about the system used this time.

    UEFA uses its own coefficient system/ranking for seeding teams because it has chosen to do so rather than use the FIFA ranking. The same applies to the other confederations who employ their own seeding system. I never said that this was not the case.

    There is no mandate as such - but there is ALWAYS a qualification process specific to each confederation. Even UEFA has a qualification process (UEFA's World Cup qualifying round followed by the World Cup Finals constitutes UEFA's Olympic qualification tournament). Confederations MAY or MAY NOT use the FIFA ranking to determine seedings for their qualification tournaments, depending on their particular preference. IF THEY DO choose to use the FIFA ranking, then the entire qualification process for that confederation is subject to the quality of the FIFA rankings. So in these circumstances, it matters. It also matters IF THEY DON'T use FIFA's rankings, how good the quality of the confederation's own seeding system is. And most, if not all confederations will employ a seeding system of some sort for the draw. It's not mandated that they do so, but they all do it anyway. It just makes sense.

    So whichever way you look at it, WHATEVER ranking is used to seed teams (and there has to be SOME way of ranking the teams for this purpose) has to be a good ranking to make it fair.

    This is the only point I am making - and I think it's very clear.
     
  17. Cliveworshipper

    Cliveworshipper Member+

    Dec 3, 2006
    What role did the rankings play in the Olympic tournament or in the last World Cup for UEFA?

    I just don't see much in either. There were extensive qualifiers in the WWC and the WWC results determined the Olympic teams from UEFA. Neither had anything to do with rankings.

    In CONCACAF, if you were in the top 50 or so, you got to skip a round of games. Other than that, Rankings played no role. You still had to win games. I'll remind you the USA was ranked #1 in the world and had to beat Italy to get the last slot to into the 2011 WWC.


    In these confederations and the others, Rankings just don't mean much in tournament qualifications.

    Ranking do seem to have some role in tournament Draws, but even that isn't guaranteed. Host teams get preference by tradition ( which I generally think is good for interest and attendance) but in any case, you are still going to have to beat two or three of the top teams to get to the finals.

    Ask Sweden how much their higher rank helped them in the Olympic tournament. The highest ranked teams all got through, which is a reflection that they ranking has some validity, but the field is small enough and the knockout rounds big enough that actually winning your games is what counts.
     
  18. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    My point is - the FIFA rankings can be improved. Whether or not they are used for seedings is irrelevant. But if they were to be improved, there would certainly be a strong case for adopting them to decide seedings for all national team competitions. And there would be nothing wrong or unfair about having a universal seeding process in place. Although by no means perfect, I would be very confident in using my own rankings to produce balanced and fair seedings for any international competition, from the top to the bottom of the rankings. As the world governing body, FIFA should be able to say the same and mean it. They should also pay attention to ALL parts of the ranking, not just the top end. Otherwise, they should only publish a Top 50.

    If anyone thinks the FIFA rankings cannot be improved, they haven't thought about it hard enough.
     
  19. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    Botswana, despite many narrow defeats against Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa, a decent draw with Tanzania and even an away victory over South Africa, still miles behind at the bottom - 174 points behind Iraq, who have played 8, lost 8, scored 1 goal and conceded 73, all against decidedly poorer opponents as well.
     
  20. Lusankya

    Lusankya Moderator
    Staff Member

    Nov 14, 2007
    Nat'l Team:
    Germany
    The problem is that Iraq played completely different opponents than Botswana.
    I think Botswanas record is something like 18 losses, 1 draw, 1 win, but beside the win against South Africa most of their losses were against very lowly rated teams.

    Iraqs losses were against slightly higher rated teams (two were against UAE, who aren't officially rated) so they couldn't possibly lose that many points in 8 matches than Botswana in 20.

    I don't think the ranking itself is faulty, the problem lies in the fact that too many teams play too few matches.
     
  21. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    This x20, and the fact that inter-confederation play is lacking - which I guess cuts both ways. There's no normalization going on between the weaker teams across confederations like there is between top teams, but then those weaker teams aren't going to be playing each other anytime soon so it doesn't really matter.
     
  22. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    That's one of the key points - it shouldn't matter HOW MANY losses you have. 18 losses shouldn't put you below a team with 8. But that's why we find teams like San Marino at the very bottom of the men's ranking.

    About the quality of opponents - Iraq's opponents are artificially high (in reality, the quality of Botswana's opponents has been higher than those of Iraq). Tanzania, especially, is ranked far too low. This means that Botswana are given far fewer points for their results than they should be given. Something strange also - between December 2011 and March 2012, Botswana GAINED 5 points in the FIFA ranking. However, during this period, they played 2 matches only, and lost both to Zimbabwe. So Botswana has actually gained points for losing 2 matches. Meanwhile, Zimbabwe also gained points (3) for winning these 2 matches. As far as I know, the normal ELO formula as applied to football does not allow losing teams to gain points. From FIFA's own explanation of the women's ranking:

    http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/procedureandschedule/womenprocedure/index.html
    "The underachiever loses the same amount of rating points as their opponents have won"

    I've said it before and I'll say it again - lack of matches played NEED NOT be a problem. In any case, 20 matches played by Botswana should be more than enough to give them a realistic ranking. The fact that FIFA has not managed to do so points to a failure somewhere in the ranking.

    There is sufficient inter-confederational play taking place to allow a decent global ranking to be constructed. The fact that the smaller nations will not be playing each other is not significant. The ranking should be able to order these teams even if they never play each other.

    Again - many people seem to be happy just to accept FIFA's ranking with all its flaws, because it "kind of works". But when people put forward ways to fix these flaws, it seems nobody is interested. Why are people happy to accept a method that can so easily be improved?

    It's like saying "I have a class of 30 kids, but 10 of them are stupid". So, instead of teaching the 10 kids and giving them a chance, we celebrate that 20 of them are not stupid.
     
    cloak repped this.
  23. SiberianThunderT

    Sep 21, 2008
    DC
    Club:
    Saint Louis Athletica
    Nat'l Team:
    Spain
    Bumping this since we have #1 vs #2 twice in the next week. Even though they're "just friendlies", can Germany win by enough to reclaim #1? Conversely, how much would the gap widen with just 1-0 US victories? Can the US win by enough to knock Germany down to #3?
     
  24. exref

    exref Member

    Aug 1, 2009
    Louisville, KY
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    United States
    These matches should be very interesting! Looking forward to them. Any German streams for them will be much appreciated
     

Share This Page