I agree with you about the oddness of the ranking: if one of the best teams in Africa (currently the best one, if we believe to this year's African Championship on home soil) is behind Papua New Guinea, there's something wrong for sure (although I guess it's more about too few matches and/or too few inter-federation matches, than about the very nature of the rankings' algorithm). I have to correct one of your statements, though: Equatorial Guinea didn't play in 2012 Olympic Tournament in London: the African teams were South Africa and Cameroon.
Well, I know the topic's been ran into the ground multiple times before, but I don't trust inter-confederation ranking past 20th or 30th overall or thereabouts, so I wouldn't consider that "of note" per say. ^.^; And it's not a great change from the previous ranking either.
No offence to those teams that rank below that, but those rankings don't really matter in the grand scheme, either for selection or seedlings for any major tournaments. The whole purpose for the rankings is to order teams for the World cup and Olympics. Teams ranked 30+ don't play much of a role besides being fill-ins in the groups of four.
And so, because of the fact that FIFA can't be bothered to change a rubbish formula, Equatorial Guinea will always be one of those "fill-ins" instead of being ranked in the Top 24 or so, when they could possibly be a 3rd seed instead and have a better chance of qualification to the knockout stages. It might not matter to the USA or Germany, but it matters to them, as an equal member of FIFA, with a realistic chance of competing in World Cups.
Oops. Thanks for that correction. Equatorial Guinea actually knocked Cameroon out in the semi-finals of qualification, but Cameroon were reinstated because for some reason, Equatorial Guinea actually got caught fielding an ineligible player for once.
But the fact you do not trust the inter-confederation ranking is "of note" (per se, not per say) - as it means the whole ranking bar the Top 20 is basically rubbish (meaning over 80% of it) - which is surely notable. The fact that the ranking does not know how to deal with inter-confederation matches is also notable, as it is precisely an inter-confederational ranking of all FIFA teams. The fact that FIFA choose to have a ranking (and take the media proceeds from its various 'releases') without really knowing how to do one properly is notable. The fact that Equatorial Guinea completely obliterated everyone at the recent African Championship, yet are still behind the likes of Papua New Guinea and IRAN is also notable. It's just that certain people on here would rather not take note, or pretend that because the oh-so-important Top 20 is fine, then there is nothing to worry about. Perhaps if the USA suddenly fall to 4th because of a few bad results, people will start saying "Oh, these rankings are actually rubbish, let's change them".
It's not a rubbish formula if it does a good job of ranking the top 30 or so teams for a 16 or 24 team tournament. Three of the teams in each group will be ranked, even figuring qualification upsets, and the unranked ( below 30) teams will take the fourth spot in each group. Now it's your job to do more than whine about who is ranked number 65 or whatever, and come up with a system that ranks all team, even those with not much history of competition. Real examples only. Good luck.
I didn't say it was a rubbish formula. The way it is applied is rubbish. It should do a good job of ranking all teams, or at least the majority of them, otherwise it is not fit for purpose. It's purpose is not solely to rank the Top 30 or so teams - hence why there are over 100 teams on the list. I am not whining. I am stating facts. I have already used a system that does what you asked for, and am currently improving it further. And in any case, it is not "my job" - it is FIFA's job. If they can't be bothered trying to improve it, then that's their issue. The most I can do is write to FIFA and suggest improvements - which is exactly what I am doing. Real example? I only ever use real examples. I think you just don't like to face the truth and like to have a dig at me whenever I raise this point. Again - not my issue.
Great! Where is the link of your system and how it worked over the last few WWC cycles? I'm always eager to compare systems, especially ones that show no anomalies whatever.
We're talking about the FIFA ranking, not mine, so I'm under no obligation to show anything. Restrain your eagerness, if you can. As I said, I'm making improvements (there will be problems with all rankings), so there is no 100% system at the moment. But at least I'm trying to make improvements instead of sitting on my ass and accepting a half-baked excuse for a ranking.
New rankings, same stories: http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/news/women/newsid=2038990/index.html Even England, with their Cyprus Cup win, were unable to move up significantly, notching a rank up but not actually overtaking Canada. There was some shuffling in the 20-26 range, and many lower-ranked teams jumped quite a bit thanks to other teams dropping out of the rankings, but just like last time there aren't any noteworthy changes in the new list.
how long does a country have to be "inactive" to drop out of the rankings? I find it hard to believe that Uzbekistan has been inactive long enough to drop out of the rankings. The other 8 that have dropped out(Fiji, Tahiti, Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Cook Islands, Suriname, American Samoa, Bermuda) basically only participate in World Cup qualifiers.
You become inactive and are not listed if you haven't played an official FIFA match in 18 months. http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/r&a-wwr/52/00/99/fs-590_06e_wwr-new.pdf ( page 4)
New ranking (August 2013). USA hold top spot, Germany stationary (FIFA.com) Friday 2 August 2013 The August edition of the FIFA/Coca-Cola Women’s World Ranking has been mainly shaped by the Women’s EURO 2013 in Sweden, with Germany overcoming Norway 1-0 in the final to secure their eighth title and underline their dominance of European women’s football. Their triumph, however, has not brought them any more points – and instead, their victories in Sweden, which were actually close-fought affairs by Germany’s high standards, have seen them lose ten ranking points as the actual results of matches are also taken into account in the women’s world ranking. In this respect, the Germans’ defeat by Norway and draw with the Netherlands in the group phase did the most damage. Nevertheless, Germany are still sitting comfortably in second place ahead of Japan, Brazil and Sweden. Other teams in the top ten who have made up ground include Canada (7th, up 1), Australia (8th, up 2) and Korea DPR (8th, up 1). Further down the ranking, no fewer than ten teams have climbed six places to move closer to the top 100: Namibia (102nd), Bangladesh (103rd), Sri Lanka (104th), Lebanon (105th), the Maldives (106th), Tanzania (107th), Zambia (108th), Pakistan (109th), Dominica (110th) and Afghanistan (111th). Seven teams have also dropped out of the ranking due to a lack of activity, whereas Qatar and Lesotho, who were not in the June ranking, are now in the list. The total number of teams in the ranking now stands at 119, five less than in June 2013. Meanwhile, New Zealand (19th, unchanged) currently have their highest number of points (1810) since the introduction of the ranking. The next FIFA/Coca-Cola Women’s World Ranking will be published on 13 December 2013. Leader USA (unchanged) Moves into top ten Norway (10th, up 1) Moves out of top ten England (11th, down 4) Matches played in total 57 Most matches played Norway (8) Biggest move by ranks Namibia, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Lebanon, Maldives, Tanzania, Zambia, Pakistan, Dominica, Afghanistan (up 6 ranks each) Biggest drop by ranks England (11th, down 4) Newly ranked teams Qatar (112th, 879 points) Lesotho (115th, 841 points) Teams that are no longer ranked 7 – Tunisia, Egypt, Dominican Republic, Mali, Cuba, Guinea, Malawi 1 USA 2229 0 Equal 2 Germany 2152 0 Equal 3 Japan 2072 0 Equal 4 Brazil 2042 0 Equal 5 Sweden 2028 0 Equal 6 France 2020 0 Equal 7 Canada 1982 1 Up 8 Australia 1956 2 Up 8 Korea DPR 1956 1 Up 10 Norway 1953 1 Up 11 England 1938 -4 Down 12 Denmark 1912 1 Up 12 Italy 1912 0 Equal 14 Netherlands 1871 0 Equal 15 Iceland 1847 0 Equal 16 China PR 1832 1 Up 17 Korea Republic 1831 -1 Down 17 Spain 1831 1 Up 19 New Zealand 1810 0 Equal 20 Scotland 1801 0 Equal 21 Russia 1800 1 Up 22 Finland 1788 -1 Down 23 Ukraine 1770 0 Equal 24 Mexico 1761 0 Equal 25 Switzerland 1727 0 Equal 26 Czech Republic 1702 0 Equal 27 Belgium 1667 0 Equal 28 Vietnam 1654 0 Equal 29 Colombia 1650 0 Equal 30 Poland 1644 1 Up Rnk Team Pts +/- Pos 31 Thailand 1635 -1 Down 32 Nigeria 1622 0 Equal 33 Austria 1621 1 Up 34 Republic of Ireland 1620 -2 Down 35 Romania 1609 0 Equal 36 Hungary 1598 0 Equal 37 Wales 1583 0 Equal 38 Belarus 1576 0 Equal 39 Chinese Taipei 1564 0 Equal 40 Costa Rica 1561 0 Equal 41 Slovakia 1554 0 Equal
I wonder if they could develope a more intelligent algorithms than ELO's for rating team achievements. A team which has won Euro, shouldn't miss points in ANY circumstances. May be a progressive weighting system, in knock-out stages, or saturation of negative points when a team advances in a tournament. I dont know but this is funny.
Their calculation is a bit odd, sure... When the Nadeshiko Japan won the WC in 2011, beating Germany in QF, Sweden in SF and USA in Final, they didn't move from the 3rd place... One year later, at the Olympics they beat Brazil in QF and France in SF, playing the Final against #1 USA (whic hthey beat in Algarve Cup), they still didn't move, staying behind Germany who couldn't compete in the OG... But, to be honest, all in all, the ranking is not too strange, it reflects not too badly teh reality of Women's Football. Much better than the Men's ranking (just found that Colombia is now #3, and Brazil , winner of the Confederation Cup #9. Well, I can't reproach it to have Men's France #23 (- 5)
That you can argue that a system is broken if a team losses point after tie against five lower ranked teams and a loss to one (which is eminetly possible to win the Euros with) makes the value of your opinion on the subject clear.
On the contrary, it would be stupid if they would have gained points just because they won the title. Based on their ranking points Germany were supposed to win all 6 matches, and most of them by more than just one goal. So apart from two matches they failed to justify the massive difference in ranking points. It's only logical they lose points after these results.
So Norway only moved up one spot? I understand that's how it works, but if you really think about it, they deserve to move up more. Here's the current Mighty Movement rankings, brought to you by .... me. "MIFA" rankings (Movement-Internationale-Football-Association) 1.) You Ess Hey 2.) Germ Many 3.) Juhh Pan 4.) Bra Jill 5.) Sweet Inn 6.) Can of Duh 7.) Frantz 8.) Nor They 9.) Ass Trail Yeah 10.) Dan Mark 11.) High Korea 12.) Spayne 13.) Ice Land 14.) Ing Land 15.) New Zee Land 16.) It Tally 17.) Low Korea 18.) Chy Na 19.) Neh Their Lands 20.) Ruhh Shuh 21.) Switch Her Land
Let's think about a high ranked team X , which in WC 2015 would lose and then draw to 2 low rank teams and prior to WC has already lost another two matches (friendlies) to low rank teams. However after advancing to knock-out stage as the 2nd team,they go all the way and become the World Champion. Then the funny ELO system at the end shows they have lost points and must go down 1 or 2 places in ranking . This is what I call stupid. A team's power should not be judged only based on single separated results but also according to its collective performance in tournaments.
How is that stupid? Apparently the team that won the trophy in your scenario are far from being a consistently good team and don't deserve the ranking points. Consistency is the key for a truly good team. And that's exactly what the ranking does, looking at the whole picture. The collective performance wasn't very good, but sadly in a KO tournament that doesn't really matter. So it's not always the best team that win the trophy. I don't say Germany weren't the best team during the EURO, but they didn't show anything to increase their (already very large) lead over the other teams. They basically just confirmed their ranking. No, it's all very logical and makes sense. Do you even know how the ranking works?
The rankings system isn't meant to reward performances - it's meant to give a rough estimate of strength. It's supposed to be a prediction system, not a rewards system. Based on their six ERUO matches, Germany was shown to not be as strong of a team versus what it previously was, regardless that it managed to win the title. (Not to mention they were lucky to beat both Sweden and Norway, who outplayed them.) As such, their super-strong ranking was obviously too high, and hence they lost points. Think about it this way. What if, in last year's EURO, Italy had somehow upset Germany 1-0 in the quarterfinal? Should Germany have (net) lost points because it didn't come away with the title? No, it had two very strong wins (plus an average/weak win) in the group stage, and despite coming nowhere near the title, it would have seen its rating go up, having destroyed Norway and France. This is just the opposite situation. The title is just that - a title. Not an active indicator of team strength. All it means is you happened to not get any losses in a specific three-game stretch. The ratings, on the other hand, are an active indicator of team strength.