I think your "re-invent" what is behind the FIFA's ranking, due to a... er... a bit odd way of watchings the facts, imho, not very objective maybe ? Germany outplayed by Sweden and Norway ? Really ? And previously, Germany was eliminated in WC by Japan and was unable to be part of the Olympics. So, saying that this Germany is less good than "before" (when "before" ? The last ranking was in springtime or something like that), they lost Algarve Cup final against USA, now they won the Euro without being contesting by anyone as a well-deserved win, and they would be less good than some months ago ? Strange...
FIFA Women's Rankings (Dec. 31, 2086) 1.) Kenya 2.) Cook Islands 3.) Iraq 4.) Moldova 5.) Luxembourg 6.) Azerbaiagjajgkgjan (Azerbaijan) 7.) Egypt 8.) Barbados 9.) North Pole 10.) Tahiti 11.) Indonesia 12.) North Belarus 13.) South Belarus 14.) Kuwait 15.) New Country Island 16.) Andorra 17.) South Sudan 18.) Tonga 19.) Cambodia 20.) Reunited States of America (((((((((( RSA, RSA, RSA, RSA, RSA ))))))))))) 21.) Unified Team #2 22.) Qatar 23.) Czech Democratic 24.) Greenland 25.) Sweden 26.) Mongolia 27.) Samoa 28.) Antarctica 29.) Guam 30.) Pakistan 2087 WWC: (64 nations) Group A (GROUP OF DEATH) North Pole (Host) Reunited States of America Mongolia Zimbabwe I'm not sure if RSA can get out of that group. Zimbabwe has lots of speed. North Pole is a juggernaut. It'll be tough. Only 32 teams make the knockout round. (AP) - The 2087 WWC Final will be played at Ice Lake Stadium
True, but they still don't have a WWC Title yet. They lost to North Pole at the 2083 WWC Final. It was played in the heat temperatures in Congo, right on the equator, and everyone thought North Pole had no chance. Sweden blew that game. Kosovare Schelin is not as good as her grandma, no matter what other people think.
The country of Malta has won the bid to host the 2091 WWC. This is a big tournament, as it's the very first WWC to be expanded to 96 teams. 64 nations will now make the knockout round (2/3 of the entire field). Coldi Sandersen has already announced that she will retire, and won't be a member of North Pole team in 2091. What a career she has had, with 284 career goals (179 of them on snow or ice).
Apparently, to our big dismay, Papua New Guinea dropped out of FIFA rankings due to inactivity... Poor girls... http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/news/women/newsid=2244562/index.html?intcmp=newsreader_news_box_1
a little odd, that despite being undefeated since the Euro's, Sweden fell from #5 to #6, while France took over it's spot at #5, up from #6.(Sweden made it to the semis in the Euros, while France only the quarters) #3 Japan lost twice at the recent East Asian games on the way to only third place and who's record this year been 6 wins, 6 losses, 3 ties., but still stays the same. The one team I feel should be in the top 10 is New Zealand(instead of their ridiculous current #16). What do these girls have to do to prove for a higher ranking? They recently won the Valais Cup, beating #4 Brazil, 1-0 & #18 China, 4-0, They've tied #3 Japan in Tokyo. Tied twice #7 Australia. Lost their 1 st game against the #1 US, 4-1, but came back a few days later for a 1-1 tie.
I am shooting in the dark, here, because I admit I know absolutely nothing about the subject, but could New Zealand be somehow damaged by the facts that they always have to qualify for international tournaments through matches vs. other Oceanian teams, id est some of the lowest ranked teams in the women's world football?
The Euros have nothing to do with this ranking, since they were over before the previous rankings. Yes, Sweden have been undefeated since then, but France has beaten better opponents by better scores. Since GD factors into the rankings, Sweden have not only lost a rank but lost points as well. Japan is probably unmoved since the two teams directly behind them in the rankings, Brazil and Sweden, also lost points since the previous ranking. The ties to Japan and Australia were outside of the time frame that factored into this ranking. Even if they're only #16 right now, you neglected the fact that they gained three ranks since last time, the largest gain (in terms of ranks and in terms of points) in the Top20. Also, they didn't tie Australia twice, the first game was a loss. The losses to AUS and USA probably negated the ties to those nations, rightly so. And yes, NZ's ranking will generally suffer in that their competitive matches are against really weak competition, so the bonus they get from being a competitive match is negated by the skewed "expected result" in the formulae. On the same token, "good" results in friendly competition don't provide as much of a boost because they're friendlies.
all the more reason why the OFC shouldn't be handed a single birth to any of the World Cups. New Zealand should have to face some tougher competition than Papua New Guinea & Fiji to advance.
Oh dang, I just realized something: Sweden's (relative) struggles through their WWC qualifying group probably have a HUGE impact on WWC seeding. Canada obviously has a seed, so there are five more seeds up for grabs (for the six WWC groups). Assuming FIFA doesn't do something silly, those seeds would go to the top five teams in the FIFA rankings - so who's in that fifth slot is vital. At the moment, France has earned the right to avoid the likes of USA, Germany, and Japan for the group phase and likely for the R16 as well.
Yes, this is about the only REAL meaning of the FIFA charts: seeding teams at big international competitions (and we saw the mess that it caused in the men's WC, with Italy and France put in a different pot from most big teams... ). At the moment, Japan should be a seeded team in one of the 6 groups with no problem at all, but I guess Nadeshiko will have to take Algarve Cup 2014 and AFC Asian Cup quite seriously: The first (Algarve), although a friendly tournament, will make Japan meet big teams (sometimes big teams that are currently behind them in the rankings!), and it could result in some stinging losses; the latter (AFC Asian Cup) not only is also the official Asian qualifier for WWC 2015, but, since it's an official tournament (so with the apt multiplier) and since every team in Asia is miles below Japan in the rankings, could lead to some hairy situation if, just saying, Japan should lose to Australia, as it happened in AFC Asian Cup 2010...
Only if FIFA jettisons the seeding system they used for 2011. The one they used then said only the top team from each confederation would be seeded (unclear if the host spots is taken from their Confeds top team or is counted outside the limit, since Germany was the both UEFA top team and host at the time). So unless FIFA change (and they are fickle so it is likely) the WWC are no reason to make any effort for UEFA team to try to increase their ranking (unless they think they can pass Germany). Using the 2011 seeding system now would give (based on today ranking): One team/confed: Canada,Germany,Japan,Brazil,New Zeeland and Nigeria If the host get a extra spot for not being best in their confed: Canada,USA,Germany,Japan,Brazil and New Zeeland Due to the fact that USA isn't seeded in the first alternative my bet is that they either goes for the second or more likely show how big hypocrates they are and change system again, but don't count on it being based purely on the rankings,
Well, for sure, if they wanted to change, they at least would have the excuse that the format was changed, with 24 teams now involved instead of 16, and thus 6 groups instead of the usual 4... I suppose they're going to change it... Come on, Nigeria seeded team and USA as the loose cannon that can end in any group? You really think that they're going to allow that?
I am pretty sure they won't repeat that seeding formula. Instead they will just seed Canada plus the top 5, especially if there are exactly 2 UEFA teams in the top 5. Then we had a pot with 6 UEFA teams and an overall nice pot allocation. Whatever formula they're going to choose, they won't seed the likes of Nigeria or New Zealand.
Totally agree. FIFA can be lunatic, but not SO MUCH lunatic. Seeding NZ or Nigeria wouldn't make any sense and would probably lead to some big teams going out early. As much as FIFA likes geo-political choices, they also have to make the first WWC with 24 teams a decent show, or the formula will backfire on them. The system with Canada + World Rankings' top 5 should work quite well to make well-balanced groups, so I hope that's what they'll choose. I also hope Japan doesn't drop out of top 5, but, given the fact that they're currently 3rd, for that to happen they should have a really disastrous year and other teams that are behind should do very well at the same time... So, let's hope for the best!
....yeah, no way they're keeping that formula. Both because of the host/federation difference with Canada/USA and because it'd be a complete farce to seed NZ and Nigeria. At least in 2011, they only swapped #4 for #5, which wasn't a huge drop and it 'worked' because it made the pots nice. Well, seeding for the men's WC is a bit of a joke since A) the men's rankings are way wonkier than the women's (which are essentially Elo), and B) they didn't use the most recent rankings, which would've seen Italy and Portugal seeded. If FIFA can wait until the March '15 ranking come out, then the most recently Algarve and Cyprus results would be included and thus have the most applicable seeding. I'd also be okay with the December '14 rankings, but if they do the draw before then, I'd be skeptical.
What were the exact rankings at the time? I started following women's football seriously just around WWC 2011, so I am not sure... Do you remember when they did the draw last time? I'd be curious too to know about it... For sure they'll have to wait for the qualifier tournaments to end; I am not sure about Europe, but in Asia the AFC Asian Cup in May 2014 (in Vietnam) will also be the qualifier for WWC 2015 (with an unheard-of 5th/6th place play-off to determine the 5th qualified team, beyond semifinalists ; 5th berth for Asia led to this). So, at least for Asia, I guess the first date that could be used for the draw is the middle-of-the-year update of FIFA women's world rankings (when does it use to happen? June? August? ), but I don't know about other continents. And I agree that using the December 2014 update, or even the March 2015 one (Algarve & Cyprus 2015 included) would be better.
The ranking at the time of the 2011 draw - November 28 2010, interestingly after they bumped the normal December update to be released on Nov.19 - were USA1, GER2, BRA3, SWE4, JPN5, PRK6, NOR7, FRA8. When the March 2011 ranking came out, Japan and Sweden had actually swapped, so the four seeded teams were in fact the top four in the rankings when the WWC actually rolled around. (PRK and NOR had also dropped in favor of CAN and FRA.) Official draw procedure: http://www.fifa.com/tournaments/archive/womensworldcup/germany2011/news/newsid=1342287/index.html
Well I guess saying max 2 seeded teams/Confed since it is 6 seeds instead of 4 would make it seem somewhat consistent with 2011 rules and would only have any effect if both Sweden and France passes Brazil in the rankings (or something very odd happens).
Well I guess changing from max one seeded teams per Confed to max two could be motivated by that it is now are 6 instead of 4 seeded team and would keep the appearance of not just dropping the 2011 rules. And it would only have any actual effect if both Sweden and France passes Brazil in the rankings (or something very odd happens), thus not giving seeds to teams way down in the rankings.