Here are rough back--of-the-envelope up-to-date FIFA ratings for the four Olympics semi-finalists (including results from the Olympics) USA 2132 (published rating 2197) Sweden 2093 (2011) Canada 1966 (1962) Australia 1955 (1952) It's obvious, though worth noting, that Canada and Australia's rating so far has not changed much at all during these Olympics. The same cannot be said of the US and Sweden. In fact some possibilities can't be spoken aloud for fear of offending the Gods of Mischief and triggering devastating jinxes. Results with Great Britain are not included in this set of calculations because I think everyone agrees that FIFA won't include them in their rankings. *** Performance ratings since 1/1/2020 of the semifinalists: Sweden 2161 USA 2064 Canada 1958 Australia 1957 These calculations INCLUDE RESULTS WITH GREAT BRITAIN (using, of course, England's rating of 1974) And now I got to enter 4-3 (converts to .82) for the Australia / Great Britain match! I probably have entered that before but no more than once or twice
Not only doesn’t FIFA count GB’s results for England, they don’t count anyone else’s matches against GB, it not being a recognized member of FIFA. Australia drew short straw getting that matchup.
Chile and Japan lost nothing for their losses. Canada probably would have gained slightly from their tie had it been England. the only team that gains is Team GB , which benefits from England’s ranking in tournament seeding. That and determining how many teams from each confederation go to a WC are the only purpose of the ranking table. The othe UEFA teams lost a confederation spot in the Olympics by using WC results as the criteria for filling the UEFA spots in the Olympics.
Well, uh, yeah... I'm not going to talk about it for one more game (or two more) because things can still happen, y'know?!
hahaha well I'll talk about it then! As of right now, Sweden is now on top of the FIFA rankings, and will likely stay that way unless they outright lose to Canada in the gold medal match. Not only that, but USA has fallen all the way to third, if back-of-the-envelope calculations are accurate. USA basically need to beat Australia to avoid their worst ranking ever (oh, gee, soooo awful that third would be worst ever![/sarcasm]) as a draw against lower-rated Australia would mean losing points. Ah hang on, scratch that, I thought Germany had a higher rating than they did. Still, if USA outright loses the bronze medal match, then they would go to third - but they're not there yet. This also opens up a quirky possibility: if Canada somehow beats Sweden (unlikely) and USA loses outright against Australia (possible, based on form), Germany would rise from 2nd to 1st thanks to an Olympics they didn't even play in.
Now _this_ sounds like something that fate could get behind. Not only throwing away the Olympics but also installing Lucifer’s favourites on top of the world ranking.
You know, I sure root for Sweden in the final, but the mere possibility of Germany greedily taking advantage of their rivals clashing against each other and reaping the rewards with a sort of evil "Mwaah-ah-ah!" laughter is too much funny not to somehow want it to happen. No, scratch that, I still want Sweden to win.
Who knew that the quiet arcane study of the Arts of Doctor Elo would provide the alchemy for the Resurrection of the Spirit of Rivalry?!
It's interesting that no other team except USA or Germany has ever been #1. I really hope this is going to change soon with Sweden raising at the top. I mean, the notion of finally having a third different #1 after 18 years of FIFA rankings should be a reason enough to root for Sweden even for people who don't give a damn about Sweden.
https://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranking/USA Compare USA mens vs womens. Lowest ranking for USA women in history is 2.
Sweden have so far been between #3 and #11 (just 2 or 3 years ago that was between #3 and #6 but we had a really bad period and dropped out of top 10).
Just for curiosity's sake, here's the performance results I came up with for the 8 teams which made it at least as far as the quarterfinals: Sweden 2379 (published pre-Olympics rating 2011) Netherlands 2133 (2035) Canada 2055 (1962) Brazil 2019 (1971) Great Britain 1975 (1974) Australia 1973 (1952) USA 1893 (2197) Japan 1720 (1942) Sweden — those are Kasparov / Magnus Carlsen-like ratings numbers! It's what happens in a tournament when someone goes 5-0 in their first 5 games *** Olympics performance ratings for the 4 teams which didn't get past the group stage (so the sample is only 3 games): Zambia 1753 (published pre-Olympics rating 1191) Chile 1663 (1622) New Zealand 1648 (1757) China 1615 (1875) To estimate these performance ratings I used England's rating as a stand-in for Great Britain and a provisional rating of 1600 in place of Zambia's official rating of 1191. Games which end in shootouts are scored as ties
Sweden absolutely picked the best time to go on a hot streak, especially on neutral ground against tough competition. And on the other end, poor USA and hosts Japan... This is also related to why ratings are always considered provisional until you get about 20 or so games in, because 5 or 6 is often subject to streakiness... Though I am now highly curious as to what some of the best and worst comparisons have been between performance and official ratings. Like, how much better was Netherlands after the 2019 semifinals? or Canada after the 2011 group stage? Where do the current +/- 300 from Sweden and USA stack up historically?
Ok, I am ready for anything , but please, don't tell that we just wasted the only chance in the latest 18 years to get a different #1 from USA or Germany. Please, tell me that the fact that the Olympic final technically ended in a draw was enough for Sweden to retain "virtual" first place!
But I don't know for sure if Sweden is scored as losing. I mean that seems screwy that one team would be given credit for a win while the other is credited with a tie but I just don't know for sure. After all, it is an exception and FIFA could make an exception of it both ways. I suppose we could try to recreate the rating calculations in 2011 to be sure, but then FIFA could have always changed its mind in the meantime.
Did FIFA change the rule (counting the PK win in the championship games as a win) AFTER World Cup 2011? Because my (admittedly very rough) calculations for the 2011 World Cup seems to indicate they scored the Championship match as a tie for both sides. If FIFA scored it as a tie, my very rough back-of-the-envelope calculations show the US would have lost 26 points during the tournament. If FIFA scored it as a loss by the score of 2-3, the US would have lost 46 points. In reality, the US lost 29 points If FIFA scored it as a tie, Japan would have gained 39 points during the tournament. If FIFA scored it as a win by the score of 3-2, Japan would have gained 58 points In reality, Japan gained... 39 points
Well, blame it on @SiberianThunderT for jinxing it The good news, possibly, is that I think Sweden at least made it to #2 for the first time ever, even if the gold medal match is scored as a loss for them. Very roughly, my back-of-the-envelope calculations show the current ratings of the top teams as: 1. USA 2106 2. Sweden 2076-2096 * 3. Germany 2073 4. Netherlands 2056 5. France 2039 6. Canada 2029 * the range in Sweden's rating varies depending whether they receive the points for a 1-1 tie in the gold medal match or whether it's scored as a 2-3 loss for them. We know Canada's rating will be calculated as a win. It may seem screwy that Sweden gets credit for a tie, but there is some precedent for thinking FIFA may score it that way. The assigned tabulated points for two teams does NOT always add up to 1. In a 0-0 tie, for instance, both teams only receive scores of (.47). In a 2-2 tie, both teams receive scores of (.51)