Yes I can't say that happen to the best of us but to the most of us it do. But to be so full either of oneself or hate that one do not doublecheck before a SECOND response I have very hard to understand. I do show that you are among the persons that make this World worse and I try to avoid interacting with. I am sure it makes you happy to know that your comments made my day worse, and I just hope that someone do take the time to do the same to you everyday for your hopefully long life.
I feel like there's been some massive miscommunication here or something. STT is a respected and knowledgeable poster here, as is JanBalk. STT made a mistake, yes, but apologized for the misread and had no personal attack in the responses. I see absolutely no reason for one back.
I add that the miscommunication could maybe depend on the fact that JanBalk, not being a native English-speaker, could have formulate some of his sentences in ways that weren't the easiest to read, thus the misunderstanding (I am not blaming JanBalk, just saying that he could have unwillingly made his posts less easy to read).
I`m still waiting for an apology from SiberianThunderT so this is progress. The problem with SiberianThunderT is that when he notices that he misread a post from another user he still tries to tell this user that this post was stupid. He didn`t admit that his comments about 12th and 14th place were nonsense and instead tries to blame JanBalk with this remark: (Though I still think, mathematically, there's no reason to ignore the odd positions)
Portugal and Ireland have made an impressive rise in the ratings in the last few years, reaching 1744 and 1740 respectively. It's especially nice to think of all those years of Algarve tournaments gradually paying off for Portugal. In the year before the 2015 World Cup, Portugal's rating was bouncing around 1550 or a little above, reaching 1578 in the last ranking before the Cup. Meanwhile Ireland's rating was 1653, where a number of European "next-tier" teams have tended to hover, along with Argentina, Chile, Nigeria, and a couple teams from Asia. By the 2019 World Cup, Portugal had joined that tier of 1650-ish teams which included Ireland. (Portugal's rating 1668; Ireland 1666) Since then both teams have made the leap of almost 100 rating points, where they are now just outside the Top 20 at #22 and #23 (The #20 team is usually rated right around 1800) And in the FIFA Ratings thread, notable for its scholarly decorum! And, off-topic, but it's impossible for me to think of soccer this week without being reminded, as an American at least, of the great loss of our preeminent soccer journalist, Grant Wahl. It's just a shock that we are now without him
The next FIFA/Coca-Cola Women’s World Ranking will be published on 24 March 2023. I guess North Korea will finally disappear from the ranking following their four years inactivity.
Pour one out for Japan, who was in line to get DPK's place in the top ten, except Australia did slightly better over the past three months. Also, our "within 100pts" range drops by 1 with USA and Brazil moving in opposite directions - and Netherlands is juuuuussst hanging in by a thread there.
Out of sheer curiosity, a catalog of "gaps" in the current top 100: 10pts - 29 gaps 20pts - 10 gaps (lowest 55PNG/56CMR) though there are 4 extra gaps between 19pts and 20pts, including 75TRI/76TUN 30pts - 6 gaps, all in the top 20: 1USA/2GER, 4ENG/5FRA, 9BRA/10AUS, 12NOR/13CHN, 17KOR/18AUT, 19BEL/20SUI 40pts - just 2 gaps, 9BRA/10AUS and 12NOR/13CHN The higher you are, the harder it is to climb - not only because the competition is tougher, but the gaps to overcome are simply bigger! (Alternatively: success begets success, so once you get a high ranking, it takes a systematic failure to start falling far.) It's nearly a 120pt gap between 13CHN and 9BRA, (about the same as 9BRA to 1USA,) which really goes to show it'll take quite a bit of effort for anyone to break into that "top tier" any time soon, much less challenge for a title.
Turns out the US/Brazil game at She Believes was bigger than we thought (!) Still 8 teams within 100 plus another within 120 is pretty packed (since a difference of 20 points is pretty insignificant). And AUSTRALIA can be thought of as being within 100 AT THE WORLD CUP since they'll be playing at home (Homefield advantage estimated at 100 points) I wonder if the next time we hear of North Korea, Kim Jong-Un will be sending an all transgender team. I wouldn't put it past him.
I'm a bit surprised to see AUS didn't gain more points - I thought their win over ENG would do much more in offsetting their loss to SCO than it did. Impressive to see BRA making such a strong statement; I hope they can keep that form up, since it would be great to see them in the SFs again.
In essence, there will be 10 teams within 100 points of the #1 spot at the World Cup. Australia's effective rating will be 2020 because of the homefield advantage and Netherlands is 110 points behind the US — close enough for our purposes. A team rated 100 points over another has an estimated 62% probability of advancing in a knockout game; the underdog an estimated 38%. This is a very tight field. Rating-wise, there's never been anything like it at the Women's World Cup I also wouldn't count out Japan making a splash. Even though they're 180 rating points behind the US, they seem to have finally turned the corner on rebuilding and are playing very well.
To add to this from a practical perspective, if two teams with a 100 point difference were to play each other 10 times, one would expect better rated team to win 6 games and lose 4. (That is somewhat oversimplifying, since the ratings theoretically would change after each game, but it makes the point.) A lot of people expect that the better team always should win. In fact, it is not reasonable to expect the better team always to win. In this context, it seems somewhat miraculous that the US has won two World Cups in a row. If they were to win a third, it woud be even moreso.
I'm surprised no one came into this thread to ask after yesterday's match, though maybe that's because yesterday's match wasn't so important here... but as of right now, the "live" World Rankings should have Sweden as #1 Here's what's happened with the top teams, with each W or L usually moving at least 20pts (except when the loser was extremely overmatched) and where I'm also qualifying each D from "very strong" through "even" to "very weak" to imply points shifts, and bold indicating matches to play: USA - W, D(e), D(w), D(e) - small points loss (weak D largely offsets the weak W) GER - W, L, D(w) - big points loss SWE - W, W, W, D(e) - big points gain ENG - W, W, W, D(vw) - big points gain, but def. worse than SWE even in the wins FRA - D(vw), W, W - moderate points gain ESP - W, W, L, W - moderate points gain CAN - D(vw), W, L - big points loss BRA - W, L, D(vw) - big points loss NED - W, D(e), W, W - big points gain AUS - W, L, W, W - moderate points gain JPN - W, W, W, W - very big points gain NOR - L, D, W, L - big points loss ENG, FRA, and ESP can all likely surpass USA so long as they have a strong remainder of the tournament. AUS can't climb much due to them always getting the hosting boost in each of their matches, but NED and JPN can gain closer to 40pts per win than 20pts each time they beat someone above them in the rankings, so if either win out, they could easily get into the top 5 and maybe more. SWE shouldn't have to do much to retain the #1 at this point, so long as they don't lose a fair amount of points for the remainder of the tournament - their nightmare scenario at this point is advancing over JPN with a draw and then outright losing their SF and 3rd place game, though a large loss to JPN might (should?) also drop them out of #1.
In my case, the reason is of course the uphill battle against jinx to Japan that, these days, I have to fight day-in, day-out. Of course, this thread was always on my mind, but I wanted to only stop here after the end of the World Cup or, at the very least, after the Sweden-Japan clash. You see, we're now at... ...and at... ... so, I don't want to make any out-of-the-envelope calculations until Friday, when I will know how my quarter-final of interest will have ended!
It's a QF conundrum for @blissett : have JPN go far at the expense of seeing SWE cede #1 back to the USA, or watch JPN fall to SWE and see the USA finally fall off #1
It's not a conundrum: we'll make sure to only beat Sweden by 1-0, hoping it's enough for them to dethrone USA!
oh yes, USA has lost a considerable number of rating points. They lost a bunch just in the draw to Portugal. My rough back-of-the-envelope calculations show USA... lost 8 points for the draw with Netherlands lost 24 points for the draw with Portugal In real-time, the draw with Sweden probably meant very little change as Sweden had probably already surpassed the USA. Even using the last published ratings, USA would lose a maximum of 5 points from it. I think it's likely USA will wind up 3rd or lower when the new rankings are published at the end of the Cup. That would be the first time they were lower than second since the ratings began to be published, I believe.
As quirky as the math is, if with USA already likely lower than SWE before their match, then the draw would've actually gained points for USA at the expense of SWE and it totally makes sense - draws, in general, draw the two participants closer together. Agreed on it being likely, and yeah it would be the first time; it'll be equally wild to see GER fall to 4th or even 5th, with them never having been lower than 3rd before.
In this case, no. The US will probably not gain points because in a 0-0 draw both teams only get 0.47 points from the table! (if it was 1-1 then they would both get .5 and then the US would get something from it) *** Yeah, wild about Germany falling to 4th or 5th. Good point about the dilemma @blissett is in Based on the last published ratings, if Sweden lost to Japan by one goal, they would lose about 30 rating points putting them behind the US again! My back-of-the-envelope calculations show Japan gained about 60 points (!) for defeating Spain (about 36 points!) and Norway (about 24!). But Japan's rating going from 1917 to 1977 would only alter Sweden's loss of rating points (in the event of a Sweden loss to Japan) by about 3 to4 points