FIFA World Ranking

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

  1. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    I did mention that the start rating is an average of 4 or 5 matches, so as to avoid isolated occurences when margin of victory does not reflect the true difference between teams.

    You appear hell-bent on attacking my right to debate the efficacy of FIFA's ranking system, so let's just agree to disagree. I'm also beginning to detect more than a hint of anger, which is really not necessary.

    As I said, I'm not here to seek any promotion of my system - I'm here to outline real flaws in the system used by FIFA which prevent it from showing anything meaningful apart from maybe the top 10 or so teams. The bottom half of the rankings is an absolute joke. This isn't an opinion - it's a fact. Anyone would think you worked for FIFA. If you did, you would do well to take note of the criticism and change the rankings.
     
  2. fire123

    fire123 Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    People seem to think they have the right to attack something but oftentimes they offer nothing better, and that is a joke.

    I said more than 1 time, the Men FIFA's ranking is flawed, the Women FIFA's ranking based on ELO is not perfect but better. Your half -cooked system is very flawed.

    I suggest you go look up World Football Elo Ratings.
     
  3. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    You don't know anything about my system to call it half-cooked. I gave you a simplified version of a part of my calculations. You can't judge a whole system on that alone.

    I am very familiar with the ELO ratings. My system incorporates the ELO system also, but makes a few adjustments to improve their ability to show teams' current strength. I wouldn't be here arguing if I wasn't offering something better. ELO ratings have their flaws too - one of which is that teams who lose a lot in strong confederations (UEFA) are ranked too far down in comparison with teams who win a few matches in very weak confederations (OFC).

    The test is in the results - mine consistently performs better than FIFA's at predicting results of matches. If an amateur non-statistician like me can come up with a system that is better at ranking football teams, think of what FIFA could do if they took it more seriously.

    If my system is half-cooked, then FIFA's must be raw.
     
  4. fire123

    fire123 Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    You still haven't said anything, just some un-supported claims.
     
  5. mumf

    mumf Member+

    Nov 7, 2008
    Ooops I am caught in cross-fire here.
     
  6. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    And as I said - that's because I'm trying to criticise FIFA's ranking - not promote my own.

    But since you insist - I have a website, I have run it for 10 years. If you look at my profile, you'll see the address to my website. If you still think FIFA's rankings are "a heck a lot better than mine" for women's teams - then you know nothing about women's football and shouldn't be arguing about it here.
     
  7. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    I always seem to get involved in these long arguments that stray off topic :confused: I wish people would just look at the criticism and see that it makes sense. You don't need to know about a better system to criticise an existing system anyway. The first step to improving a system is to identify its faults. Then it can be improved. Instead of just arguing back for the sake of it - this guy should be examining what I have said and checking things out for himself. I've given plenty examples to prove my point if he would care to stop for a minute and think.
     
  8. mumf

    mumf Member+

    Nov 7, 2008
    it's your Celtic blood ....... like mine.
     
  9. JLSA

    JLSA Member

    Nov 11, 2003
    On this point - the rankings are done on "results in the database" rather than "matches actually played". If an old match were added to the database between the two rankings (regardless of when it actually occurred - it could have happened years earlier) then the ranking would change. You would need to see the lists used at the two times to be sure of whether there is something more complicated than this going on.

    J
     
  10. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    The only thing I can think of is that I wrote an e-mail to FIFA to ask whether it was wise to include the results of awarded matches in their rankings, and also that they should indicate somewhere in the results database that this was the case. I notice the Pakistan v Sri Lanka match in February 2010 now has 3:0 AWD as the score. They may have somehow included and then unincluded this match in the calculations.

    BUT:

    I have consulted my files and the FIFA database, and Sri Lanka played no matches before 2010 - similar to Pakistan. So, neither team had reached the threshold of "5 matches against ranked teams" when they 'played' each other.
    Therefore, the match should not have been calculated. It is possible that it WAS somehow calculated, and that in the March ranking, Sri Lanka regained the points they lost by forfeiting the match to Pakistan - but then if that were the case, Pakistan's points total would also have been affected (they should have lost the points they gained for 'winning' the awarded match). This, however, did not happen.

    Th Pakistan v Sri Lanka awarded match was the 3rd match ever for Pakistan (of which only one - the first - was against a ranked team, India). It was Sri Lanka's 4th match, of which only 2 had been against ranked teams (India and Nepal).

    EDIT: I've just noticed that Pakistan also gained 35 points in between the March and May 2010 ranking, going from 843 to 878. Sri Lanka went from 850 to 888. I'm sure that wasn't the case yesterday. In any case, neither team played any matches in between the rankings, and if this forfeited match were included and then taken out, surely both teams wouldn't gain so many points unless it were originally counted as a loss for both sides.

    If we examine both teams' original provisional ranking a bit more closely:

    Pakistan and Sri Lanka's 4 matches in Jan/Feb for inclusion in the March ranking (to give their total of 843/850 points respectively) were:

    0-6 v India (SL 1-8 v India)
    0-1 v Bangladesh (SL 0-2 v Bangladesh)
    0-7 v Nepal (Sri Lanka 0-8 v Nepal)
    Possible Pakistan 3-0 Sri Lanka (Awarded).

    So, I'm not sure how that series of results can get Sri Lanka 7 MORE points than Pakistan - every single one of their results was worse than Pakistan's corresponding result.
     
  11. Samuel Vimes

    Samuel Vimes Member

    Jun 6, 2007
    I think this is because of the way the women's fixture list is structured - with very long stretches between the competitive matches. Brazil, for example, have played 7 competitive matches since 2008 (and all of them are squeezed into the November 2010 timeframe). In the same period France has played 16. Germany are hosting so haven't played any competitive matches since Euro 2009 - that has brought them down to tenth. I'd imagine something similar will happen to Brazil before the 2014 men's World Cup, though if they do well at the Confederations Cup that will prevent a total breakdown.
     
  12. Batfink

    Batfink Member+

    May 23, 2010
    Attilan
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Why the hell is everybody so high on Canada now? 6th in the world :D what a set up for a huge fall.

    I respect what a world class coach like Morace has done for them, but I don't even see them getting out of their WWC group.:eek:
     
  13. Edgar

    Edgar Member

    Well, Jonny wrote me an e-mail as I never visit the Women's Soccer forum :D He was very insistent :)

    Yes, I have the full list. It's here:

    FIFA Women's Ranking using the Men's system
     
  14. jonny63

    jonny63 Member+

    Feb 17, 2005
    Norway

    Thanks, you deserve a rep for your fast work :)
     
  15. fire123

    fire123 Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    You mean the Roon Ba ranking?
    1) Germany
    2) US
    3) Japan
    4) Canada
    5) Brazil
    Really, Japan and Canada ahead of Brazil?
    The top of your table is definitely wrong.

    How about an example from the middle:
    29) Thailand
    37) Vietnam
    How did you come up with that lemon?
    Their head to head the last 4 years:
    Feb 07, 1-0, Thailand
    June 07, 1-0, Vietnam
    June 07, 5-0, Thailand
    Sep 07, 3-0, Thailand
    Dec 07: 2-0, Thailand

    June 08: 1-0, Vietnam
    Oct 08: 2-1, Vietnam
    Oct 09: 2-0, Vietnam
    Dec 09: 2-2
    Dec 09: 0-0, Vietnam won PSO

    How about the Olympic Qualifying today: Mar 25, 2011, 2-1 Viet nam.

    In 2007, FIFA ranked Thailand ahead, recently they rank Vietnam ahead.
    32) Vietnam
    34) Thailand

    I trust FIFA's women ranking more than your system.
     
  16. CAFAN

    CAFAN Member

    May 30, 2003
    None of this makes any sense to me. First, FIFA rankings aren't based on opinions, Canada and Japan have risen to their current levels based on the same wins/losses points system used accross the board. Second, Morace hasn't coached a team beyond the group stage in either the WWC or Olympics, so where does the 'World Class' coach description come from? Third, why wouldn't Canada get out of their group? Germany is the big fish, but what has Nigeria or France done to be considered such a threat? Didn't France just finish 3'rd in the Cyprus Cup?
     
  17. luvdagame

    luvdagame Member+

    Jul 6, 2000
    you yourself are one of those who recently posted how good canada is doing under morace.

    i see no evidence yet that she is. she might be. but where's the evidence?

    thus, i'm in some agreement with cafan.
     
  18. Batfink

    Batfink Member+

    May 23, 2010
    Attilan
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    I obviously don't rate Algarve or the Cyprus cup as highly as others. Plus by not being able to see the games, judging how teams are playing is near impossible. Japan's football is the best in a very strong East Asia region though, and are better than many people think. They however are not the reason for my rant, a very ordinary Canada team being tipped for WC glory is.

    Reading coaches and reporters assesments on the games is the only way to get the real picture of what teams attempt to accomplish. Seeing a few of the games involving Canada suggests they are a team with nothing special, and reading reports on other games keeps my assessment the same.

    I read recently in one game vs a much better England team, Canada did nothing more than the sit deep with 9 players behind the ball and counter scoring of the only two attempts they could muster. They were over the moon with that performance too :confused:. That's a tactic on show a lot for Canada too, but's its not seriously the approach of a team supposedly 6th best in the world is it?.

    I have regularly stated that I may not rate the Canadian player pool, but I honestly respect what Morace has done with what I see as a very ordinary bunch of players. Her tactically astute use of these players in my mind has to be world class to get any decent results. Winning games with 9 defenders sounds Mourinho like, and everybody seems to love that douchebag :rolleyes:.

    USA and Canada in the not so distant past have gone through group stages with pretty ordinary coaches. I tend to think it's just as much about the football coaches can get from there players that highlights how good that coach may be.

    I don't believe any hype surrounding a strong WWC Canada performance, as big tournament play is the only time many female nations actually play with everything they have. It's when everything can come together for each nation on a more even footing, moving up the extra gears of intensity where teams can get really tested. When all FA's/Feds give their women's program decent funding and organisation, maybe we can all say with certainty what Algarve and Cypress cups mean for rank and future success.
     
  19. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    OK - first of all - Japan have been performing very well recently. Brazil have not really been playing all that much.

    Most recent results for Japan: 2-1 win over Sweden, 1-0 over Norway, 5-0 over Finland, narrow 2-1 defeat to USA, 1-0 victories over North Korea and China, 0-0 draw with North Korea, 2-0 v China, 0-1 v Australia, 2-1 v North Korea.

    Brazil: 2-2 and 0-0 v Canada, 3-2 v Netherlands, 3-0 v Mexico, most other matches were against South American teams.

    Canada: 2-1 v Netherlands, 2-0 v England, 1-0 v Italy, 1-0 v Scotland, 1-0 v Sweden, 1-2 v USA, 3-2 v China, 2-2 and 0-0 v Brazil (away), 1-0 v Mexico, 5-0 v Netherlands.

    So, why don't Japan and Canada deserve to be ranked higher than Brazil? Brazil need to play more matches against high quality teams to be ranked higher. Brazil v Canada recently showed how close they were - two draws in Brazil. My ranking reflects this - Canada are only marginally ahead - which you would expect given that Brazil had home advantage and didn't manage to beat Canada.

    As for Thailand v Vietnam - fortunately, the ranking is not decided on head-to-head between just 2 teams. That Vietnam has had the upper hand over Thailand recently does not mean they automatically go above them in the ranking. They have to apply this improvement consistently against other teams. If Thailand get better results against other teams than Vietnam do, Thailand will remain above Vietnam.

    Examples:
    Thailand's recent results:
    1-2 v Vietnam, 2-0 v Myanmar, 3-0 v Taiwan, 0-2 v North Korea, 0-4 v Japan, 2-0 v Myanmar, 0-4 v Japan, 0-3 v North Korea

    Vietnam's recent results:
    2-1 v Thailand, 2-0 v Myanmar, 4-0 v Hong Kong, 3-0 v Jordan, 0-1 v China, 1-6 v South Korea, 0-5 v South Korea, 0-5 v China, 0-2 v Australia

    As you can see, the teams are very similar - but Thailand have been less prone to losing by 5 and 6 goals. Japan and North Korea are better teams than China and South Korea. In 4 matches against Japan and North Korea, Thailand managed a goal differential of 0-13. Vietnam managed a goal differential of 1-17 in 4 matches against the weaker China and South Korea.

    My ranking gives more weighting to the last 10 games played by each team. So yes, Vietnam have been beating Thailand more than the other way round, but that doesn't mean we should ignore all the other results. Also, I don't include penalty shootouts in my calculations. Only 'real' goals count. You may find that if Vietnam get a good result against Taiwan tomorrow (remember Thailand already beat them 3-0), they may get even closer to Thailand. But they've got to show it consistently.

    Mexico also beat USA recently - does that mean we should put Mexico above USA? Even if Mexico played another 3 matches next week against USA and beat them 1-0 each time, they still wouldn't be ranked higher than USA - that's just not how ranking systems work.

    You'll find isolated things to argue about in ANY ranking - you can't please everyone - but you'll find MORE in FIFA's. I guarantee you. I guarantee you that my old favourites Tanzania are ranked better in relation to Maldives than they are on FIFA's. I guarantee that Papua New Guinea are in a more realistic position, etc. etc. So, by all means, criticise my ranking, but please don't put any trust in FIFA's - as I said - it does work for the Top 20 or so teams, but below that it is not to be trusted.
     
  20. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    Well, thanks to Jonny for bringing your attention to it, and thanks for the work! I am satisfied that Tanzania are very far above Maldives. Also, UAE are more reasonably placed. But New Zealand only 1 place above Papua New Guinea.....Hmmm....
     
  21. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    Have to agree with that sentiment - Canada's and Japan's results are there for everyone to see. It doesn't matter how they got their results - they got them and beat quality teams in the process. Imagine if a ranking system didn't give a team any points because they defended and scored both goals on the counter attack - the fact is they won the game, no matter how they did it - and that's the point of football. To win games. Teams are rewarded in the ranking for doing so. Canada are 6th-best in the world or whatever because their results have been the 6th best out of all the international teams. Simple really.
     
  22. fire123

    fire123 Member

    Jul 31, 2009
    You take ELO which is a good system and instead of improving it, you introduced errors into it.
    It's a waste of my time arguing with you.
     
  23. mcruic

    mcruic Member

    Jun 26, 2004
    Scotland
    Club:
    Dundee United FC
    Nat'l Team:
    Scotland
    Sorry to say - but you're wasting your time because you don't know how to make a point, address an issue, or stay on topic. It's your own fault you're wasting your time. You seriously need to take a look at the subject matter here, digest it, and come back with a fresh attitude before you go accusing people of wasting your time. Until you can be kind enough to do this - I don't think there's any point in you saying anything here.
     
  24. Left Inside

    Left Inside Member

    Dec 15, 2010
    Club:
    FC Barcelona
    My initial reaction to your comments was to dismiss them as trolling and move on. Since others have chosen to engage you, what the heck, I will too. Hopefully I'm not stepping too far outside the bounds of the thread topic in addressing the specifics of Canada's rise up the rankings.

    Insofar as they are, in fact, the 6th ranked team, any approach they take is by definition "the approach of a team supposedly the 6th best in the world." The problem is not the approach. The problem is the failure of your source to understand what they were doing and describe it properly.

    Canada played a 4-1-4-1 in the England game, one of the defensively oriented formations with which they have been working in preparation for the World Cup. Some have characterized this as negative football, and it can be that if played by a team without an offensive capability up front and in the midfield. As Canada demonstrated against England, however, it also lends itself to creative possibilities when played by a team with an explosive striker (such as Christine Sinclair) and support in the midfield (such as any of several Canadian players). It is not a formation that all teams can play well. Morace would not be working this into their repertoire if she didn't believe the team had the talent and the discipline to pull it off.

    They were pleased because their efforts to develop new tactical approaches have been progressing well and bore fruit in competition against worthy opponents. Describing this as putting 9 players behind the ball and getting lucky speaks to a pretty suspect understanding of football tactics and strategy. If Canada is ever to beat teams like the USA and Germany it will need to develop its defensive capabilities to the maximum. Perfecting a 4-1-4-1 is a pretty damned good idea when your WWC opening game is against the defending champions in their home stadium.

    It should also be pointed out that the English side is largely made up of players whose league was in midseason at the time of the tournament. They arrived in match form. Most of the Canadians had played no more than a four game tournament in China since before Christmas.

    Your characterization of the Canadians as lacking in quality players is more than a little hard to swallow. At the front, Sinclair is a potent finisher and polished playmaker who is legitimately considered one of the best female players on the planet. All 3 Canadian keepers are good enough to start on any national side. In between there are no real weak positions and several players strong enough to make teams pay for pushing forward too eagerly or lavishing too much attention on Sinclair.

    Historically the Canadian team has suffered from the same weaknesses that plague most teams that rely on a hoof and chase approach. The first touch has been unreliable, and ball supply has been imprecise.

    Morace has set out to turn the strategy to possession. She has overhauled the team's approach to fitness, fundamentals, strategy and tactics. Older players have embraced her approach with enthusiasm. It is the youngest players who really bear watching. They have taken to Morace's philosophy with passion and could very well be the difference for the team in Germany. The new coach's efforts to hone the team's ability has been part of the reason for their move up the rankings, but I think it is the joy with which they have taken to her style that has made the biggest difference to their performance.

    They are in a tough group at the WWC. France has a good side but is no better than several teams Canada has beaten over the last few months. Nigeria cannot be taken for granted but has shown no indication of being as strong as France. Nobody expects Canada to take a point from Germany, but I doubt very much that the Canadians plan on giving the home side anything but a hard time of it. It is a group where a single off day (or a single moment of inattention, for that matter) could send the team crashing out. With that caveat, this is a team that should be through to the second round. Any team that takes them lightly will be in for a nasty surprise.
     
  25. Batfink

    Batfink Member+

    May 23, 2010
    Attilan
    Club:
    Manchester United FC
    Go ahead put the troll to bed then :rolleyes:.

    ONE PLAYER. Sinclair is great, she's all they have to fear though. From what I had seen of Canada via various streams was a very work(women) like team, with a true diamond up top. At least Canada have a player worth tuning in for, but the game plan is not really quantum mechanics now, is it.

    The only way Canada beats Germany is if Germany forgot they were hosting the tournament. If Canada are going to ever beat Germany, USA, or anything decent, you need more than a team of defenders hoping for one chance to appear at the other end of the field. Defence can only do so much. 6th in the world, really?

    Hmm hmmm, if the English girls were playing in drag for EPL sides maybe that could be true. All England's domestic players have actually been in hibernation for months now due to a new league relaunch (WSL). Let's not try to pull that one out your sleve ;).

    Sorry, choke on this then. Canada is a program that's functioned like it's been developed from U.S. cast off's and hand me downs, always looking like a U.S. B squad at best. Sinclair is the only gem to glitter bright enough that any side would grab her in a heart beat.

    Maybe you can send the other 10 players to the 'Mythbusters' to see whether crap really can be polished, and therefore made to shine.

    And that's because you called me a troll :p

    Morace's great, no doubt, but this is reality and not the 'Care Bears'. No amount of love and rainbows will produce the moments of magic needed to make Canada a WC winner.

    Morace's tactics are solid, but it reflects the true limitations of what she's working with better than any other thing could.

    I'll give you that, most groups will be decided by who can produce the most quality for 90 mins solid. Plus in no way do I think Canada a push over.

    I just don't believe Canada's football relates to the rank, and therefore higher expectations of a more serious deep Canadian run in Germany. Based on the short history and evidence of the sometimes meaningless nature of women's friendlies, I won't jump to the conclusion Canada can now really reach the level of a top 6 nation when it matters.
     

Share This Page