FIFA World Ranking

4 of the Top 12 ranked teams from this list won't be in the Olympics (what a shame).

Germany
Norway
Australia
Italy

They need to change Olympic Qualifying.
This weakens the 12-team field that did qualify to get in the 2012 Olympics.
I don't want all 12 of the Top 12 FIFA ranked teams to get in, but 9, 10, or 11 of the Top 12 is okay.

But only 8 of the Top 12. Just seems like it's a weak field this year because Germany, Norway, and Australia are left out, etc.

 

I think the competition should be expanded to 16 teams, just like the men's tournament. Same with the UEFA Euro.

 

Meh, I think the women's football tournament at the Olympics has always been played like a weird post WWC repechage round, mainly for the benefit of nations outside of Europe. These nations are the ones that either ********ed up or underperformed at the WWC, and without the Olympics would have a solid 4 year absence from serious competition to make things right.

When you consider the mixed value and resources placed upon the Olympics by each confederation, isn't it always a weak field compared to the WWC anyway?

The Euro sides are lucky enough to have their own major confederation title to play for, so missing out on the Olympics once in a while is not as damaging to them as it would be for others. UEFA simply has little to no interest in the Olympics on any level relating to it's own footballing development. The Olympic tournament will be perfectly fine without the high FIFA rank of a Germany, Norway, or even Italy.

 

How do propose to change Olympics Qualifying?

Australia participated in the AFC's qualifying tournament 2 weeks ago and lost to Japan & N. Korea, both in the top 12. Only 2 teams get to go.

UEFA has 6 teams in the top 12, 2 get to go. What are you going to do?

CAF's top team ranks 27, the next 51. Two teams get to go. Are you suggesting to have the Olympics without Africa?

 

The Olympics (a multi-sport event) are meant to be representative of different continents. While there's probably not a team from Africa in the Top 12 (or even 16) in the world, in the interests of geographical distribution, they have to be included. With these considerations, we will never see all the best teams in the world play. This is what the (football-specific) World Cup is for.

 

December 2011 ranking:
1 USA 2148 0 Equal
2 Germany 2143 0 Equal
3 Japan 2106 1 Up
4 Brazil 2093 -1 Down
5 Sweden 2073 0 Equal
6 France 1990 1 Up
7 Canada 1989 2 Up
8 England 1983 -2 Down
9 Korea DPR 1967 -1 Down
10 Australia 1956 0 Equal

 

The ranking gremlins are having a bit of fun

 

Lol, France should have won a lil less, so it could have been 1998

 

Rankings are a joke. Sweden is disorganized and getting creamed by everyone, living off a hip ball against the usa and a 3rd place game France didn't even care to win.

Brasil is untested.

And i wouldn't put Canada in the top 10 until they beat someone.

No better than the WTA ranking system.

Benefits the USWNT because people in the USA have to have #1 attached to something.

 

Don't stress your self so much, most of the heads here already know who to look for at tournaments, and the rest doesn't matter if the teams continuously fail to live up to the rank.

I mean, does it matter if Brazil continue to stay relevant on paper, even though they never play any serious amount of friendly games? Does it matter that Canada always find themselves as a USA lite title contender thanks to FIFA's credentials, even though we all know they will struggle to get out of any group stage group at major events? Do the U.S. really have to go into a WWC or Olympics ranked #3 or 4, for them not to think they can always win it all?

 

Absurd statement simply... Only need to look at post-game comments.

 

Agreed. I still remember that battle......wow.

 

The fact that the USA and GER have been separated by a total of 8pts over the last two rankings is, to me, a sign of how silly it is to rank one of the at #1 and one at #2.
That said, USA will NEED to do well in Japan and England if they want to stay #1, as I'm sure GER will pick up points in their three EURO qualifying matches.
On the flipside, if JPN do well in Japan and England, they could probably break into the top two - at USA's expense.
It will be an interesting spring/summer.

 

The next FIFA ranking will be published on June 1st. Germany will only have two EURO qualifiers (as the deadline for matches is May 31st).

They can pick up at most 5 points (Spain at home, Switzerland away).
USA can lose at most 31 points (two 6 - 0 defeats).
Japan can gain at most 23 points (two 6 - 0 wins).

Germany could indeed move to 1st, but I can't see USWNT losing by 6 - 0 to both Japan and Brazil.

 

Somebody has to be 1, and somebody has to be 2. It would be much sillier to rank them equally on a whim. Also consider that Germany hasn't had a regular time win over USA since 2003 (5 wins to USA and 2 draws since then). Altogether, Germany have won 4, drawn 4 and lost 19 out of their 27 encounters. Not so silly to have USA as #1.

As for newsouth's "Brazil is untested".

2007 World Cup:
4-0 v China
1-0 v Denmark
3-2 v Australia
4-0 v USA
0-2 v Germany

2008 Olympics:
2-1 v North Korea
2-1 v Norway
4-1 v Germany
0-1 v USA (aet)

2011 World Cup:
1-0 v Australia
3-0 v Norway
2-2 v USA (aet, 3-5 pens)

I'd say a consecutive World Cup Final, Olympic Games Final, and narrow World Cup quarter-final defeat to eventual finalists was deserving of a Top 4 place, wouldn't you?

Also "And i wouldn't put Canada in the top 10 until they beat someone."

They already have. They may not have won many times against teams above them, but they don't have to. The concept of ranking is that if you beat teams below you, you stay above them. Canada has consistently beaten England, for example. Who do you suggest should be in the Top 10 instead of Canada?

14.06.11 Canada 2-0 North Korea
07.03.11 Canada 2-0 England
25.01.11 Canada 1-0 Sweden
27.02.10 Canada 1-0 England
07.03.08 Canada 3-0 Japan
26.08.06 Canada 1-0 France
18.07.06 Canada 4-2 Sweden

"Sweden is... getting creamed by everyone"

By everyone do you mean Germany, Japan and USA? The 3 teams above them in the rankings? Canada also seems to have an edge over Sweden, but I don't see many teams below Sweden consistently beating them. Again, you seem to fail to grasp the concept of ranking teams.

 

Here's my current FIFA Top 20.

1.) Japan (defending world champs, and beat USA again in rematch)
2.) Germany (consistency, although Japan beat them fair and square)
3.) USA (can't seem to win the big games lately)
4.) France (could be #1 team in world soon)
5.) Sweden (could surpass the USA soon, especially if they keep beating them)
6.) Brazil (they seem to lose most of their big matches against world Top 5 teams)
7.) North Korea (young but will be a force, young talent is rapidly improving)
8.) Norway (on their way back to being a force)
9.) England (don't ever see them being Top 5, but still Top 10)
10.) Australia (Japan and North Korea are tough in their region, but still #10)
11.) Spain (improving, and will be a Top 5 team in the next 5-10 years)
12.) Canada (who do they ever beat? 2002-2008 was their peak era)
13.) Italy (this team is very underrated)
14.) Mexico (this team is also very underrated)
15.) New Zealand (they are improving fast. past few years have seen much growth)
16.) Nigeria (always a fast team, still need to build more skill and fundamental play)
17.) Netherlands (another up and coming Euro team, and could be Top 10 eventually)
18.) Colombia (not too impressed with them now. still have young talent, Top 15 soon)
19.) Denmark (not what they used to be, still possible WC team with 24 team field)
20.) Switzerland (solid at the youth levels, could be Top 15 soon)

UEFA has 10 of the Top 20.

 

Future Top 12 (roughly 7-10 years from now)

1.) France (will be the #1 overall team in the land in the future)
2.) Japan (puts on a clinic with picture perfect play)
3.) Sweden (their best days are ahead of them, not behind them)
4.) Germany (still Top 5 in the future)
5.) Spain (watch out for Spain in the future)
6.) Brazil (post Marta, will still be real good, just not quite in Top 5)
7.) USA (still a Top 10 team in future, but the rest of the world has caught up)
8.) North Korea (their talent will keep them in Top 10)
9.) Italy (watch out for the Italians in the future)
10.) Norway (still hangs on to the Top 10)
11.) Mexico (ah those Mexicans. they continue to get better)
12.) England (just fall out of the Top 10 by then, but still solid)

knocking on the door: Australia, Netherlands, Colombia, New Zealand, Switzerland, South Korea

 

WC 2015 is Bruno's if he gets those women playing to their fullest and Delie (36caps/33goals) just becomes an 100 goal World Class Striker.

 

Did you just make that up off the top of your head? Looks like it. Have you seen Norway's form lately? What you said is just completely wrong, as Norway are actually in one of their WORST spells ever at the moment.

As for Canada - they just beat Brazil today. They've also beaten England, Sweden, China, North Korea (see my previous post). Not sure why everyone seems to be taking a pot-shot at Canada - the teams you put above them aren't any more deserving of a Top 10 place based on results.

Sweden "could surpass the USA soon, especially if they keep beating them".

What on earth kind of nonsense is that? Anybody would surpass the USA if they kept beating them. You seem to have based this all on 2 consecutive wins for Sweden over USA last year, failing to take into account that in the most recent fixture, USA won 4-0 (and Sweden also lost 4-0 to Germany). Hardly form that is going to scare either of those 2 teams.

*Brazil "they seem to lose most of their big matches against world Top 5 teams"

Hmm. Since 2003, Brazil have played Sweden 3 times (1 win, 2 losses), Japan once (a 2-1 defeat) and France once (1 draw). They've came off second best against USA (1W-9L), but 6 of those defeats have been by only 1 goal. Against Germany, they're actually even (1 win each and 2 draws in 4 games).

So, due to the small number of games played against Sweden, Japan and France, there's not that much that can be said about these results. Their recent results against the top 2 teams have not been too bad (who else could beat USA 4-0 and Germany 4-1?).


*14.) Mexico (this team is also very underrated)
How? Their results against top teams (that 2-1 win over USA aside) suggest otherwise. They have been beaten, and well beaten at that.

And what about South Korea? Their recent results have surely been more impressive than Colombia's.

And Italy - "13.) Italy (this team is very underrated)" - is this why you rate them even LOWER than FIFA (11th)? Talk sense man.

"15.) New Zealand (they are improving fast. past few years have seen much growth)"

The last 2 years have seen precisely ONE win against a higher-ranked team (1-0 v Italy in Cyprus in 2010). They've also lost 5-2 to France, 5-0 to Mexico, 3-0 to Australia (twice), 3-1 to Russia, 4-1 to Netherlands, 1-0 to Denmark and drawn 0-0 with South Africa in the last 2 years. Not exactly setting the world on fire.

A lot of people on here seem to just spout opinion on "who I think should be in the Top 10" without actually forming an educated result-based post.

 

^