Yeah Spain being #8 and Chile #4 (wtf) is ridiculous and on what planet are teams like Finland, Scotland, Serbia, Armenia etc. superior to Mexico..
One of them doesn't open up for me, and the other one has Iran ranked #10! Which is awesome, but can't be true.
Here is the top 62 from the Brazilian link: 1º BRASIL (1)11.7928 2º ARGENTINA (2)11.6729 3º ESPANHA (3)11.5741 4º COLÔMBIA (4)11.4404 5º ALEMANHA (5)11.3838 6º HOLANDA (9)11.0992 7º EQUADOR (6)10.9879 8º URUGUAI (7)10.9766 9º CHILE (8)10.9706 10º FRANÇA (13)10.9073 PosiçãoTimePontos 11ºInglaterra10.7817 12ºBélgica10.6935 13ºBósnia-Herzegovina10.6170 14ºRússia10.4790 15ºPortugal10.4057 16ºEUA10.3933 17ºUcrânia10.3325 18ºItália10.2695 19ºSérvia10.2539 20ºPeru10.2410 21ºParaguai10.2133 22ºMéxico10.2081 23ºSuíça10.1922 24ºSuécia10.1274 25ºCosta do Marfim10.0686 26ºNigéria10.0620 27ºCroácia10.0283 28ºGana10.0099 29ºVenezuela9.9599 30ºGrécia9.9356 31ºCosta Rica9.9069 32ºRomênia9.9002 33ºRepública Tcheca9.8657 34ºÁustria9.7897 35ºFinlândia9.7537 36ºTurquia9.7131 37ºPanamá9.6826 38ºDinamarca9.6779 39ºHonduras9.6458 40ºJapão9.6307 41ºBolívia9.6131 42ºEscócia9.6053 43ºEgito9.5345 44ºIrlanda9.5311 45ºIsrael9.3991 46ºBurkina Faso9.3983 47ºBielo-Rússia9.3668 48ºEslováquia9.3466 49ºIrã9.3449 50ºEslovênia9.3200 51ºGeórgia9.2802 52ºBulgária9.2673 53ºGuiné9.2614 54ºArgélia9.2466 55ºArmênia9.2438 56ºCoréia do Sul9.2320 57ºPolônia9.2149 58ºZâmbia9.1682 59ºCabo Verde9.1676 60ºTunísia9.1524 61ºHungria9.1422 62ºAustrália9.1315
And those event were....they had to play teams outside of the AFC. The reality is their true quality in 2006, was in fact shown.
Actually, having Ecuador as 7th in that ranking isn't so crazy, as in its methodology it considers the probabilities of playing as a home or visiting team, giving a lot more weight to home teams, where Ecuador playing at home is almost unbeatable, in which case they appear very high in that ranking. To understand any ranking, you must first try to understand the methodology each one uses to give points to each team.
Okay, I did a comprehensive comparison of head-to-head results between Romania and Iran against common opponents since 2000, although in the process got to see more about which I may say a few things later! Anyway, I think the exercise is useful in giving insights into 2 teams from different confederations, one which has made the World Cup from the AFC and the other which hasn't made the World Cup from UEFA but made their playoffs, with Romania ranked higher than Iran by FIFA: Since 2000, Iran and Romania have played the following teams in common, going in reverse alphabetical order, with their respective head-to-head results obtained from 11 v 11 listed as well, with the team that has done better in bold and when tied, the team with better goal difference is in Italics: 1-Uruguay (Romania: 1 loss, 1 draw) (Iran: 1 draw) 2-Ukraine (Romania: 2 losses) (Iran: 1 win) 3-Slovakia (Romania: 1 win, 3 draws) (Iran: 1 win, 1 loss) 4- Saudi Arabia (Romania: 1 loss) (Iran: 1 win, 2 draws, 1 loss) 5- Russia (Romania: 1 win, 1 loss) (Iran: 1 win) 6- Portugal (Romania: 1 loss) (Iran: 1 loss) 7- Paraguay (Romania: 1 loss) (Iran: 1 draw/win on pen.) 8- Mexico (Romania: 1 loss) (Iran: 3 losses) 9- Macedonia (Romania: 2 wins, 1 loss) (Iran: 1 win, 1 draw) (6/9 v 4/6 but Iran with better GD) 10-Jordan (Romania: 1 loss) (Iran: 6 wins, 2 draws, 4 losses) 11- Japan (Romania: 1 draw) (Iran: 2 wins, 1 draw, 1 loss) 12- Ireland (Romania: 1 loss) (Iran: 1 win, 1 loss) 13- Georgia (Romania: 4 wins, 1 draw) (Iran: 1 win) (13/15 v 3/3) 14-Croatia (Romania: 2 losses) (Iran: 1 draw) 15-Brazil (Romania: 2 losses) (Iran: 1 loss) 0/6 v 0/3 is 0 but Romania with better GD 16- Bosnia (Romania: 3 wins, 1 loss) (Iran: 4 wins, 1 draw) 17- Belarus (Romania: 3 wins, 3 draws) (Iran: 1 draw, 1 loss) 18-Austria (Romania: 2 draws, 1 loss) (Iran: 1 loss) 19-Albania (Romania: 2 wins, 2 draws) (Iran: 1 loss) Thus, Iran has done better against 11 of 19 different opponents shared in common with Romania in this period, Romania has done better against 5 of them, while are records are basically tied against the other 3 common opponents. Conclusion: Advantage Iran.
No, the events were of a very different nature. We had played teams from outside of Asia before. Done alright. But prior and during World Cup 2006, events occurred that affected our team adversely at the wrong time. First, our top 3 players all got injured before the World Cup, and one of them, dubbed the "Asian Maradona", Ali Karimi of Bayern Munich, was merely suited up by the time of the World Cup when his status was still uncertain. He got to play haphazardly for us, and regrettably did more off the field (see below) than on the field. In fact, Ali Karimi was never the same player he was before the serious injury he suffered during the Bayern v Hamburg match in the Bundesliga. At the same time, while Karimi wasn't doing much for us on the field because of injury, reports appeared of a big fight in our locker room at halftime against Mexico, between Ali Karimi and some players who supported him, versus our then coach and then captain, Ali Daei and some players on their side. Daei, who was aging, was the player many thought should be taken out and replaced with someone who could still play, while Branko wanted to take out Karimi who was playing with injury and keep Daei in the match. Thereafter, the brawl between the was an open affair and our team was split into 2 camps. (Once the World Cup was over, those who favored Karimi's side took over the federation, fired both the head of the IFF and our coach Branko on the spot, and made Daei a persona non grata basically, with Daei out of the picture as player or anything for a while. The whole thing eventually led FIFA to suspend for a while because of political interference in the running of the federation in the way the former head had been fired). Incidentally, the feud between Daei and Karimi never really settled and is still going on!
The french website, is biased starting from the methodology of calculating points (only victories give points, where defeats substracts points), where depending from where you are, you get more bonus points. Strangely it gives Uefa and Afc tournaments a higher bonus points (it doubles those from other Confeds), than those of the rest of the world (as it seems it considers Afc at the same level of Uefa , and considers them both to be superior to Conmebol, Caf and Concacaf), which also means that usually teams from both of those Confeds, may appear higher in its ranking. This ranking system doesn`t consider the strength of the opponent, you get the same ammount of points by beating San Marino, than those you get by beating Brazil . Which would also give more points to those teams that regularly play and beat these definitively uncategorized teams that exist within some Confederations. For the case, of Caf and Concacaf as in a 4 year time lapse period they play 2 continental tournaments, somehow it tends to equilibrate this issue in regards to Uefa, in the case of Afc, as they also play 2 continental tournaments in the same lapse time, they double the bonus points of Uefa, but as they are basicly bad or less than average teams, even with this extra bonus, they still can't make it to the top. Whom definitively gets punished, in this aspect, are Conmebol teams, reasons why besides Brazil and Argentina, no other of its teams appear higher than 29th in the respective ranking (Uruguay, whom are the actual champion of Copa America). Whatever,....... Next WC we will have to teach these french, at our home, another lesson.
And the Brasilian isn't biased, for instance putting Italy in the 18th position, ignoring what happened in the last 4 years? Seriously, this is becoming a ridiculous war between confederations.
1. So Iran has a better recod than Romania even when we talk about different number of games. Seriously? 2. Let's look at Bosnia. We beat them when they had this good generation. They were official games 3. 13- Georgia (Romania: 4 wins, 1 draw) (Iran: 1 win) (13/15 v 3/3) This is what you call advantage Iran? 4. Iran hasn't even played official matches against teams like Holland Italy France just to name 3 WC finalists 5. You guys give too much credit to stupid friendlies. Seriously here are on top of my head a bunch of friendlies: Spain Romania 0-1 2006, Romania Germany 5-1 2001 next year they reached the 2002 WC final, Romania Russia 3-0 (that year they reached the Euro 08 semifinal), Romania - Belgium 2-1 last year What did they prove in the end? NADA Even this weak generation we have now would beat you. Like Jordan you would see what happens when you exit your comfort zone All this talk of intercontinental play offs and what does the AFC rep do?
At least, less biased. Measures every team over the same basis, giving no bonus points nor anything like it, like what the french blog or even FIFA, do, in their rankings. The only biased issue over which they measure, is the weight they decide to apply if a team faces a game as a home team or a visiting team. In any case, for every team, including Italy, it is the same weight factor. If it were up to me, I will always prefer ELO, with its virtues and flaws, as it isn't free of them as well.
Fortunately, or unfortunately as the case may be, youtube is filtered here and don't know what you have posted. (I suppose I can use by anti-filter program to see what you have, but frankly don't feel like it). But to give context to what I said earlier about our World Cup in 2006, here are some reports that you might find informative. http://dawn.com/news/196759/iranian-coach-bemoans-injuries-to-key-stars Iranian coach bemoans injuries to key stars Ali Karimi had been out with an injury for over two months, while Vahid Hashemian had also not played for almost that long due to injury. Even Mahdavikia had been sitting out injured for 10 days right before the World Cup. Our European based players getting all injured right before the World Cup and lacking match fitness not being bad enough, we also had fights over Daei and whether he should be playing at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Daei That had led to fights within the locker room over whether it should be the injured Karimi, or Daei, who should be substituted from our games. The fights began in the locker room at halftime against Mexico, with Branko substituted Karimi. When Iran lost 3:1 after Karimi was subbed out despite admittedly doing little in the game, most fans were incensed that Daei had been kept into the match for 90 minutes. The same then happened against Portugal, with Karimi coming out and Iran ending up losing 2:0. Karimi was clearly upset by then: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=soccer&id=2492515 World-Karimi may be dropped for disciplinary reasons Against Angola, our coach didn't start Karimi, and when Karimi was called to get into the match, he refused and said no. He didn't play. When the World Cup was over, the head of the football federation, Dadkan, was fired on the spot for sticking with Branko and siding with him in the dispute that had erupted over Daei being continuously used despite his age and the disputes that had arisen between Karimi on the one hand, and Daei and Branko on the other. That then led to Iran getting suspended from FIFA altogether for political interference into the running of the IFF. http://espnfc.com/news/story?id=393454&cc=4716 Iranian Federation suspended by FIFA
Don't take all this too seriously. I have seen Iran play very well, and do well, against good teams fielding their best players and have seen us do poorly against rather poor teams too. I am not going to insist we will beat Romania, as we have even lost to Albania once, but over all the games I have seen, it is rare for Iran to lose easily. Even in the World Cup in 1998 and 2006, despite a lot that was tearing the hearts of Iranian fans in 2006 as I have tried to chronicle above, no team (certainly not Yugoslavia, not Germany, not Portugal, nor any of those from other confederations including Mexico and the US) went into the locker room at halftime ahead of Iran. Iran is a good enough to hold up its own and rare examples of Iran being beat badly aside (happens once every blue moon), Iran can play competitively against anyone in the world. Romania, on the other hand, is the kind of team that if it beats us, it will be disappointing and probably against the run of play.
Please don't go the 'what if our players weren't injured' or the 'if it weren't for this, we might have done better' path... Mexico could also use that to hypothetically say "if we would've fired Chepo earlier, then we would've qualified easily." France could've said, "if we didn't have locker room disagreements, we could've gone far in 2010." England could've said, "if that goal would've been counted, we would've won against Germany." Spain could've said, "if Torres wouldn't have gotten injured before the WC, we wouldn't won the games by bigger margins." and so on... the possibilities are endless.... You see where I'm going with this?
You are right. Except when someone wants to avoid the big picture, and concentrate on just the flaws when you know the whole story behind some of them. In the big picture, Iran is a good Asian side, often even ranked as the best on its results but a bit inconsistent when it matters, which has not bee able to prove anything at the world stage when it has qualified to the world Cup in the past, other than perhaps that it was good enough to have been there.
Sure, at least until they get beat. And while I am not sure, I wouldn't be terribly surprised if Iran managed as much in Brazil.
Now, you are clearly being a troll. That said, I was very surprised when Iran managed to win its last 3 games and won a straight ticket to the World Cup. I didn't have much hope for us afterwards either, and while not very vocal about it, didn't rate Carlos Queiroz much. Recently, though, I have seen this team suddenly begin to gel and become much better. That has encouraged me to think that we might pull something in Brazil after all, although I need to see us tested against quality opposition in games that I see and can rate, before I am willing to go on a limb and predict that we will in fact do well. Of course, what kind of draw we get will be crucial as well. There are certain draws that will leave us practically no chance. There are other draws that I am willing to predict Iran doing well in even now.
Carlos Queiroz was depressing for us, very negative tactics. We were hard to beat, but if we don't score we won't go very far. I wish you better luck!
I hated our tactics under Querioz too. The guy made scoring on the Maldives, a team which we once scored 17 against to set a world record, look hard! But we are doing much better these days and Queiroz seems to have changed. Unless the players aren't playing attention to him and are doing their own thing!
The Maldives games had nothing to do with Queiroz, Maldives has improved tremendously since the days we beat them 17-0. If you remember they held South Korea to a draw at home and lost 2-0 away during the previous qualifiers. Overall Queiroz has been very good for Iran.