So, with the first post-summer FIFA rankings out, I thought it would be a good idea to start a WC seeding discussion thread. Given that Qatar will be automatically seeded, there will be seven other spots available in Pot A. Currently Belgium (1822), Brazil (1796), France (1762), England (1753), Italy (1745), and Argentina (1714) are highly likely to both qualify and claim six of the remaining seven spots in Pot A, which is going to set up a very interesting competition for the last spot in Pot A. The current top contenders are: Spain (1680) Portugal (1662) Mexico (1658) USA (1648) Denmark (1642) Netherlands (1637) Uruguay (1635) With the removal of FIFA confederation weightings, the number of qualifying matches remaining becomes the most important variable in determining who will move up/down the rankings. In this case, Spain & Portugal are at high risk because they each only have five qualifying matches remaining, two of which are against minnows that will not earn them many points even if they win (Georgia #91 & Kosovo #115 for Spain, Luxembourg #96 & Azerbaijan #112 for Portugal). Conversely, Mexico & the United States both have 14 qualifiers left, none against minnows (the lowest ranked team still in CONCACAF qualifying is Panama at #74). So whomever finishes 1st in CONCACAF qualifying has a strong chance of grabbing the last spot in Pot A, especially if Spain fails to win one of its' two matches against Sweden or its away match against Greece. Uruguay also has an outside shot with 12 qualifying matches left, although with 3 of them being against Argentina & Brazil, they've got a tough path to move up. Denmark are playing well, are in a 6-team qualifying group, and already have away wins against two of the top challengers in their group (Israel & Austria), so they will likely win at least six of their remaining qualifiers, which could propel them up the rankings. If the CONCACAF winner has comparatively few points, Denmark could end up grabbing the last spot in Pot A ahead of them.
Portugal and Uruguay usually like to make things difficult and struggle their way into tournaments. I got Spain. USA has a good chance but as I said in the USA forum my gut says the road will not be easy. There's a lot of great kids with potential but we have not seen them play on the road in the CONCACAF yet. I am not a betting man but if I were... ... my money would be on Spain.
I agree with you about CONCACAF being a slog, but my bet from UEFA would be Denmark. They've only got one remotely tough qualifier left (at Scotland), and are therefore likely to win 6 out of their final 7 qualifiers. If figure that whomever wins CONCACAF is probably going to need 28 points (8 wins/4 draws/2 losses) or more to grab the last spot in Pot A.
Mark my words: if the US is within breathing distance of the Top 7 ahead of the WC draw, FIFA will go back to the "Ranking + last 2 WCs" formula.
Nothing FIFA does would surprise me. But in all honesty, it's in FIFA's financial interests for the USA to go as deep in the tournament as possible. I'm sure WC 2018 ratings were much lower in the US than WC 2014 ratings.
True, but FIFA are gonna be wary of surprise teams in Pot 1 after Poland's 2018 top seed blew up in their faces.
Would be ideal. Concacaf clearly invented this absurd octogonal (as if they have such depth lmao) to "game" the system and give US/Mexico a good seeding. Getting a pot 1 seed just by beating Costa Rica and Jamaica a million times is pathetic. Nations League, gold cup, octogonal, my ass cup.... disgusting.
Pretty much every European power plays 4-6 of their WC qualifiers against teams ranked lower than any of the teams in the CONCACAF octagonal. The lowest ranked team in the Octagonal is Panama (#74). UEFA has 20 teams ranked lower than that in its qualifying groups.
I'm trying to work out whether this is in favour or against the argument. Under the former system, playing low ranked teams tended to hurt your FIFA rankings as even winning against them could lower your score - for example, if France defeated Liechtenstein and then Moldova in a month they would probably fall in their ranking score because their average opponent would be lowered by those matches. The Concacaf Hex (as it then was) was advatangeous (but only if you had a good run). I haven't really been paying attention to the new system so I don't know if you are trying to say this is still the case, or if it isn't. My guess is that these matches against the lower ranked UEFA teams are effectively irrelevant to ranking changes (if you win obviously) and hence limit the ability for top UEFA teams to raise their ranking score. J
The new system is accumulative, not an average (like the old system), with the number of points any given result earns you being primarily a factor of the strength of your opposition. And because the system is accumulative, the more games you play, the more opportunities you have to earn point-generating wins. So whereas the US (and Mexico) both have 14 WC qualifying matches remaining (all against decent opposition), Spain & Portugal each only have 5 matches remaining. And because several of those matches are against UEFA's minnows, they won't earn that many points even with huge wins. The US and Mexico will almost certainly pass Portugal....and if both have strong Octagonals and Spain fails to win its home match against Sweden or it's away match at Greece, they have a decent shot at passing Spain as well. The dark horse, as I mentioned above, is Denmark, since they will likely win six out of their final seven WC qualifiers (their only remaining "tough" match is away to Scotland), which will earn them a lot of points.
This can't be true. According to the football internet the US and Mexico only play minnows. BTW if I was US soccer (and Mexico) I would try to get FIFA to publicly commit to how the draw will be seeded now. Because whoever wins the Octa will have a good chance of being 7th.
Portugal finds ways to lose or draw teams they should not. I would not be surprised to see them lose to Serbia or Ireland.
Anything is possible but the current squad is a notch or two above the one from 4 years ago (imo). I'll be quite shocked if they lose a game (although I could see one more draw - max) given now that there is a huge incentive to finishing top of your group.
The problem for Portugal is twofold: First or all, they're only 4 points ahead of Mexico, 14 points ahead of the USA, and 20 points ahead of Denmark. Secondly, they've only got five qualifiers remaining, and two of those are home against Luxembourg (#96) and away to Azerbaijan (#112). Even if they manage to win all five (which they probably won't) they're still likely to fall behind Mexico if they finish the Octagon with 6 more wins than losses.
These would be the points gained/lost by USA, MEX, and POR based on results with current FIFA rankings. Obviously these points would change slightly with time but it's good enough for a rough approximation. If Portugal win all 5 they would have about 1662 + 7.3*2 + 3.2 + 4.1 + 8.9 = 1692.8 If you estimate Mexico with 9W, 3D, 2L with loses away to USA and Honduras and draws to Canada, Jamaica, and Costa Rica. You'd get 1658 + 12.3 + 6.8 + 6.4 + 5.6*2 + 7.8 + 6.3*2 + 7.2 - 5.7 - 5.3 - 4.7 - 12.7 - 18.6 = 1675 If we make the Honduras loss a draw and the Canada draw a win we get 1700. So first approximation if Portugal wins all 5 would be Mexico (or the US) to go 10W 3D 1L. This isn't perfect either since they would start gaining slightly fewer points as the ranking difference grew during qualifying.
Excellent post which indicates well that it is unlikely that either USA or Mexico passes Denmark should Denmark win out.
That's why I'm skeptical about the US and Mexico going up. They're going to get negative results over 14 games. Right now against any of the other 6 teams, a draw will completely offset a win and a loss will offset approximately three wins. That's how Elo systems work.
For US and Mexico, a pair of draws against each other would be fine - just a level trade.... After that, you have 12 games. To really make up space on Denmark, they would have to go 9 wins, 3 losses, or 8 wins, 2 losses, 2 draws. The realistic best against the lower 6 teams would be something like: At home: 5 wins and a draw (sweeping would be very nice, but nearly impossible) On road: 3 wins, 2 losses, 1 draw (realistically, this is probably too much - but it's likely the most one cold hope for) Total: 8 wins, 2 losses, 2 draws is the very best. Meaning.....at the very best, it's possible. Just.....possible. In 2014, the US went 7 wins, 1 draw, 2 losses. Equivalent of that here would be 10 wins, 1 draw, 3 losses. So, it's possible, again, barely. Now, if either nation (US/Mexico) sweeps the other, then the bar lowers a little bit.
Thanks for the detailed analysis! Did you do an estimate for Denmark's point totals if they go 6W-1D (at Scotland)?
My money would be definately on Denmark. They are just a class above everyone else in their group. If they don't get cocky they should close their group close to max points. Spain are as of now way too inconsistent. They will almost certainly drop points to Sweden. In case of Denmark don't doing their homework I'd favour the USA to clinch that last spot. I think they have the talent and the momentum so to speak and are out to prove that 2018 was an accident. If they can handle those tricky away games they are in commanding position to finish at least first in the Octagonal.
However, Portugal are highly unlikely to go undefeated.....a draw against either Ireland or Serbia drops them into the 1675-80 range. Two draws or a single loss and they're down into the 1660-65 range.