I know a lot of people don't care about these rankings, but just FYI, the US remains in the top ten of Fifa's ranking (10th position). On the other hand, Mexico passed England, and is now in the 8th position, the Brits at 9th. Top Ten 1 Brazil 853 2 Spain 780 3 France 778 4 Argentina 761 5 Germany 758 6 Netherlands 752 7 Turkey 732 8 Mexico 729 9 England 725 10 United States 723 http://www.fifa.com/rank/index_E.html
This is good news for the USA. I know most of you think that the FIFA rankings are crap (ok I think it's crap too) but they do matter to FIFA. Particulary they are used in part to find the seeds for the World Cup Finals draw. If the World Cup draw were held today, the USA would be one of the top eight seeds. We need to stay around the top ten to hold on to it, and the higher we go in the rankings, the better off we are. That's why I hope Bruce and the gang takes the Confeds Cup and Gold Cup serious this summer. A good showing in both could see the US move up to seven or six.
Like it or not, the FIFA rankings ARE relevant. However, HOW in God's name, is Mexico STILL ranked ahead of us??!! Makes NO sense considering what happened at WC '02 & recent friendlies!!
Remember, FIFA counts games as far as eight years ago in one form or another. Also, only a teams best games from a given year are counted (something like your best eight to 12 games.) This is done so that teams that play alot of games dont get a huge advatage over teams that play fewer games. A team can also never loss points. So some USA-Mexico games may count in the rankings for only one team, or both, or neither.
I'm just glad that most of these teams schedule us for friendlies now, to me, that's a much greater sign of our prowess than any FIFA ranking.
Why in the world do people keep asking why Mexico is ahead of us? They have performed better than us in every competition in the past 8 years than we have other than the most recent World Cup and the most recent Gold Cup. They finish 2nd in Copa America, they finished higher in the Confed Cup, they finished higher in qualifying, they did better in 98, we have won a Gold Cup but so have they (or more than one?). Friendlies are extremely watered down results. Win 3 World Cup games and you'll get a lot higher rating than beating Mexico in 8 friendlies. Qualifiers and Continental championships are also weighted more heavily than friendlies but not as strongly as the World Cup. The US ought to be thinking about doing well at the Confed Cup and Gold Cup if they want to have an outside shot at a seed in the next cup. Semifinal at Confed Cup and a Gold Cup victory would see the US jump up to about 7th most likely.
I agree. Mexico still is a better team in the grand view of world soccer. IIRC the US has never won a game in Mexico, agaist Mexico. We can not say that we are so much better than they are if we have never betten them at their place. A lot of people belive that FIFA will change its seeding numbers once it looks like the USA is going to be seeded and someone like Argentina or France will not be. But I hold that if the USA finishes in the top eight come December 05 then they would have done the things neccessary to justifiy a seed. That means winning the Gold Cup. Winning three out of five games at the Confeds Cup, Doing well at the Copa America, Winning almost every game in CONCACAF WCQ, at least until we reach the Hex, and doing very well at the Confeds Cup '05. If we do all of this then not only will we earn a seed, but other nations could not complain. If we dont, not only would we not earn a seed, we shoulnt have one. Give be a little time and I'll post the seeding rankings updated with to the current rankings.
Good News! After crunching the numbers on my excel sheet the USA has improved (slightly) it stadings in the real FIFA Rankings, the rankings for seeds for the World Cup Draw. 1. Brazil...............53.33 2. Germany .........49.17 3. Spain...............41.33 4. Italy.................41.17 5. England............40.50 6. Mexico.............40.33 7. USA.................38.17 =. Denmark..........38.17 9. Argentina..........37.67 10. France.............35.67 11. South Korea.....35.17 12. Belgium...........32.00 A tie for 7th is better than being in 8th, like we were last month. Yes, if the WC 2006 Final Draw was held today, the USA would be a seed atop on of the eight groups. However, we must keep winning in big tournys in order to hold on to this place. I can list the rankings all the way to 63rd place if any one else cares.
they havent lost a game since the WC Turkey is kicking major ass right now and i wouldnt be surprised if they moved up a couple of spots
I find it VERY hard to believe that FIFA won't find some loophole to give Argentina and France #1 seeds instead of Mexico, USA, or Denmark. Imagine the uproar if the Americans got a 1 seed instead of the French, or if the Danes got one instead of Argentina.
Has the weighting system for the World Cup been the same for a while, or do they tweak it every cup to give a top seed to whomever they like?
I agree, I wouldn't put anything past FIFA. And Neil, FIFA has used the same system for France 98 and K/J 02. I cant find any info for previous WC. As for France and Argentina, they both took a huge hit by failing to advance out of the first round in K/J. Mexico would have been a seed at the last world cup if it were not for the co-host. Since the host country is given a top seed, most of the time that country would not have earned a seed if they were not the host. Mexico was more deserving than South Korea or Japan, but was past over in favor of the co-host being seeded. The USA is helped in 06 in that Germany would be a seed if they were the host or not, therefor no undeserving host will be place ahead of us. My feeling on the USA is this...If the USA wants to stay in the top eight, then they will have to do very well in major the tournaments between now and then. If we do what it takes to stay in the top eight, we will have also done what it takes to answer any detractors. The key date is the rankings in December 2003. That rank will be "banked" along with December 04 and the last rank before the final draw (November or December 05) those three will be averaged and count has half of the seed fomula.
Jimmeny cricket, how many times will this argument be used? It does make sense, simple. Mexico has had better results than us over the past 6+ years, not by much now, but still better. Friendlies hardly make an impact on the rankings. So no matter how many times we beat them in friendlies it really won't matter. We have two big wins against them in the past two years. The world cup win and the World Cup qualifier in Columbus. We are still ranked in the top ten, I'm happy, regardless of how many around these parts despise the rankings (often for un-educated reasons).
IDIOT!? OMFG are you kidding me!?!? Turkey had a great WC they would of beat Brazil if it wasn't for the ref and Rivaldo's "Acting". Btw they still are playing good football.
Re: IDIOT!? One 3rd place finish at the World Cup does not a 7th ranked team make! What else has Turkey accomplished recently? I'm not being confrontational by the way, I really don't know. Anyone?
I think we all know that Turkey did great at WC '02. We also understand why Mexico remains ahead of us, despite recent head to head results--the rankings take into account results over the past 6 or so years. But it's for this same reason that I think some of us (i.e. Northcal19, speedcake) are surprised that Turkey is ranked so high. We are not saying the rankings are wrong. We are merely admitting that we are unaware of Turkey's successes prior to WC '02, and were wondering if someone who knew could share their accomplishments that earned them the #7 ranking. Your "OMFG are you kidding me!?!?" does no one any good. Well, maybe it makes you feel better or smarter than us, but it doesn't answer the question. And that's all anyone was asking for--a simple answer, not ridicule.
yes, what he said! Someone simply list Turkey's accomplishments that justify their high ranking. I'm being lazy tonight.
I'll try. Turkey has been to to the past two Euro Champs Finals, reaching the Final 8 at Euro 2000. Just showing up at the big events is more that most nations. But more than that, this just shows the importaints of the WC on the rankings. WC finals games count much more than any other. A 3rd place finish is only one win short of 1st place. Just look at France. in the May 1998 ranking France was 17th. After winning the title they jumped to number two and have been no lower than three since then. Also, since a team cant lose points, Turkey cant fall, someone else has to pass them, and no team has had the chance to earn big points since last summer. Their just havent been enough games with multipliers. You earn big points in big events. Turkey can hold or move up by winning some games at the Confeds Cup this summer. Friendly match x 1.00 Continental championship preliminary x 1.50 World Cup preliminary match x 1.50 Continental championship finals match x 1.75 FIFA Confederations Cup match x 1.75 World Cup finals match x 2.00 When I see this, I cant belive the possibility for the USA this summer. The USA playes in BOTH the Confeds Cup and a Continental Championship finals (Gold Cup). The USA and Brazil are the only countries that play in both. Now Brazil has nothing to worry about, They are far and away ahead of everyone else. (look at the gap between 1st and 2nd place. Brazil is going to be #1 for a long time). But the USA is breathing down the neck of England and Mexico and can overtake them both with one good win, and Turkey, the Netherlands, and Germany are in striking distance. Only 12 games a year count in the rankings and the USA could play [bold]TEN[/bold] games worth 75% more than the friendlies that most countries will play. And 25% more than Euro 2004 qualifiers that the UEFA teams are in. But wait their's more.... If we win the Gold Cup then the USA will be invited to the Copa America next summer and the 2005 Confeds Cup in Germany. Since you cant lose points, playing in these events will only help us, and if we do well or win...then we're really cooking with gas. It's there for us people, do you see it! Between now and Germany 2006 the USA can win a seat at the adults' table. We need to win game, of course, but it's there. I would rank the Gold Cup as just a tad more importiant that the Confeds Cup becouse winning it gets us in to more big events. But we will play better teams at the Confeds Cup a can earn more points. I pray that Bruce sees this too. Forget all this "we just want to mess around this summer, look at some new players and get our line up in order for that big World Cup qualifier against the Cayman Islands next March." We need to bring our "A game" to both events. Our players will be in mid season form, hoping to prove that last summer was not a fluke, playing a bunch of guys tired from a long season and resenting the fact that they have to work in their summer holiday. The future is not in 2006. The future is now. rant over
Re: Re: IDIOT!? I disagree. I think the top determinant should be the play in the last world cup. As more information comes in (and the cup history becomes older), I think the third place should have less of an impact. A year after the cup, though, I think a third place finish should be enough for a top 10 ranking.