Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Oh please ! I can't stand anymore to hear about that ranking crap being significant. How can anyone compare teams which are never playing against each other ? I know that World Cup past results are flawed because they are old, but at least they are the results of direct confrontations. It's not because Japan will beat Thailand, Nepal and Guam that it will prove it's better than Brazil which has drawn against Argentina in the same time.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Simply don't use the FIFA ranking to determine the seed. It sounds obvious.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Of course, if FIFA rankings were not used, it would hurt the Dutch even more, by my crude math because they missed WC2002. Sachin
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 That will hurt Holland's chances more than help it. The whole reason Holland is so high in the seeding formula is because they are ranked #2 right now.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 What formula would you consider that has Holland in and Mexico out ?
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 But I dont think we'll get seeded even if we win all our friendlies between now and December. But it doesnt matter cause I'd love to be in Brazil's group, that way we get to kick their ass not once but twice
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 @Sachin and eldiablito : I haven't said so because I want the Netherlands in, it's simply the principle about using the FIFA ranking that I reject. I've heard on the French forum that in October France have won one place in the FIFA ranking. So obviously, that ranking tells me that now France is better than Mexico because France has beaten Cyprus at home when Mexico lost away against T&T in a game they couldn't care less ? Seriously, what's the value of a table comparing teams never playing against each other ? My answer is clear : none.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 You do realize you shouldn't quote favoring Netherlands over Mexico and then saying the obvious solution is to not use the FIFA ranking, if that is the point you're making. Mexico has a strong case for a seed. There are only 4 teams that have made the knockout stages in each of the last 3 world cups. They are Brazil, Germany, Italy, and Mexico. That factoid is completely independent of FIFA ranking.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Actually you're schematising. the fifa ranking tells you that in the last 7 years, on average (ponderating the years in function of their recentness) France has had 7 better results in the year than Mexico has. Seeing the number of matches Mexico has played this year, i'd actually be surprised if the Tand T loss actually factored into the FIFA calculations. You also seem to be forgetting that in October, both teams played another another match (France draw away to Switzerland/Mexico thrashing of Guatemala at home) The France boost may have had more to do with the fact that pre WC 98 results are being dropped with the march of time. I'm not a big fan of the FIFA rankings but I hate to see people criticise things when they don't quite understand how it works. The FIFA rankings contrary to what some think, has not for goal to decide who's better than who AT A GIVEN POINT IN TIME. Neither for that matter do the World Cup seedings. Put things into context and you may just take them less seriously. To illustrate, the fact that Brazil are number 1 may happen to coincide with the fact that they're the best in the world right now, but i guarantee you that for instance a fall in their form between now and the world cup would not result in them losing their first place position until after the world cup, and even then it may take the right combination of results (great performances by one of the teams ranked 2nd to 5th to displace them)
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 In October 1998 we had won against Russia and Andorra in the European qualifiers. I doubt those are bad results being erased from French records. France overtaking Mexico is the difference between September's ranking and October's ranking. The only reason why Mexico would now be below France when it wasn't in September is because Mexico has lost against T&T. But anyway, my point was simply that we CANNOT compare the results of teams never playing against each other. No matter how numerous are the games taken into account, it's totally worthless. I won't repeat what I've already said. Comparing teams never playing against each other is irrelevant.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 @ Metropolitan Please don't hijack this thread into one debating the validity of FIFA's dubious coke rankings. There are countless threads on these boards that dwell on that topic--ad nauseum. I don't mind if it pertains particularly to the seeding formula, but it's clear from what you posted that you really don't know much about how the rankings are calculated. For a primer go here. However, if it's too much to ask that you educate yourself on the complex coca-cola FIFA rankings, just kindly refrain from posting about them here.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Since FIFA rankings have strong chance to be taken into account in the seeding formula, it's perfectly relevant to talk about the significance of such a use in a thread about that seeding formula. You seem to believe I don't know how the FIFA ranking works ! No matter if you take into account a coefficient consisting in the difference of rankings between both teams playing, no matter if you take into account the fact they are friendliers, qualifiers, regional or world competitions, the problem is in the principle : there is no way to rank teams never playing against each other.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 But if you are choosing 8 seeded teams for the World Cup, you have to rank them somehow. And this is the seeding thread.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 True, but in case you missed the point, here it is, explicitly: The FIFA rankings aren't really intended to compare team A to team B.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 I haven't looked through the other seeding threads, so I apologize if this has already been discussed . . . Using the 2003 and 2004 FIFA Rankings as part of the seeding formula is totally bullshyt! FIFA Rankings take into account results of past 8 years already. Older results are devalued as follows: Last 12 months : 8/8 value + previous year : 7/8 value + previous year : 6/8 value + previous year : 5/8 value + previous year : 4/8 value + previous year : 3/8 value + previous year : 2/8 value + previous year : 1/8 value The effect of using the 2004 and 2003 Rankings as part of the seeding system is to underemphasize results from 2004 and especially 2005 because these results count for nothing in 2003 Ranking, while 2003 results and earlier get triple counted. By my calculation (using the FIFA Ranking devaluation scheme for 2005, 2004, and 2003), results from 1996-2005 are weighted as follows toward determining the FIFA Rankings portion of the seed formula: 1996: 1% 1/108 1997: 3% 3/108 1998: 6% 6/108 1999: 8% 9/108 2000: 11% 12/108 2001: 14% 15/108 2002: 17% 18/108 2003: 19% 21/108 2004: 14% 15/108 2005: 7% 8/108 I can think of no logical reason that more recent results are not weighted higher than older results. One possible (albeit cynical) explanation for this illogical arrangement: European and South American teams do relatively better in 2003 Rankings because this is immediately following their continental championships (a big boost in the FIFA Rankings).
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 OK. Here's a question. Who would be the seeds if we only look at World Cup performance? Just drop the Coca-Cola numbers from the formula. What do you get? I know that some people would want to go farther back but let's just stick to the recent history for now.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Here's an excellent article on the subject http://www.planetworldcup.com/GUESTS/paul20020709.html The short answer is: Brazil, Germany, Italy, England, Spain, Mexico, Denmark, S. Korea As Denmark isn't qualified, the US would take the last seeded spot. If Spain doesn't qualify, Argentina would take the last spot.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Thank a lot. Interesting. I wonder what people will think of that list.
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 Everything depends on the way you could take into account those past results. There's not only one formula possible. I'm by the way highly surprised that France wouldn't be in it knowing that they've won one of the three past world cups...
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 probably has something to do with NOT QUALIFYING for 1994 and FALLING MISERABLY FLAT IN 2002
Re: The SEEDING Thread--updated October 19, 2005 But they didn't make WC94 and crashed out in WC2002, effectively negating their win in 1998. Interestingly, this World Cup is the first one France has qualified for since 1986. Sachin