PDA

View Full Version : FIFA World Rankings



Sylar
17-07-2014, 12:46 PM
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/fifa-rankings-scotland-within-7-places-of-england-1-3479852

Scotland are only 7 places behind England, who have plummeted to to 20th after their abysmal World Cup outing.

BVB Hibs
17-07-2014, 01:14 PM
The Fifa rankings are Laughable. Not long ago Scotland were the first team unable to qualify for the World cup. Don't understand the disparity between them and Ireland, who managed to qualify for a major tournament in 2012. The rankings are far too volatile and influenced too much by meaningless friendlies.

How Australia can be ranked 76th behind the likes of Libya, Sierra Leon, Oman and Jordan I'll never understand either. They're one of 32 countries to have played in the world cup, yet still manage to plummet 14 places down the rankings? What a joke. Been clear for a while that outside the top 10 or so the rankings are seriously broken and need fixing. Basing seedings off them does nobody any good.

erin go bragh
17-07-2014, 01:24 PM
Will this mean England will now be in pot 2 in future draws and Scotland will be in pot 3 !! Sure under harry potter no strikers we were almost in pot 5 !

Ggtth

worcesterhibby
17-07-2014, 01:57 PM
The Fifa rankings are Laughable. Not long ago Scotland were the first team unable to qualify for the World cup. Don't understand the disparity between them and Ireland, who managed to qualify for a major tournament in 2012. The rankings are far too volatile and influenced too much by meaningless friendlies.

How Australia can be ranked 76th behind the likes of Libya, Sierra Leon, Oman and Jordan I'll never understand either. They're one of 32 countries to have played in the world cup, yet still manage to plummet 14 places down the rankings? What a joke. Been clear for a while that outside the top 10 or so the rankings are seriously broken and need fixing. Basing seedings off them does nobody any good.

I don't disagree that the Ranking are not the be all and end all. But Australia got into the work cup by coming second in a group that consisted of Japan, Jordan, Iraq and Oman…that hardly compares with a typical european group. They played quite well in bits at the world cup but ultimately they got beat three times and conceded 3 goals on each game. I fail to see why that should entitle them to move UP the rankings. Other than Cahill they were and are pretty pony. If Cahill hadn't scored THAT goal against the dutch their tournament would have been all bad news.

SlickShoes
17-07-2014, 02:00 PM
7 places between us but we are in pot 4 and they are in pot 1, slipping down to pot 4 has crippled our chances of qualifying for any major tournament again. ROI are in pot 2 and currently lie 70th in the Fifa rankings. All makes perfect sense eh.

It's depressing every time a qualifying draw is made.

littleplum
17-07-2014, 02:16 PM
The Fifa rankings are Laughable. Not long ago Scotland were the first team unable to qualify for the World cup. Don't understand the disparity between them and Ireland, who managed to qualify for a major tournament in 2012. The rankings are far too volatile and influenced too much by meaningless friendlies.

How Australia can be ranked 76th behind the likes of Libya, Sierra Leon, Oman and Jordan I'll never understand either. They're one of 32 countries to have played in the world cup, yet still manage to plummet 14 places down the rankings? What a joke. Been clear for a while that outside the top 10 or so the rankings are seriously broken and need fixing. Basing seedings off them does nobody any good.

I think the FIFA rankings are better than is often portrayed. On a game by game basis in major tournaments they're not a bad indicator of who will win (that's my sense- if anyone has the time and inclination it would be a relatively straight forward, if time-consuming, thing to prove one way or the other).

It's easy to scoff at Jordan on the basis of 'they're in the middle east- how can they be any good' but in the last year they have beaten Nigeria, recent African champions Zambia, and drawn in Montevideo. Australia's position looks a bit odd given they finished ahead of Jordan and Oman (without defeating the latter) in their World Cup qualifying group over a year ago but since then they've beaten Costa Rica and who else? At the same time they've received doings from Brazil and France and also lost to Japan and China. On the basis of their performance in the World Cup they certainly didn't look like a top 50 side (Ryan McGowan played in every match for them ffs!).

Volatility is inevitable due to the infrequency of games and the amount that can change between them. A world cup match counts for four times as much as a friendly- far from being too influenced by friendlies it's precisely this weighting that has contributed to Australia's drop! It's not perfect but I'd rather have a system based on results rather than one based on reputation and hunches.

littleplum
17-07-2014, 02:28 PM
7 places between us but we are in pot 4 and they are in pot 1, slipping down to pot 4 has crippled our chances of qualifying for any major tournament again. ROI are in pot 2 and currently lie 70th in the Fifa rankings. All makes perfect sense eh.

It's depressing every time a qualifying draw is made.

UEFA don't use FIFA rankings to determine the pots for Euro qualifiers. I believe they base it on the qualifiers and finals records for the last three major tournaments. Friendlies don't count and I think (although I am happy to be corrected) that a qualifying match in Sept 2008 for the 2010 World Cup will count for the same as one five years later for the 2014 cup.

Keith_M
17-07-2014, 02:39 PM
Are the FIFA rankings responsible for Scotland having the reigning World Champions in our Euro Championship Qualifying Group three times in succession?

Or are we just REALLY unlucky?


:hmmm:

nellio
17-07-2014, 02:41 PM
Wales are always done on these as well. We're always really low down and as a result get a tough group.

The rankings state that were a worse team than Armenia, Tunisia, Panama, Scotland :greengrin etc. I think if we played those teams exc scotland (although we have beat you the last 2 times we've played you :thumbsup:) in a leauge format a few time we would win it comfortably.

Its a lot of gash because the USA only really play Mexico who are any good and Australia dont play any tough teams really. The European teams are much harder to beat.

BVB Hibs
17-07-2014, 03:12 PM
I think the FIFA rankings are better than is often portrayed. On a game by game basis in major tournaments they're not a bad indicator of who will win (that's my sense- if anyone has the time and inclination it would be a relatively straight forward, if time-consuming, thing to prove one way or the other).

It's easy to scoff at Jordan on the basis of 'they're in the middle east- how can they be any good' but in the last year they have beaten Nigeria, recent African champions Zambia, and drawn in Montevideo. Australia's position looks a bit odd given they finished ahead of Jordan and Oman (without defeating the latter) in their World Cup qualifying group over a year ago but since then they've beaten Costa Rica and who else? At the same time they've received doings from Brazil and France and also lost to Japan and China. On the basis of their performance in the World Cup they certainly didn't look like a top 50 side (Ryan McGowan played in every match for them ffs!).

Volatility is inevitable due to the infrequency of games and the amount that can change between them. A world cup match counts for four times as much as a friendly- far from being too influenced by friendlies it's precisely this weighting that has contributed to Australia's drop! It's not perfect but I'd rather have a system based on results rather than one based on reputation and hunches.

Is a world cup game worth 4 times the amount as a friendly though? A friendly is exactly that, a place to blood new players and try new things. Germany drew with Poland in a friendly before the world cup. Last summer Germany brought a second string side to the USA and lost 4-3. Why should games like this affect ranking? We don't expect Dundee's 2-0 win over Man City to have any bearing on the season ahead do we? I just find it laughable that a side like Scotland, who have won 6 of 18 competitive fixtures should somehow be declared the 27th best side in the world on the back of a couple of friendly fixtures. Ireland have a record of 10 in 23, with 10 from 20 in qualfiers and 3 being in a major tournament in the period under consideration, I don't see how that's worth only just over half the points Scotland have, it's ludicrous.

I don't disagree that at the top end, FIFA rankings are pretty spot on. To be fair though, regardless of what measure you use, the top 10 are going to remain largely unchanged. Using only competitive fixtures, there wouldn't be a huge amount of change to the top of that table.

littleplum
17-07-2014, 03:27 PM
Is a world cup game worth 4 times the amount as a friendly though? A friendly is exactly that, a place to blood new players and try new things. Germany drew with Poland in a friendly before the world cup. Last summer Germany brought a second string side to the USA and lost 4-3. Why should games like this affect ranking? We don't expect Dundee's 2-0 win over Man City to have any bearing on the season ahead do we? I just find it laughable that a side like Scotland, who have won 6 of 18 competitive fixtures should somehow be declared the 27th best side in the world on the back of a couple of friendly fixtures. Ireland have a record of 10 in 23, with 10 from 20 in qualfiers and 3 being in a major tournament in the period under consideration, I don't see how that's worth only just over half the points Scotland have, it's ludicrous.

I don't disagree that at the top end, FIFA rankings are pretty spot on. To be fair though, regardless of what measure you use, the top 10 are going to remain largely unchanged. Using only competitive fixtures, there wouldn't be a huge amount of change to the top of that table.

The point is though that a single friendly might not tell you much about a side's quality and as such doesn't affect the rankings that much. However, a series of four friendlies is likely to tell you something, arguably more than some of the final games of the group stages of the world cup. Given how few competitive games there actually are, to discount friendlies entirely would be to make the rankings extremely volatile and quickly out of date.

littleplum
17-07-2014, 03:40 PM
If you look at the FIFA rankings of the UEFA teams alone they don't look that controversial. ROI might still feel a little hard done by but otherwise they look pretty sound. The controversy comes in because people can't accept that teams from outside Europe, teams whose players they haven't heard of and whose results they have haven't noticed, could possibly be as good or better than mediocre European teams. It's made all the more difficult because teams from different confederations rarely play each other (and to exclude friendlies would be to reduce the pool of information even more). If Scotland ended up in a group with Ecuador, Algeria and Denmark it would be extremely difficult to predict the top and bottom teams. The FIFA rankings reflect that well.

whereswallace?
17-07-2014, 04:50 PM
The way the draws for tournaments and qualifying groups is done really bugs the life out me. It's purely so all the teams FIFA and uefa want to get to these tournaments, get there. Mostly.

I firmly believe everyone should just be out in the same big pot with no seedlings and let the best teams win. Would certainly make for some interesting groups.

hfc rd
17-07-2014, 07:19 PM
The way the draws for tournaments and qualifying groups is done really bugs the life out me. It's purely so all the teams FIFA and uefa want to get to these tournaments, get there. Mostly.

I firmly believe everyone should just be out in the same big pot with no seedlings and let the best teams win. Would certainly make for some interesting groups.


I wouldn't mind that at all. Would make it more exciting.

Forza Fred
17-07-2014, 08:44 PM
Wales are always done on these as well. We're always really low down and as a result get a tough group.

The rankings state that were a worse team than Armenia, Tunisia, Panama, Scotland :greengrin etc. I think if we played those teams exc scotland (although we have beat you the last 2 times we've played you :thumbsup:) in a leauge format a few time we would win it comfortably.

Its a lot of gash because the USA only really play Mexico who are any good and Australia dont play any tough teams really. The European teams are much harder to beat.

Not defending the FIFA rankings which I have always thought we're ultimately decided by multiplying some unknown factor by your Granny 's shoe size,but will pass an opinions the second last para of the above.

Firstly, no arguments that Oz currently deserve to be very low in the rankings.
Their so called 'GoldenGeneration' are gone and this wc'ssquad were very much youthful and transitional.

However,they were in the toughest group of the lot, and although they recorded three losses, they acquitted themselves well above expectations

However, my main opinion comes in regard to the claim that they don't play any tough teams in the qualifiers.

Japan, were disappointing in the finals, but are anything but an easy side, and are emerging future champions.

Not the next World Cup, nor prpbably the one after that but certainly at some point.

Fast,skilful and creative with many of their players now plying their trade in Europe, it's only a matter of time.

Incidentally I used to think that Europe and South America were the only Real footballing continents but travel broadened my knowledge.:greengrin

worcesterhibby
18-07-2014, 05:18 AM
However, my main opinion comes in regard to the claim that they don't play any tough teams in the qualifiers.

Japan, were disappointing in the finals, but are anything but an easy side, and are emerging future champions.

Not the next World Cup, nor prpbably the one after that but certainly at some point.

Fast,skilful and creative with many of their players now plying their trade in Europe, it's only a matter of time.

Incidentally I used to think that Europe and South America were the only Real footballing continents but travel broadened my knowledge.:greengrin

Yes they had one decent team in their group and ended up 4 points behind them and only one win ahead of Jordan. The Aussies drew with Oman twice and and got beat by Jordan. They're pants.

Speedy
18-07-2014, 06:33 AM
Form plays a big part in the rankings and I think this is important because national teams can change quickly.

I'm surprised Scotland didn't drop in the rankigs but I don't think England have many complaints at where they are.

One of the problems imo is that you get more points for drawing at home to San Marino than you do for losing by 1 goal away to Germany in a competitive game. That can make it hard foe smaller teams.

spike220
18-07-2014, 09:17 AM
http://www.scotsman.com/sport/football/latest/fifa-rankings-scotland-within-7-places-of-england-1-3479852

Scotland are only 7 places behind England, who have plummeted to to 20th after their abysmal World Cup outing.

The problem with England is the EPL.

nellio
18-07-2014, 10:27 AM
Not defending the FIFA rankings which I have always thought we're ultimately decided by multiplying some unknown factor by your Granny 's shoe size,but will pass an opinions the second last para of the above.

Firstly, no arguments that Oz currently deserve to be very low in the rankings.
Their so called 'GoldenGeneration' are gone and this wc'ssquad were very much youthful and transitional.

However,they were in the toughest group of the lot, and although they recorded three losses, they acquitted themselves well above expectations

However, my main opinion comes in regard to the claim that they don't play any tough teams in the qualifiers.

Japan, were disappointing in the finals, but are anything but an easy side, and are emerging future champions.

Not the next World Cup, nor prpbably the one after that but certainly at some point.

Fast,skilful and creative with many of their players now plying their trade in Europe, it's only a matter of time.

Incidentally I used to think that Europe and South America were the only Real footballing continents but travel broadened my knowledge.:greengrin

To qualify for the 2014 world cup Australia played the following: Oman, Saudi Arabia & Thailiand. FOllowed by Japan, Jordan, Oman and Iraq.

I would say only Japan out of those nations possess any real quality.

Where as Wales and Scotland I should add played, Belguim, Croatia, Serbia and Macedona and either Scotland or Wales depending who you support.

Simply put in my opinion and Wales or Scotland played the same teams in qualifying as Australia we would both qualify almost every time and have a much higher FIFA word ranking.

BVB Hibs
18-07-2014, 12:18 PM
To anybody who is particularly interested, have a look at the ELO rankings on Wikipedia. For me at least a more accurate reflection of where world football is right now.

Nifty little formula in there for estimating the expected result of a match which won me a good bit of dollar during the world cup too ;)

littleplum
18-07-2014, 02:47 PM
To anybody who is particularly interested, have a look at the ELO rankings on Wikipedia. For me at least a more accurate reflection of where world football is right now.

Nifty little formula in there for estimating the expected result of a match which won me a good bit of dollar during the world cup too ;)

Interestingly under Elo a World Cup match is only worth three times as much as a friendly. Maybe the FIFA rankings don't value friendlies enough :wink:

Seriously though that's an interesting read. It also links to a less interesting read http://lasek.rexamine.com/football_rankings.pdf comparing different ranking methods that concludes that Elo are the best predictors. I also note that FIFA women's rankings are better predictors than either.

I would make a couple of observations though: Elo seems to place greater importance on historical strength while FIFA's draws its data from the last four years. While this might allow Elo to ride out certain temporary fluctuations in form it makes it harder for teams without that background to climb the rankings and gain more advantageous seeding spots. Secondly, no method is perfect- Elo had England as the 6th best team in the world going into the World Cup!

My original point wasn't that FIFA rankings are perfect, only that they're not as bad as is often made out particularly regarding the swipes against teams from outside Europe and South America when the truth is that few of us are in any position to say how well Cape Verde have been playing over the last couple of years. It's clear from doing a bit more reading that it does have deficiencies based mainly on failing to properly weight the strength of an opponent (but not on the actual games they factor into the equations or how they weight those).

ekhibee
19-07-2014, 03:12 PM
Chick Dung was saying on Sportsound that if we managed to get a draw against Germany over there we would go above England, don't know if that's gonna happen, and don't know if he's right either.

iwasthere1972
19-07-2014, 03:22 PM
Chick Dung was saying on Sportsound that if we managed to get a draw against Germany over there we would go above England, don't know if that's gonna happen, and don't know if he's right either.

Maybe someone should mention that to the Germans and remind them of 1966. You never know. :wink:

HibernianJK
19-07-2014, 03:36 PM
Brazil have dropped to 7th in the World after the WC and Colombia have jumped to 4th after being put out in the semi-final by.......... Brazil. FIFA rankings are a joke and IMO have little reflection on the actual strength of each team in the world.

Since90+2
19-07-2014, 03:57 PM
Brazil have dropped to 7th in the World after the WC and Colombia have jumped to 4th after being put out in the semi-final by.......... Brazil. FIFA rankings are a joke and IMO have little reflection on the actual strength of each team in the world.

Quarters.

HibernianJK
19-07-2014, 06:27 PM
Apologies. But in a way it makes it even more incredible that Colombia have now jumped to 4th.

Scouse Hibee
19-07-2014, 08:12 PM
The rankings are pish, yes England are crap but the gulf between England and Scotland who are diabolical, in reality is massive. Seven places my erse:faf:

hibs4thecup1988
20-07-2014, 06:49 AM
Surprised nobody has bitten scouse. But that's a typical attitude from the English. Personally I think England are gash. I don't think England would beat Croatia home or away right now and the world cup proved how over rated some of the English players are.

Each to their own though. Strchan has got us playing well and I fancy us fir top 10 by 2016 :agree:

California-Hibs
20-07-2014, 07:41 AM
The rankings are pish, yes England are crap but the gulf between England and Scotland who are diabolical, in reality is massive. Seven places my erse:faf:

The somewhat recent 3-2 win from your lot would suggest the current Scotland team are far from 'diabolical' and the gulf is nowhere near massive. We all witnessed England at the World Cup and in friendlies leading upto it, the truth hurts, your lot are pants. Come down front cloud 9 if you think you're miles ahead of us!

Now release me from your hook, please! :)

Eyrie
20-07-2014, 11:27 AM
The rankings are pish, yes England are crap but the gulf between England and Scotland who are diabolical, in reality is massive. Seven places my erse:faf:
I realise you're still hurting from the non-performance at the World Cup, but I don't believe England are that far behind Scotland.

cabbageandribs1875
20-07-2014, 11:57 AM
I realise you're still hurting from the non-performance at the World Cup, but I don't believe England are that far behind Scotland.



they're catching up on us though :agree:

Scouse Hibee
20-07-2014, 12:34 PM
I realise you're still hurting from the non-performance at the World Cup, but I don't believe England are that far behind Scotland.

I'm not hurting at all mate, international football has nowhere near the hold over me that club football does, just stating my honest opinion of the gulf between Scotland and England.

NAE NOOKIE
20-07-2014, 01:25 PM
I'm not hurting at all mate, international football has nowhere near the hold over me that club football does, just stating my honest opinion of the gulf between Scotland and England.

Not worth discussing Scouse mate. My big bro was born in Manchester and supports 'them' and Engerlund at the footie. As I said to him at the end of the WC ...... That's Germany's 4th star ....Brazil have 5, Italy have 4, Argentina 2, Uruguay 2, Spain, France and England 1 each. Special mention to the Dutch who have made 4 finals.

In what could be considered their peer group England are way down the pecking order, with only Spain entitled to feel they should do better. Come to think of it England's record in the Euro's is even worse having never won them .... Even Greece and Denmark have managed that and Spain have at least 2 wins.

English fans I am willing to bet have to look at that record rather than any comparison with Scotland. England may have the best league in the world, but for a big nation whose commitment to the beautiful game is undeniable their historical inability to put a decent team on the park at major international tournaments is woeful ..... not to mention baffling.

On topic:

Seeding at the WC, Euros and European club competitions is ruining the game and is purely in place to favour the big countries. It cant be compared with the likes of Tennis where eventually the top guys will be overtaken by a bright young talent.

In footie Germany for example will always have a population 20 times that of Scotland, Denmark etc. Ensuring that they are very unlikely to meet Spain or England until the latter stages is guaranteed to ensure that barring the odd shock smaller countries have no chance of progressing in international competition even at club level.

Imagine how much fun it would be to have a free for all draw at a big tournament.

ekhibee
20-07-2014, 03:51 PM
Not worth discussing Scouse mate. My big bro was born in Manchester and supports 'them' and Engerlund at the footie. As I said to him at the end of the WC ...... That's Germany's 4th star ....Brazil have 5, Italy have 4, Argentina 2, Uruguay 2, Spain, France and England 1 each. Special mention to the Dutch who have made 4 finals.

In what could be considered their peer group England are way down the pecking order, with only Spain entitled to feel they should do better. Come to think of it England's record in the Euro's is even worse having never won them .... Even Greece and Denmark have managed that and Spain have at least 2 wins.

English fans I am willing to bet have to look at that record rather than any comparison with Scotland. England may have the best league in the world, but for a big nation whose commitment to the beautiful game is undeniable their historical inability to put a decent team on the park at major international tournaments is woeful ..... not to mention baffling.

On topic:

Seeding at the WC, Euros and European club competitions is ruining the game and is purely in place to favour the big countries. It cant be compared with the likes of Tennis where eventually the top guys will be overtaken by a bright young talent.

In footie Germany for example will always have a population 20 times that of Scotland, Denmark etc. Ensuring that they are very unlikely to meet Spain or England until the latter stages is guaranteed to ensure that barring the odd shock smaller countries have no chance of progressing in international competition even at club level.

Imagine how much fun it would be to have a free for all draw at a big tournament.
Some really good points there, but I don't see why Germany and England can't be drawn in the same qualifying group, particularly if England drop to their rightful place in the lower tiers of international football. I say rightful because despite all the commentators in the media going on about not enough young English players coming through, the majority of the top teams in England play teams that compose mostly of foreigners and have shown little or no inclination to change. Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal for example. As long as that situation continues England will still be fielding mediocre or inexperienced players in their national team, because Gerard, Lampard etc can't have long to go from an international perspective. Just my opinion though.

NAE NOOKIE
21-07-2014, 12:21 AM
Some really good points there, but I don't see why Germany and England can't be drawn in the same qualifying group, particularly if England drop to their rightful place in the lower tiers of international football. I say rightful because despite all the commentators in the media going on about not enough young English players coming through, the majority of the top teams in England play teams that compose mostly of foreigners and have shown little or no inclination to change. Chelsea, Man City, Arsenal for example. As long as that situation continues England will still be fielding mediocre or inexperienced players in their national team, because Gerard, Lampard etc can't have long to go from an international perspective. Just my opinion though.

Bang on .......But England aint the big issue at international level ..... the truth is even if they manage to screw up so badly they make pot 2 it will just be a glitch in the grand money driven scheme. Also ... the EPL cant account for one English WC win in the history of the tournament, not to mention not a single European championship final... never mind winning it.

One thing is for sure ..... the EPL will not do anything to help England's miserable record if the last two decades are anything to go by.

BVB Hibs
21-07-2014, 12:27 AM
To be fair, as interesting as an open draw would be, imagine how boring the European Championship proper would be if we had Spain, Germany, Holland, Italy and France in a single qualifying group. On the other hand, wouldn't entirely mind it in the group stages of the championship, would spice things up nicely.