I understand your point. I dont mind a European team playing against an African team in qualifying rounds, but the risk is that less African teams (and I don't mean this in a negative way) will qualify for a tournament. That will probably cost even more points. Maybe we should just get rid of the rule that you get extra points for beating a higher-ranked team.3) The only concern I have is the fact that the system biases those that play often with highly-ranked teams - eg. EUFA competitions. For example, it is harder for SA to improve their ranking because they hardly ever play the world's top-ranked teams (except in unusual competions like the Confed Cup).
Yet... at the same time it's quite common to get teams like the U.S and Australia who don't generally play quality opposition but dominant their rather weak region. Many decent teams in weak continents tend to have their ranking inflated. It works both ways, but I think it's hard to make it totally accurate. The criteria used seems reasonable, taking account the ranking of opposition, home or away, and degree of result. I also think that a victory in a semi final match is worth more than in the group stage.Ok, so I'm going to buck the trend here and vote that I agree with the rankings. These are the reasons
1) The rankings are an objective metric, and not based on opinion or past pedigree
2) You may disagree with the formulations, but the most important computational decision for improving ranking is to beat teams ranked higher in the table, especially away from home. This is fair.
3) The only concern I have is the fact that the system biases those that play often with highly-ranked teams - eg. EUFA competitions. For example, it is harder for SA to improve their ranking because they hardly ever play the world's top-ranked teams (except in unusual competions like the Confed Cup).
So taken together, I'm generally ok with the rankings, and am prepared to accept that it is flawed but it is also the MOST objective system around.
I am all with you on this one, but to be fair, up until a year ago, results of four years ago were also taken into account. So, this is already much better. If you ask me, we should go to a system with a maximum of one year, just like for example in tennis. The current form would be much better reflected that way.the problem i have with the rankings is that they don't really reflect form. italy is a good example to me. they didn't play amazing football during the 2006 world cup, they just got consistent results and because they won the tournament, they moved up in the rankings and were no 1 for a while. now they play worse than a lot of countries ranked outside the top 10, but because they racked up a bunch of points a few years ago they're still up there. but in reality, what they did 2 years ago doesn't mean anything today. the same can be said for portugal. Lets say, hypotheically, bafana beat italy and 4 other top 10 teams. they'll still be ranked outside the top 30 at best, way below the teams they beat to get there.