SkyscraperCity banner

Do you agree with FIFA rankings?

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,313 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
i have to say no. uruguay on top of paraguay and chile seems wrong. russia on top of argentina and england seems wrong and GABON on top of mexico and nigeria is completely wrong.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
man franco why this thread....no need to argue about fifa rankings cuz who really cares...just cuz u are rank 1st dont mean u will win the world cup....
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
2,975 Posts
yea but it does warrant a special thread for it...
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
642 Posts
helllllllll no how tha hell is fricking canada ranked 92. People will be surprised by 2014 we will be in the world cup
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
642 Posts
yes one love jamaica ranked 65 went up 11 places :banana:, :tongue: south africa...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,298 Posts
I am curious whether you think The Netherlands deserve their third place. I am a bit of a loss as to why we are third. Sure, we have a good qualifying round so far, but that's not so hard considering the pool we are playing in. And yes, we beat the crap out of Italy (3-0) and France (4-1) at the last European Championships, but that's about it. I personally think that the Netherlands shouldn't be in the top-10 at all. When we are good, we are magnificent, but - for some unclear reason - we hardly ever go all the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,912 Posts
i think they and germany belong in the top 10, but not exactly sure because both have been inconsistent recently. it's amazing to me that canada is 92nd and sa behind jamaica. the further you go don the list the more bizar the rankings get.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
Haggiesm - I think there in an increase in statistical error as you moveoutside the top 30 or top 50 because these teams don't play games outside their confederation and also don't play many internationals full stop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,298 Posts
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).
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,966 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,912 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,298 Posts
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.
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
833 Posts
^^^ Yes, golf and tennis have a 1 year counting cycle. Its harder with football because there are less games in one year and also, most of the important comeptitions have a four year cycle. A 1 year cycle would negate the effects of winning a Euro or WC for example.
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top