Jump to content

New Fifa Rankings


Recommended Posts

Wow, lots of teams moved up by large amounts or dropped large amounts. The rankings seem more accurate now then they did before.

I'm also surprised that Canada is ranked higher than Korea Republic, Angola, Trinidad & Tobago whom qualified and took part in this years World Cup. Japan, Korea and Iran dropped significantly

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow, lots of teams moved up by large amounts or dropped large amounts. The rankings seem more accurate now then they did before.

More accurate? -- Maybe.

Really accurate? (Which would actually be very, very important) -- Absolutely not. And that's the problem: Even now those FIFA rankings turn out as the farce we used to know. I really can't understand why a team like Brazil is still number 1 and Germany is only 9th, just two ranks above a team like Nigeria which even didn't qualify for this year's World Cup.

Working with four-year-old results is like using survey results from 2002 for predicting this fall's congressional elections in the USA.

Link to post
Share on other sites
More accurate? -- Maybe.

Really accurate? (Which would actually be very, very important) -- Absolutely not. And that's the problem: Even now those FIFA rankings turn out as the farce we used to know. I really can't understand why a team like Brazil is still number 1 and Germany is only 9th, just two ranks above a team like Nigeria which even didn't qualify for this year's World Cup.

Working with four-year-old results is like using survey results from 2002 for predicting this fall's congressional elections in the USA.

OK, obviously you don't know how to read right do you? I said they seem to be more accurate then they used to be. That does not mean at all that they seem 100% accurate now. It is a bigger improvement on the previous method used.

I don't know why your complaining about Germany placing 9th. They moved up large in the rankings due to the World Cup run, they are a young exciting team that is only going to move higher on the rankings so I wouldn't complain about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, obviously you don't know how to read right do you? I said they seem to be more accurate then they used to be. That does not mean at all that they seem 100% accurate now. It is a bigger improvement on the previous method used.

Well, I understood that. I just wanted to point out that despite the higher accuracy, I wouldn't still use those rankings for getting an impression of the teams' strenghts and weaknesses.

I don't know why your complaining about Germany placing 9th. They moved up large in the rankings due to the World Cup run, they are a young exciting team that is only going to move higher on the rankings so I wouldn't complain about it.

They moved up because they were absolutely underrated in the old ranking, not really due to their performance in the World Cup. If the World Cup results really did matter that much, it would be impossible for a non-World-Cup-participant like Nigeria to rank higher than as many as 22 of the 32 World Cup participants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are still some overrated countries, but I think the new rank is accurate. Of course Brazil should stay in the nº1: they won all the matches at the 2002 WC, 2004 Copa América, finished in the first place of the most complicated qualifying tournament, and won all the matches in the 2006 World Cup except the one against France in quarter-finals. Should they be under Italy that lose in eight finals in 2002, didn't reach to second round in Euro 2004 and get the Cup in 2006 with three draws. I don't think so.

Of course, the rank should take care of the results in the last years but their relative importance change according the year.

1st year -> factor 1.00

2nd year -> factor 0.75

3rd year -> factor 0.50

4th year -> factor 0.25

Link to post
Share on other sites

The rankings should be based on the previous 12 months of friendlies and a teams last two major competition. It would mean that the top 35 would all be WC teams.

Also the thing is with African teams, beating an African team is worth more than beating an Oceanic, Asian or CONCACAF team.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The rankings should be based on the previous 12 months of friendlies and a teams last two major competition. It would mean that the top 35 would all be WC teams.

Also the thing is with African teams, beating an African team is worth more than beating an Oceanic, Asian or CONCACAF team.

i think friendlies should also be included

Link to post
Share on other sites
The rankings should be based on the previous 12 months of friendlies and a teams last two major competition. It would mean that the top 35 would all be WC teams.

I don't think so. Sometimes, qualifying for the WC is just luck. Togo and Trinidad and Tobago are obviously not between the 35 best teams in the World. Ok, they had a good performance to qualify but a victory in two or three matches doesn't make them better than Denmark, Turkey and Greece that were in the same qualifying group or Colombia, Chile and Uruguay that battle until the last match for the 5th place of the SouthAmerican tourament, etc, etc, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...