FIFA rankings: Just how screwy are they? (a "stupid American" question)

[TimTheEnchanter]

With the World Cup right around the corner, I try to be at least a semi-enlightened American and at least acknowledge that the sport exists and see a bit of what it's all about (which is more than most around here seem to do). So I am curious how the US squad is perceived and just how screwed we were with the group they were placed in, etc. SO... I look at the FIFA world rankings and see the US ranked 5th (which is down one spot from April).

Now I know the US has been playing well the last few years, but just from what little I know and have read about soccer/football if the US squad played at a neutral site (heck, even 8 home games) against the next 8 teams in the rankings (Spain, Portugal, France, Argentina, England, Nigeria, Denmark, Italy) I would put money that the US would not have a winning record.

So can some of you who are much more knowledgeable about the sport clue me in on these rankings? Are they meaningless? Why are they so far off from what I perceive to be the general quality of these teams? Is there a better "ranking" of the top teams available somewhere?

Thanks

 

[Darth_Pugwash]

I think its becuase the rankings are based on the teams wins/losses in the last X number of games, and all the USA's recent games have been against easy competition in their WC qualifying group (Canada? Various Carribean islands?) so their ranking is inflated.

Don't worry, I'm sure that order will be restored in Germany this month

 

[Inter4]

FIFA rankings are BS. The U.S. has a good team, they have improved A LOT in the past 10 years, but I would not put them in the Top 10.

 

[TimTheEnchanter]

Thanks... I didn't have any illusions that the US team was that good. I was just trying to figure out how far off they might be and why they bothered to publish something that looked so clearly incorrect.

 

[woodelf]

Blame Computers and the people who let computers tell them the rankings. Like Darth said, we'll find out this month.

 

[Marla_Singer]

I think its becuase the rankings are based on the teams wins/losses in the last X number of games, and all the USA's recent games have been against easy competition in their WC qualifying group (Canada? Various Carribean islands?) so their ranking is inflated.

Don't worry, I'm sure that order will be restored in Germany this month

Actually, it's not simply about the US, but actually about the whole CONCACAF zone which is traditionally over-rated compared with other team.

We (France) have met Mexico a week ago. France just came down from the French Alps where they've climbed mountains and almost never touched a ball. France really played poorly during that game, not only players were obviously unprepared but also the players were constantly changing making the organization extremely confused. Despite this, we've won easily 1-0, with Mexico being not even able to shoot once on target. Granted in 2nd HT Mexico kept the ball, but they've done absolutely nothing with it, and we had at that moment an especially weak defense and midfield.

Few days after, the Netherlands have played their B team against Mexico, and they've won 2-1. People who've watched the game told me Mexico was extremely desappointing.

Despite all this, Mexico is still the 4th strongest team in the world according to the FIFA ranking !!


I think the problem with CONCACAF is that countries in that zone plays significantly more games than in other confederations and usually they do so against weaker opponents. As a consequence, they grab more points than other teams would with the same level of play. Granted they have "coefficients" in the FIFA ranking, but margins are thin and far to balance the problem.

Personally, I don't see any perfect system, but a better one is certainly the Elo Ratings. Well, Elo ratings are also flawed as France seems rather over-rated in that ranking, but I still believe it's better than the FIFA system.

The difference between Elo ratings and FIFA rankings is rather simple. While FIFA only takes into account the victories and the goals scored no matter the opponents (with small difference of coefficients according to the status of the game), the ELO ratings actually take into account the opponent against whom a team plays. For instance, in the ELO rating, you score more points if you beat a team ranked above yourself than you would against a team below yourself. At the opposite, you lose more points if you lose against a team ranked below yourself than above yourself. The stronger is the margin between the ranking of both teams, the more it will matter.

 

[MCdread]

As Marla says, the FIFA system is skewed in favour of teams that play many games, and north american teams certainly do play a lot of games, much more than european teams for example. Then there are competitions like the Confederations Cup, which is a worthless ompetition but has official FIFA status and Mexico usually does well there (obviously Mexico almost always has a free route therem, as it just needs to win their continental cup, for which the only decent opponent is of course USA). Brazil also plays lots of games, including the Confederations Cup as well, for which FIFA always makes sure they get in (those TV ratings and organisation profit, you see), either as south american champion, or world champion. In case they're neither I'm sure they'll qualify in the condition of perennial leaders of the ranking... I'm not saying they aren't the deserved leaders of said ranking, but for example, a few years ago, it took France to win the WC, the EC and the Conf. Cup in a row to finally get the 1st spot and take Brazil out of there. Obviously not for long...

However, this would all be a little toy for FIFA if they didn't do the travesty of using these rankings in the formula to calculate the seeded teams in the WC, and I think, it is even (or it at least it was already in the past) one of the tie-breakers for teams finishing levelled in WC groups.

 

[ummmm........]

Is there any sort of ranking system based on the opinion of educated voters?

 

[MCdread]

If you mean "educated voters" like Pelé or Bobby Charlton, thank God no!

 

[ummmm........]

I mean like in college football in the US.

I don't even know who Bobby Charlton is

About the Elo rankings: While the rankings certainly make more sense to me (with the US at 18th), how do they work? It seems to be a zero sum game with each team gaining as many points as the other loses in each match, but when I looked at the all time histories of a few countries, they each started with a different number of points. That doesn't seem terribly fair . . .

 

[Suppersalmon]

Fiffa world rankings are Rubbish Dureing the Iraq war in 2003 they had a higher rnaking than Scotland did

 

[MCdread]

I don't even know who Bobby Charlton is

Bobby Charlton is a former great for England and Manchester United that, like so many other past greats, now earns a living of covering the nonsense he says with the mantle of authority that comes from the fact that he was once a good kicker of a ball. In his particular case, I remember reading a pre 1998 WC analysis of his on the teams, players and their expectations, and quite frankly, any CFC poster with a minimum knowldge of football could have written something better.

Pelé opinions otoh were once avidly listened to and printed by the press, until global media came on, and they discovered he tells something radically different every time he speaks, depending on the country he's visiting. If he's in, say, the USA he'll say that the USA are definitely candidates to go as far as the semis, if he's in Portugal he'll say we are one of the top 2 or 3 favourites, and if he's in Germany, he'll say Germany will win, no doubt.

Also legendary are his comments about players, particulary about the best defender he ever faced: when he's in England he says it was Bobby Moore the hardest and most loyal opponent he ever faced, when he comes to Portugal he says it was Vicente the hardest and most loyal opponent he ever faced, and when he's in Italy he says it was Facchetti the hardest and most loyal opponent he ever faced. I bet when goes to Germany he'll spell the name of Beckenbauer and when he's in Argentina he'll say Perfumo. In Brazil it must depend on the city and the state he's in. Oh, and don't even get me started on the list he compiled for FIFA about the 100 or 125 best players ever.

 

[MCdread]

Fiffa world rankings are Rubbish Dureing the Iraq war in 2003 they had a higher rnaking than Scotland did

Wasn't Vogts on helm back then? That looks alright then.

 

[willemvanoranje]

Oh, and don't even get me started on the list he compiled for FIFA about the 100 or 125 best players ever.

That list was so lame! Anyone could've made a reasonable list and then he did that haha! Put two women on it and even left out some big players.. ah well.

Cruyff is an example of a great player who actually does make good comments.. problem is that sometimes they are very hard to understand because his logic seems to work different from normal people's. And well, of course he tries to keep his own legend standing..

 

[woodelf]

This might be a better ranking, albeit from SI: (only WC teams though)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jonah_freedman/06/05/cup.rankings/index.html

 

[MCdread]

I guess that Pelé is the very incarnation of what political correctness is all about, while Cruijff doesn't seem to care about that much.

But then, what to say of Cantona, who recently made a list of his dream starting 11 ever, and his name is there and Pelé's isn't.

 

[BCLG100]

Bobby Charlton is a former great for England and Manchester United that, like so many other past greats, now earns a living of covering the nonsense he says with the mantle of authority that comes from the fact that he was once a good kicker of a ball. In his particular case, I remember reading a pre 1998 WC analysis of his on the teams, players and their expectations, and quite frankly, any CFC poster with a minimum knowldge of football could have written something better.

Pelé opinions otoh were once avidly listened to and printed by the press, until global media came on, and they discovered he tells something radically different every time he speaks, depending on the country he's visiting. If he's in, say, the USA he'll say that the USA are definitely candidates to go as far as the semis, if he's in Portugal he'll say we are one of the top 2 or 3 favourites, and if he's in Germany, he'll say Germany will win, no doubt.

Also legendary are his comments about players, particulary about the best defender he ever faced: when he's in England he says it was Bobby Moore the hardest and most loyal opponent he ever faced, when he comes to Portugal he says it was Vicente the hardest and most loyal opponent he ever faced, and when he's in Italy he says it was Facchetti the hardest and most loyal opponent he ever faced. I bet when goes to Germany he'll spell the name of Beckenbauer and when he's in Argentina he'll say Perfumo. In Brazil it must depend on the city and the state he's in. Oh, and don't even get me started on the list he compiled for FIFA about the 100 or 125 best players ever.

that and he just had to appear in an impotency advert!

 

[Rossiya]

i know, fifa rankings mean zilch. mexico so high??? no...

 

[Marla_Singer]

This might be a better ranking, albeit from SI: (only WC teams though)

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/jonah_freedman/06/05/cup.rankings/index.html

Thanks for this Woodelf.

Well, I guess that ranking has been well-worked and it doesn't look incoherent. Now this being said, some of the comments give really the feeling that anyone could become a sport analyst. Something which is really weird considering the number of people who would dream to have that job.

Sports Illustrated analysis on Croatia : "Does someone at FIFA have too much time on their hands? World soccer's governing body demanded that Croatia change its jerseys because there was "too much white" on them. Nike Croatia's solution? Add more red squares to the backs of the famous gingham-patterned shirts. For some reason, watching this team always makes me want to have a picnic."

 

[woodelf]

No problem. It did seem well done, but the comments are trying to be too witty. Maybe he needed something to say and couldn't think of anything else about Croatia?