|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 18, 2005 14:45:51 GMT 1
lol at mrh, nice one! Those teams that have failed to qualify, but are highly ranked, should be knocked down 20 places in the fifa rankings I reckon.
|
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Nov 18, 2005 15:08:19 GMT 1
That makes sense, but if its based on the last 2 World Cups then we definately should be seeded. Anyway how anyone can make USA and Mexico seeded I would never know. I can't understand why Mexico are in the Top 20, didn't think they won that many games. The problem is Mexico and the USA get a lot of ranking points by beating a lot of poor CONCACAF teams. The weighting of matches from different confederations doesn't differ as much as it maybe should, and the different continental championships are treated equally meaning a team can get a lot of points by reaching the semi-finals of the CONCACAF Gold Cup, whilst a team reaching the last 8 of (the much tougher) European Championship won't fare as well. In addition, just to show how stupid the rankings are, the Confederations Cup, which is cared about by this many people:- 0, also has the same status as the European Championships and other continental competitions. FIFA's importance factors: Friendly: x 1.00 Continental qualifying match: x 1.50 World Cup qualifying match: x 1.50 Continental championship finals match: x 1.75 Confederations Cup match: x 1.75 World Cup finals match: x 2.00 Weighting between different confederations: UEFA: x 1.00 CONMEBOL (South America): x 0.99 CAF (Africa): x 0.96 CONCACAF: x 0.94 AFC (Asia): x 0.93 OFC (Oceania): x 0.93 How they can put Oceania on the same level as Asia is beyond me... When 2 teams from different confederations meet, the above weightings are averaged to give the weighting for that match. |
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,373 
|
Post by frag on Nov 18, 2005 15:09:55 GMT 1
Mexico seeded?  I suppose they do have a decent U17 team...  |
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,373
|
Post by frag on Nov 18, 2005 15:14:41 GMT 1
And I think that FIFA also need to factor in the rankings of the two teams when they meet... a #40 nation beating a #1 nation is obviously worth a lot more than the other way round...
|
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Nov 18, 2005 15:21:11 GMT 1
This site: www.eloratings.net/ has an alternative version of the world rankings. Neither system is perfect but I think I prefer Elo's version. This is a comparison of the FIFA and Elo rankings for the teams in the World Cup. (Elo ranking in brackets): 1(1) Brazil 2(2) Holland 3(5) Czech Republic 4(8) Argentina 5(3) France 6(18) Mexico 7(14) USA 8(6) Spain 9(4) England 9(9) Portugal 12(7) Italy 13(10) Sweden 15(11) Germany 16(21) Japan 19(13) Croatia 20(35) Costa Rica 21(19) Iran 23(16) Poland 27(35) Tunisia 29(45) South Korea 31(54) Saudi Arabia 33(26) Paraguay 36(33) Ecuador 38(28) Switzerland 39(29) Ukraine 42(25) Serbia & Montenegro 48(37) Ivory Coast 49(58) Togo 51(57) Ghana 53(64) Trinidad & Tobago 54(24) Australia 60(67) Angola |
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Nov 18, 2005 15:23:32 GMT 1
And I think that FIFA also need to factor in the rankings of the two teams when they meet... a #40 nation beating a #1 nation is obviously worth a lot more than the other way round... They do to a certain degree. A full explanation of FIFA's ranking system is available here: www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,3,00.html |
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Nov 18, 2005 16:07:38 GMT 1
I was having this kind of discussion with a mate last night, and he told me that rankings between two countries when they meet do play a part in deciding the world rankings. I thought it was only based on a country's last 12 results, but obviously not. I do agree though that the Confederations Cup is a joke and shouldn't be used for the rankings. Its only like a pre-season tournament anyway.
And don't get me started on Sky, Royals are playing New Years Eve at 5.30, and one game that I'd planned to go to with my Dad has been brought forward to the Friday nite which means I can't go. Arrrgggh!
|
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Nov 18, 2005 16:11:42 GMT 1
I was having this kind of discussion with a mate last night, and he told me that rankings between two countries when they meet do play a part in deciding the world rankings. I thought it was only based on a country's last 12 results, but obviously not. I do agree though that the Confederations Cup is a joke and shouldn't be used for the rankings. Its only like a pre-season tournament anyway. The problem is FIFA is deluded with its own self-importance, especially since Blatter became president, so any tournament they organise must be more important than all other tournaments. Notice how they stick "FIFA" in front of "World Cup" at every opportunity? |
|
Tom
Member
*Of Royal Blood*
Posts: 15,419
|
Post by Tom on Nov 18, 2005 16:40:57 GMT 1
I was having this kind of discussion with a mate last night, and he told me that rankings between two countries when they meet do play a part in deciding the world rankings. I thought it was only based on a country's last 12 results, but obviously not. I do agree though that the Confederations Cup is a joke and shouldn't be used for the rankings. Its only like a pre-season tournament anyway. The problem is FIFA is deluded with its own self-importance, especially since Blatter became president, so any tournament they organise must be more important than all other tournaments. Notice how they stick "FIFA" in front of "World Cup" at every opportunity? Ah yes I hadn't really thought about that, they're always trying to create more problems though. The World Club Championshop says it all. Lets just hope that all these extra games don't tire out people like Gerrard for the World Cup. |
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Nov 18, 2005 16:54:24 GMT 1
The problem is FIFA is deluded with its own self-importance, especially since Blatter became president, so any tournament they organise must be more important than all other tournaments. Notice how they stick "FIFA" in front of "World Cup" at every opportunity? Ah yes I hadn't really thought about that, they're always trying to create more problems though. The World Club Championshop says it all. Lets just hope that all these extra games don't tire out people like Gerrard for the World Cup. And Blatter has the cheek to say the number of teams in the Premiership should be reduced because the players are playing too many games... |
|
|
|
Post by Zodiac on Nov 18, 2005 23:59:19 GMT 1
It would be somewhat farcical if either the US or Mexico were seeded for the World Cup. Although not ideal those elo rankings do seem far more accurate than FIFA's... Oh, and don't get me started on Blatter  How he got the most high profile job in football is just beyond me.. |
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,373
|
Post by frag on Nov 19, 2005 1:17:32 GMT 1
They usually try to keep confederations apart... here's my guess: SEEDINGS ARGENTINA  BRAZIL  ENGLAND  FRANCE  GERMANY  ITALY  MEXICO  SPAIN UEFA (9 -- one to go in a group with BRA, ARG or MEX)  CROATIA  CZECH REPUBLIC  NETHERLANDS  POLAND  PORTUGAL  SERBIA & MONTENEGRO  SWEDEN  SWITZERLAND  UKRAINE AFRICA, OCEANIA, ASIA B ANGOLA  AUSTRALIA  GHANA  IRAN  IVORY COAST  SAUDI ARABIA  TOGO  TUNISIA CONCACAF, CONMEBOL, ASIA A COSTA RICA  ECUADOR  JAPAN  PARAGUAY  SOUTH KOREA  TRINIDAD & TOBAGO  UNITED STATES Asian teams will be kept apart from each other; Mexico will be kept apart from USA, Costa Rica and T+T; a lot of balls will be used. |
|
frag
Member
*Paranoid Android*
I have no idea what you're talking about, so here's a bunny with a pancake on its head.
Posts: 25,373
|
Post by frag on Nov 19, 2005 1:21:52 GMT 1
Toughest possible group:
Brazil, Holland, Czech Republic, Ivory Coast
Weakest possible group:
Mexico, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, T&T
England's toughest possible group:
England, (Holland or Czech), Ivory Coast, Paraguay
England's easiest possible group:
England, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, T&T
|
|
|
|
Post by Panda on Nov 19, 2005 14:13:56 GMT 1
Toughest possible group: Brazil, Holland, Czech Republic, Ivory Coast Weakest possible group: Mexico, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, T&T England's toughest possible group: England, (Holland or Czech), Ivory Coast, Paraguay England's easiest possible group: England, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, T&T I think I'd rather face the Ivory Coast than Australia... |
|
.jpg/220px-Oolong_the_Rabbit's_last_performance_(2003).jpg)
How he got the most high profile job in football is just beyond me..