FIFA rankings

[RedRover45]

Absolutely barmy. I realise that Brazil haven't had any meaningful World Cup qualifying matches but ranked only 12th ? And Columbia 4th and Switzerland 7th. Are the organisers on drugs ??

[RobTheRover]

Old Sepp has been supping the Irn Bru again

[LincsRover]

Switzerland (banking) and Colombia (drugs) are cash rich countries - surely no one at FIFA could possibly be taking bribes? Course not, that would never happen..... Would it?? I mean, Russia & quatar were worthy winners to host the next two World Cups and nothing to do with them being rich nations??
 

[One_Matty_Lucas]

Switzerland won their group, was that done by bribery?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Swiss National team.

Unbeaten in 14 games. In last 2 years, they've beaten Germany and Brazil and drawn against Holland. Only country in last 7 years to beat Spain in a competitive (Euro/WC qualifying/finals) match.

But never mind. The Daily Mail has got itself into a lather today about how these nobodies could possibly be seeded ahead of our darlings.

[Mr1Croft]

Columbia finished 2nd in their World Cup Qualifying group, finishing only 2 points behind Argentina and racked up an impressive 30 points from 16 games, only conceding 13 along the way, the best in the group.

And Belgium, despite not qualifying for a major tournament since 1992 have remained unbeaten in competitive matches for the last 2 years.

[swintonrover]

I could have called Belgium, they've got a pretty damn good team. It genuinely wouldn't surprise me if they reached the semis. On the other hand, I would have seeded Brazil above Colombia, especially given the destruction of Spain in the Confeds Cup. The Swiss will reach the second round.

[Mr1Croft]

But the rankings are based on recent results so with Brazil not competing as they had already qualified their ranking was always going to drop with playing less games against lesser opponents.

You can rest assured however that they will be back up there after the world cup...

[swintonrover]

It's stupid. So no matter how good a host nation is, they won't be top seeds for that world cup as they haven't played competitive football in the timeframe leading up to the World Cup? Ludicrous.

[Padge_DRFC]

Brazil will be in pot 1 anyway with the seeded teams as they are hosting it.

[ravenrover]

TLO springs to mind !!

[RedJ]

Does it matter who you're up against as to how many points you gain in the ranking system or is it done as if it were a league? I've never properly understood it...

[DonnyBazR0ver]

Who cares about rankings. Sooner or later we'll come up against a fancied team. There won't be many seeded teams looking forward to playing us!!

[DonnyOsmond]

Does it matter who you're up against as to how many points you gain in the ranking system or is it done as if it were a league? I've never properly understood it...

Yeah beating Spain gets you more points than beating San Marino.

[Mr1Croft]

From Fifa website:

The basic logic of these calculations is simple: any team that does well in world football wins points which enable it to climb the world ranking.

A team’s total number of points over a four-year period is determined by adding:

·   the average number of points gained from matches during the past 12 months;
and

·   the average number of points gained from matches older than 12 months (depreciates yearly).

Calculation of points for a single match

The number of points that can be won in a match depends on the following factors:

•      Was the match won or drawn? (M)

•      How important was the match (ranging from a friendly match to a FIFA World Cup™ match)? (I)

•      How strong was the opposing team in terms of ranking position and the confederation to which they belong? (T and C)

These factors are brought together in the following formula to ascertain the total number of points (P).

P = M x I x T x C

 

The following criteria apply to the calculation of points:

M:        Points for match result

Teams gain 3 points for a victory, 1 point for a draw and 0 points for a defeat. In a penalty shoot-out, the winning team gains 2 points and the losing team gains 1 point.

I:           Importance of match

      Friendly match (including small competitions):                                                    I = 1.0

      FIFA World Cup™ qualifier or confederation-level qualifier:                             I = 2.5

      Confederation-level final competition or FIFA Confederations Cup:                I = 3.0

      FIFA World Cup™ final competition:                                                                    I = 4.0

T:         Strength of opposing team

      The strength of the opponents is based on the formula: 200 – the ranking position of the opponents
As an exception to this formula, the team at the top of the ranking is always assigned the value 200 and the teams ranked 150th and below are assigned a minimum value of 50. The ranking position is taken from the opponents’ ranking in the most recently published FIFA/Coca-Cola World Ranking.

C:            Strength of confederation

When calculating matches between teams from different confederations, the mean value of the confederations to which the two competing teams belong is used. The strength of a confederation is calculated on the basis of the number of victories by that confederation at the last three FIFA World Cup™ competitions (see following page). Their values are as follows:

UEFA/CONMEBOL             1.00                             CONCACAF     0.88
AFC/CAF                             0.86                             OFC                   0.8

[BillyStubbsTears]

Who cares about rankings. Sooner or later we'll come up against a fancied team. There won't be many seeded teams looking forward to playing us!!

Aye.  Cos we've got a stellar record against decent sides in major finals, eh what?

[RobTheRover]

We beat Spain 0-0 in 96 dint we?

[graingrover]

init funny how some folk confuse historic results with current potential.. when often the past and current  teams  have not a single individual in common .

[BigColSutherland]

It's stupid. So no matter how good a host nation is, they won't be top seeds for that world cup as they haven't played competitive football in the timeframe leading up to the World Cup? Ludicrous.

You haven't understood this at all have you spadge.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Brian

It's called the triumph of experience over hope. When we've underachieved consistently for 40+ years, and in the absence of any new evidence to suggest that anything fundamental has changed, it kind if makes sense to expect us to underachieve again.

I'd love to be wrong, but I'll give you 10/1 odds that I won't.

[swintonrover]

It's stupid. So no matter how good a host nation is, they won't be top seeds for that world cup as they haven't played competitive football in the timeframe leading up to the World Cup? Ludicrous.

You haven't understood this at all have you spadge.

I think I do, so Brazil are top seeds, despite their drop in the rankings? Is that right?

[BigColSutherland]

Host nations are always in the top seeds pot. No matter their world ranking. For example, Japan and South Korea both got seeded first in 2002.

[DonnyOsmond]

South Africa were too in 2010.

[BillyStubbsTears]

It'll be fascinating to see if Qatar are top-seeded.

If they ARE, it'll be a farcical imbalance of the relative strengths of the groups.

If they AREN'T, it'll show up FIFA still further, demonstrating that on football terms, the country is a non-starter, so why hold the WC there?

[NickDRFC]

It'll be fascinating to see if Qatar are top-seeded.

If they ARE, it'll be a farcical imbalance of the relative strengths of the groups.

If they AREN'T, it'll show up FIFA still further, demonstrating that on football terms, the country is a non-starter, so why hold the WC there?

Are you saying that the World Cup should only be hosted by one of the top 8 nations in the world?

[wilts rover]

The host nation of any major competition is always top seeded as the organisers want them to do well to keep the interest going in that country. It happens in the Olympics where the host country is given special dispensation to choose athletes for particular events, even if they have not met the qualification level. That's why we had a handball team in the last games - even though no-one here had ever played it before!

[BillyStubbsTears]

It'll be fascinating to see if Qatar are top-seeded.

If they ARE, it'll be a farcical imbalance of the relative strengths of the groups.

If they AREN'T, it'll show up FIFA still further, demonstrating that on football terms, the country is a non-starter, so why hold the WC there?

Are you saying that the World Cup should only be hosted by one of the top 8 nations in the world?

No. Of course I am not. That would be silly.

However, I DO think that the WC should only ever be hosted in countries which have a history of football being an important part of the culture, and a national team that has a decent record, if only at regional level.

So, I was and remain disgusted that the WC went to America in 94. And I am disgusted that it has gone to Qatar (a country ranked 105 in the most recent FIFA ranking, which has never come close to qualifying for a WC by its own ability and which has win just two of its last 17 matches in the final stages of the Asian Cup over the past 25 years).

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts.

The population of Qatar is barely bigger than that of South Yorkshire. The country had no heritage of football being ingrained in the culture. In the 2014 WC qualifiers, there were never more than 12,500 in attendance for any of Qatar's home games.

So. There is no huge home market to play to. There is no heritage to play to. And seeding Qatar will grossly skew the quality of groups, to a far greater extent than has ever occurred before. No country has EVER been awarded a WC without having demonstrated its ability to qualify for the finals under its own steam. This should be an absolute standard.

[The Red Baron]

I agree about Qatar. It was a scandalous decision and I'm pretty sure money changed hands. It has given FIFA a huge problem and I'm pretty sure they'll have to reopen the whole bidding process as a winter World Cup just won't fly.

I think the improvements in the standing of the USA team means that they'd merit hosting a World Cup now, though clearly they didn't at the time. 

[swintonrover]

I was more annoyed at Qatar being chosen over the Aussies than the Russians getting 2018. At least the Russians are good at football.