FIFA Rankings
- Thread starter Bundy
- Start date
- Status
kenada_blue
Welcome to Barcelonaton FC
Teams play ranking matches, or what Fifa deem to be ranking matches I think.
Portugal arent very good lately apparantly. I dont even think they'll qualify for the World Cup.
Cahill's Metatarsal
Player Valuation: £15m
Out of morbid curiosity, where are England?
Blue Wiz
Player Valuation: £25m
You get points for each game you win or draw. If it's in a competition (WC, EC, Confederation or any qualification match) you get more than if it's a friendly. If you draw or beat a country higher than you on the list you get bonuspoints, the bigger the difference the more points you get.
Portugal have lost and drawn many games in their qualification group therefore lost points.
USA and Australia have easier qualification groups and are therefore higher up, since they win their matches more often. Add to that that they went fairly well in the confederation cup and grabbed points there as well.
Portugal have lost and drawn many games in their qualification group therefore lost points.
USA and Australia have easier qualification groups and are therefore higher up, since they win their matches more often. Add to that that they went fairly well in the confederation cup and grabbed points there as well.
Cahill's Metatarsal
Player Valuation: £15m
******* lol at England being the 7th best team in the world
Blue Truth
Player Valuation: £25m
So Spain lose one match in like twenty and go down to number 2....... Makes sense
Jamo Martinez
Player Valuation: £70m
Spain have been up near the top of the rankings for years while getting knocked out in the quater finals or earlier of major tournaments. in some cases having to go to a play off to qualify. and they never had anyone harder than Norway in their qualifying groups. Between 1996 and 2006, England did at least as well as Spain in final fases and finished ahead of the likes of Italy and Germany in their qualifying groups.
Not saying for one minute that England deserved to be higher, just couldn't understand the ranking system that had Spain higher.
Don't forget, Uefa gives points for goals in the golden boot award but you get 1.5 points per goal in Belgium or Austria for example, but 2 points per goal in the 'important' leagues like the prem or la liga
Blue Wiz
Player Valuation: £25m
The system is based like this to ensure that a good team doesn't earn too much points by beating, what is compared to them, "crap" teams.
So in a way it's harder to maintain a high position than to gain one. If you are the top team you won't get as much points for beating the nr 20 team on the list as the team ranked 10 would get. So while an easy qualification group to a championship would almost ensure you won all games and reached the playoff you would get more points if you won games against tougher opponents.
If you would have gotten a fixed amount of points for each game won, regardless of how bad they were... New Zeeland would be much, much higher in the ranking since they win almost all their competitive games now in Oceania.
Also, pointwise it might be worth more to have to qualify to a tournament than to win your group and go directly there, since you get points for the qualification games as well.
Remember also that Brazil, while loosing some games, also need to play 18 qualification matches to reach the WC since South America only have one group, so they have more competitive games to gather points from.
So in a way it's harder to maintain a high position than to gain one. If you are the top team you won't get as much points for beating the nr 20 team on the list as the team ranked 10 would get. So while an easy qualification group to a championship would almost ensure you won all games and reached the playoff you would get more points if you won games against tougher opponents.
If you would have gotten a fixed amount of points for each game won, regardless of how bad they were... New Zeeland would be much, much higher in the ranking since they win almost all their competitive games now in Oceania.
Also, pointwise it might be worth more to have to qualify to a tournament than to win your group and go directly there, since you get points for the qualification games as well.
Remember also that Brazil, while loosing some games, also need to play 18 qualification matches to reach the WC since South America only have one group, so they have more competitive games to gather points from.
This is wrong. You get the same number of points for beating a certain opponent (say a nr 20 team) no matter whether you are ranked 1 or 200. You do get more points for beating a team ranked 20 than a team ranked 100 though.
The main issue with the current system is that your points for each year are the average points per match (5 match minimum). This is an issue because winning 20 out of 20 matches in a year is effectively the same as winning 5 out of 5. Spain's recent long run doesn't really help too much because it's only 18 months of results, which get's averaged out. Rankings are based over a 4 year period, so being decent for 30 months and amazing for 18 months isn't as good as being very good for 4 years.
The strong nations in the weak confederations tend to be overranked because they play a lot of games against weaker nations (which they win), and very few against poor nations (which they lose/draw) - but because there are so many more of the former, the average is weighted towards the games against the poor nations. Of course, because they are overranked, in future this means that teams get even more points for beating when these teams play each other, because they are overranked. USA and Mexico seem to benefit like this - both are about equal strength and beat eachother a lot, for which they get a load of points - which helps maintain/improve such a ranking.
The current system also awards more points for World Cup finals matches (worth quadruple points - it's like a game show, isn't it?). Because weaker nations are usually given places in the world cup that they don't deserve (in the sense that they aren't near the top 32 nations in the world), they get bonus points that they don't deserve either.
Essentially, dumb system for ranking teams. One might be tempted to say that's the point though - top nations don't really care (they just want to win tropheys) but smaller nations have something to play for. If you boost the ranking of (say) the USA, Australia and Japan, you help football develop in those areas, so it's in FIFA's interest to come up with a "bad" system.
Last edited:
B
Besiktas_Carsi
Guest
TURKEY 
decrease
decrease
Fordprefect
Player Valuation: £225k
The reason Spain lost so many points is not due to the loss to the USA, it is due to degradation of previous points earned over time. This month, the multiplier on Spain's Euro Cup run was decreased because that event is now more than a year in the past. The Netherland and Germany won all their matches last month but dropped in points for the same reason. The USA will always be overrated because we qualify through CONCACAF.
sotnas
Player Valuation: £10m
Blue Wiz
Player Valuation: £25m
Could have sworn it was otherwise, but I'm sure you're right.
- Status
Welcome
Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.
Shop
