FIFA rankings thread

[Gather round]

Surely that table is flawed... as Ireland are either equal 14th or 16th at worst (their FIFA/UEFA ranking is above that of Bosnia?)

I've ranked you below the other defeated play-off teams because your points total in qualifying was lowest. I think that's a fair way to countback. Note that FIFA's ranking has you rather lower, at 21st.


(not to mention being pinched from elsewhere)

I don't pretend that the basic idea (essentially, all the teams who qualified are better than all those who didn't) is original, but I didn't realise it was copyrighted?


All tables are subjective

Some are much more objective than others.


and international football is becoming much like much of the English leagues where all teams, bar the top 3/bottom 6 or so, are capable of getting a result against each other, so the 'tables' are subject to much greater potential fluctuation in reality

A fair point, and all the more reason for an 'end of tournament' ranking similar to that at the end of year in tennis, say.


In our case, perhaps we deserve more credit for not losing many games, even if we seem to win precious few (against the 'higher-ranked' teams) in competitive games either!!!

I've given you fair credit for both a) getting 18 points and b) managing a second place finish (so you're higher ranked than Croatia, who ended up third). As I've said, it's simpler and easier to follow than the alternatives suggested here.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Not a question of being copyrighted, but credit should be given to its source. And the 'FIFA' rankings given are those of their members in Europe, rather than the world ones.

Also re.'countback', whilst acknowledging the points total, any comparison should take into account the relative ranking of opposing teams when matches against them were played....

[Gather round]

Not a question of being copyrighted, but credit should be given to its source

Er, I don't know who the "source" is. Do you?


And the 'FIFA' rankings given are those of their members in Europe, rather than the world ones

Yes, I make no attempt to rank most of the rest of the World against Europe. That really would be subjective, because they hardly ever play each other in competition, like. I'm really interested in the relative strength of non-elite European teams, not how they compare to Argentina/ Honduras/ Algeria/ Brazil.


Also re.'countback', whilst acknowledging the points total, any comparison should take into account the relative ranking of opposing teams when matches against them were played....

I did. I've assumed that

a) the qualifying groups are of roughly equivalent standard

b) every team starts every qualifying series with a ranking of zero (or zero points, if you like). They improve that ranking by getting more points during the series.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Well presuming it was lifted from another website or media source. So wondered where?

Know what you mean about the European focus, though it is interesting to see in the context of the world as a whole as it gives something to aspire to. And relevant to the recent World Cup!
Accept the zero points concept but not the qualifying groups, except in theory!

[Gather round]

Well presuming it was lifted from another website or media source. So wondered where?

Er, in mid-October last I just listed everyone's qualifying points and combined them into one table. Then after the play-offs and each round in the finals I 'counted back' to separate teams knocked out at that stage. As simple as it gets, and with no real bias other than to boost those teams (like NI) who will tend to perform well in an occasional quali tournament. Which I thinks deserves some reward in future ranking and thus seeding.

PS apologies to John 83 for the slightly sarcastic tone above.


Know what you mean about the European focus, though it is interesting to see in the context of the world as a whole as it gives something to aspire to

We already have something to aspire to. Strip away all the corporate sponsorship cr*p and the World rankings are basically harmless. I just think they're irrelevant to me as a NI fan. We haven't played a single Asian country competitively in 60 years; even if we make one of every three in future, that's one game against Australia, Japan or Korea every 20 or 24 years.

And more importantly, they probably aren't that important to Germany, Holland or Spain. In every four-year cycle they'll play about 30 competition games: 25 will be against other European teams.


Accept the zero points concept but not the qualifying groups, except in theory!

Even if seedings for Euro 2012 were based purely on the recent World Cup qualifying scores, as I'd prefer, there will always be some anomalies. Which is why I say the groups are roughly equivalent, not exactly.

[ArdeeBhoy]

OK, so you were confusing us!

The world is getting smaller, so relative standings even for Ireland and say New Zealand or Japan, which are about as far away as they get, are always interesting. Similarly African or the smaller S.American countries who we rarely play, it's good to know where we stand by some relative comparison. Especially as we aspire to play them at some point competitively....

[Gather round]

The world is getting smaller, so relative standings even for Ireland and say New Zealand or Japan, which are about as far away as they get, are always interesting. Similarly African or the smaller S.American countries who we rarely play, it's good to know where we stand by some relative comparison. Especially as we aspire to play them at some point competitively....

As I said, they're basically harmless and if you find them interesting that's fine. My point is simply that by calculating over too long a period, including irrelevant friendlies and using convoluted formulae to weight different results, they clearly don't reflect reality. See numerous examples up-thread.

[ArdeeBhoy]

If you say so. But most of us would like to see beyond our nose and see a slight clue about our standing in what is a world game.

[Gather round]

I've given you rather more than a slight clue (and a more up-to-date and accurate one) of your standing in the European game (ie, consistently mid-ranking just below the elite that normally qualifies). The alternatives offered by both FIFA and Elo are so inadequate for Europe alone, that it pretty much stands to reason that they'll be inadequate for comparing it with anywhere else.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ok, but as we agreed earlier, you should Get (& Stay, FFS) Out More, to save us all from pointless nonsense on the internet (Self included!)....

[Noelys Guitar]

From todays Examiner.
Meanwhile, the Republic of Ireland has jumped 10 places to 15th in the latest UEFA ranking of European national teams. However, the UEFA table has no bearing on the FIFA World Cup European zone qualifying draw in Brazil on July 30. There is little prospect that Ireland’s progress in the FIFA world rankings will lift Trap’s team into second-seed status. Ireland currently stand 22nd among the European teams in the FIFA classification, and would need to rise six places in the next ranking, due on June 29.

Read more: http://www.examiner.ie/sport/soccer/tardelli-moved-by-irish-victory-157367.html#ixzz1OpVJqt3J

[BonnieShels]

I always assumed the UEFA ranking was the FIFA ranking without the non-UEFA members. Really, what's the point of 2 ranking systems?

[Edgar]

You'll be in Pot 3.

2014 FIFA World Cup seeding (http://www.football-rankings.info/2011/06/2014-fifa-world-cup-seeding-uefa-pots.html): UEFA pots.

[geysir]

From todays Examiner.
Meanwhile, the Republic of Ireland has jumped 10 places to 15th in the latest UEFA ranking of European national teams. However, the UEFA table has no bearing on the FIFA World Cup European zone qualifying draw in Brazil on July 30. There is little prospect that Ireland’s progress in the FIFA world rankings will lift Trap’s team into second-seed status. Ireland currently stand 22nd among the European teams in the FIFA classification, and would need to rise six places in the next ranking, due on June 29.


Heres the link UEFA National Team Coefficients (http://www.uefa.com/MultimediaFiles/Download/competitions/General/01/64/07/71/1640771_DOWNLOAD.pdf) to the latest table.

[BonnieShels]

Cheers Geysir. Seems I wad talking out of my hat. Coefficients eh...

[DannyInvincible]

Whilst the FIFA rankings are used to seed teams for various draws, has the UEFA ranking any functional purpose?

[tetsujin1979]

Whilst the FIFA rankings are used to seed teams for various draws, has the UEFA ranking any functional purpose?
isn't it used in determining coefficients for clubs in the Champions League and Europa League?

[DannyInvincible]

isn't it used in determining coefficients for clubs in the Champions League and Europa League?

Not the national teams' coefficients, as far as I know. Each national league has a coefficient of its own and is ranked in a separate table of national leagues. The League of Ireland is ranked 31st in Europe, for example.

[geysir]

Whilst the FIFA rankings are used to seed teams for various draws, has the UEFA ranking any functional purpose?
Seeding for the 2012 Euro Finalists and the 2016 qual draw, I do believe.
But Edgar is sure to be on his rounds soon and clarify the matter.

[French Toasht]

Seeding for the 2012 Euro Finalists and the 2016 qual draw, I do believe.
But Edgar is sure to be on his rounds soon and clarify the matter.

You are right. Edgar has dealt with it here: http://www.football-rankings.info/2011/06/euro-2016-qualifying-draw-seeding-10.html

If progress remains as it is at the moment, we will be at least 2nd seeds for the Euro 2016 draw if not 1st. Thing is though, I think we should qualify easy enough for that tournament irrespective of our seeding. Its a 24 team competition and top 2 qualify automatically, with even the best 3rd place team going through automatically. I have always considered us to be the 17th or 18th best team in Europe, the ones always just short of whats required for qualification to tournaments, the nearly men, but the expansion of the tournament should mean we qualify with relative ease.

I think this UEFA co-efficient that is linked is the truest indication of Traps performance so far. It takes into account the 2010 campaign and the 2012 campaign thus far, exactly what Traps tenure has consisted of and deems us to be the 12th best team in Europe during that period. I think Trap's doubters should bear that fact in mind.

[tetsujin1979]

Ireland climb to 28th in latest rankings: http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html
Russia remain in 13th, but Slovakia tumble 13 places to 39th
Armenia jump 27 places to 44th

[shakermaker1982]

Spain back where they belong.

[BonnieShels]

Boooooooooo!

[EastTerracer]

This is very crude but took the chart of our ranking history from the FIFA website and overlaid it with each managers' time in charge. The chart only starts in August 1993 coinciding with our peak ranking of 6 so obviously it doesn't inlcude Jack's best years from 1986 up to 1992.

It's a little unfair to put the manager's time in charge directly over the ranking due to the historic nature of the ranking and the way results dropping off can have a big impact on the movement. For the first year of any manager's reign the results from the end of their predecessors time are having a big influence on the rankings (e.g. the win against Holland in 2001 helped to keep the ranking high through the first part of Brian Kerr's time in charge before his own early results began to dominate).

I've included Don Given's second spell in with Stan's just to save some space.

https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/1ZGAxQFbKotuJXInmHFyAQ?feat=directlink https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-btKpRxlDSsk/TnnaQPr8clI/AAAAAAAAAgY/x5BTOqF5n8o/s800/New%252520Picture%252520%2525283%252529.png

If only I could be this productive at work.....
https://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/1ZGAxQFbKotuJXInmHFyAQ?feat=directlink

[Serb]

Nice job EastTerracer. I wouldn't read too much into what the chart looks like though — the way rankings are calculated was changed in July 2006 and I think that contributes largely to the massive dip during Stan's reign for example. Also, 8 years of results are counted pre-2006 and 4 years of results post-2006, so the big drop in 2010 during Trap's reign might have something to do with the results towards the tail end of Kerr's tenure not being counted.

[French Toasht]

It's a little unfair to put the manager's time in charge directly over the ranking due to the historic nature of the ranking and the way results dropping off can have a big impact on the movement. For the first year of any manager's reign the results from the end of their predecessors time are having a big influence on the rankings (e.g. the win against Holland in 2001 helped to keep the ranking high through the first part of Brian Kerr's time in charge before his own early results began to dominate).
[/IMG]

Disagree, Brian Kerrs era was successful on his own merit. A month or two before he left us we were 14th. He only lost 4 games in 32 and the main reason we were so high up the rankings is that we were flawless in friendlies and won virtually every friendly under him. Perhaps though that was his weakness, insistance on playing his strongest teams in friendlies to the detriment of experimentation.

Great chart by the way!

[swinfordfc]

So we are 29th now ........ how does the next 2 games effect it if we were to win both? ..... Thats what we have to aim for ......

[EastTerracer]

Disagree, Brian Kerrs era was successful on his own merit. A month or two before he left us we were 14th. He only lost 4 games in 32 and the main reason we were so high up the rankings is that we were flawless in friendlies and won virtually every friendly under him. Perhaps though that was his weakness, insistance on playing his strongest teams in friendlies to the detriment of experimentation.

Great chart by the way!

I wasn't suggesting that Kerr was less successful but I can see that I left it open to interpretation - sorry Mr Kerr! I was just trying to point out that the Ireland ranking through 2003 was influenced by several years of McCarthy results as well as that first year of Kerr results. You're right that the ranking actually improved when we went on that great run of friendly performances under Kerr (mid-late 04).

[ArdeeBhoy]

So we are 29th now ........ how does the next 2 games effect it if we were to win both? ..... Thats what we have to aim for ......

If Trap & co are serious about next year they have to win both, hopefully. The effect on our rankings is relatively immaterial.

[Closed Account]

As I understand it, all your results over a calendar year are averaged together, so your end of year results 'appear' to have less of an effect. As already said, the ramifications of winning or losing have far greater effect than ranking. We'd be higher in the rankings had we lost 1 and won 1 in the last month but would be better off? (dunno but its rhetorical)

[geysir]

As I understand it, all your results over a calendar year are averaged together, so your end of year results 'appear' to have less of an effect
Calendar year means Jan -Dec?
The 12 months averaging and 4 year adjustment on the FIFA ranking table is calculated every month for each team.

[Closed Account]

Calendar year means Jan -Dec?
The 12 months averaging and 4 year adjustment on the FIFA ranking table is calculated every month for each team.
Yes Calendar year Jan-Dec. Thats just my interpretation from this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings#Current_calculation_method

Teams' actual scores are a result of the average points gained over each calendar year; matches from the previous four years are considered, with more weight being given to recent ones.I might look into it further, or else just wait around until someone corrects me. (The latter sounds more likely)

Scratch that:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifafacts/r&a-wr/52/00/97/fs-590_10e_wrpoints.pdf

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).



I knew I shouldn't of trusted wikipedia

[geysir]

At least your thought process rapidly moves in the right direction:)