Rankings

[French Toasht]

I have for a long time thought that the current system of seedings for tournaments has been detrimental to the development of the game in the countries that are eternally based in pot 6. What I would propose is to take the pot 6 teams out of the current qualification process and have them compete in a group with each other. At the end of the campaign, the top two teams would be promoted to the actual qualification process for the next campaign. (The idea is based on the same concept that exists in the Nicky Rackard Cup in hurling.)

Why do I propose this system?

1. Winning breeds confidence and also breeds interest within the local public to get behind their team. For most pot 6 teams, their qualification campaign in reality is over after two games of the campaign, where they have been heavily beaten and every game thereafter is really a nothing game for them. The system proposed would ensure that every match they play would have real consequence and the possibility of promotion to the qualification process proper, would give them a great incentive to play for. Also it would give these teams a chance for the first time ever, to compete and realistically stand a chance of winning some silverware. For a team like San Marino who have never won a qualifier, the current system is surely inhibiting their progress as a footballing nation.

2. I think it would also change the footballing philosophy in these countries. Currently what teams like Andorra and San Marino engage in, is essentially an "anti football" style of play, where they park the team bus in front of the goals and its all about damage limitation. By playing against teams of similar ability, they can attempt to get forward and play attacking football more, which will result in a greater level of goals. Again to use the San Marino example, only one player has ever scored more than one goal for his country. Surely the system proposed would reverse statistics like that.

3. It would also mean that the two lowest placed pot 5 teams would make the drop at the end of each campaign and as such, would have something to play for right up to the very last game, instead of just playing another meaningless qualifier.

The current system does nothing to advance the development of the game in the weaker countries and an overhaul like I have proposed could only benefit these countries.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Nice idea.
Expect FIFA to consider it in around 200 years time....

[Gather round]

What I would propose is to take the pot 6 teams out of the current qualification process and have them compete in a group with each other. At the end of the campaign, the top two teams would be promoted to the actual qualification process for the next campaign

The 'village' countries entered the Word Cup and Euros to take on bigger teams, however mismatched. Not to play glorified beer matches against each other (they could have continued doing that in lower level competitions, or friendlies). That probably wouldn't develop the game in Liechtenstein- but thrashing Iceland who gubbed Norn Iron (twice) who ****ed all over Spain who, er won that competition and the next one, just might...

Would you add slightly 'bigger' countries down on their luck (like Wales now) to this pre-qualifier? Remember, you were in their position once:

World Cup 1970 qualifying:

Rank Team Pts Pld W D L GF GA GD
1= Hungary 9 6 4 1 1 16 7 +9
1= Czechoslovakia 9 6 4 1 1 12 6 +6
3 Denmark 5 6 2 1 3 6 10 −4
4 Republic of Ireland 1 6 0 1 5 3 14 −11

[ArdeeBhoy]

Except Wales have been rubbish for decades.

There should be pre-qualifying to reduce qualification to manageable levels, as in say 32 teams in Europe, with the other 21 eliminated via a knockout, as per happens in Africa, Asia and North/Central America.

And to reduce the amount of pointless football being played.

[French Toasht]

Absolutely the system would be transparent and fair across the board. Wales are in pot 6 on merit. Therefor they spend one campaign in the new system and presumably they'd win it and be back after the one campaign.

I consider Hungary to be a lower to mid tier team in Europe. When they are beating San Marino 8-0, a San Marino team that have 0 goals for and 33 goals against after 7 matches, this can't be good for the development of the game there.

[Gather round]

There should be pre-qualifying to reduce qualification to manageable levels, as in say 32 teams in Europe, with the other 21 eliminated via a knockout, as per happens in Africa, Asia and North/Central America

OK, let's try that (effectively having the play-offs at the beginning of qualifying, rather than the end). The top 11 get a bye, the other 42 teams are paired in two legged knockout. 21 (probably including quite a few relatively powerful teams, maybe even the Republic of Ireland, get knocked out in September 2012 and don't play another competitive game for two years.

It's not really a runner, is it? I'm assuming that you aren't actually planning two rounds of groups, like the Champions League used to have. Because that would actually increase the amount of low-grade football you dislike so much. Then again, as you keep saying qualifying for the Euro finals isn't a priority, I suppose we should indulge your eccentricities?


Absolutely the system would be transparent and fair across the board

No-one's disputing its transparency. It would transparently deny the smallest/ weakest teams much competition against most of the bigger. So obviously it would disadvantage the former while offering little to the latter.


When [Hungary] are beating San Marino 8-0, a San Marino team that have 0 goals for and 33 goals against after 7 matches, this can't be good for the development of the game there

Maybe, but that's for the Sammarinese to decide. Not all the micro-countries are completely pants- Faeroes have won games in the last two tournaments, Liechtenstein managed two in Euro 08.

Bigger countries should be wary of underestimating minnows- plenty of English coaches, pundits and fans don't think they should be playing Montenegro, but it would sound more convincing had they actually managed to beat them.

[Cymro]

I have for a long time thought that the current system of seedings for tournaments has been detrimental to the development of the game in the countries that are eternally based in pot 6. What I would propose is to take the pot 6 teams out of the current qualification process and have them compete in a group with each other. At the end of the campaign, the top two teams would be promoted to the actual qualification process for the next campaign. (The idea is based on the same concept that exists in the Nicky Rackard Cup in hurling.)

Why do I propose this system?

The pot 6 teams are not eternally based in that pot. Liechtenstein, Armenia, Azerbaijan, and now the Faroes are all examples of teams who have won games, drawn others and pulled themselves out of the bottom pot. Even Andorra got 5 points in 2004 qualification. San Marino are the only team never to have won a qualifier, and their day will surely come eventually. Your idea is harsh on these teams as it essentially gives them no competitive game against substantially better opposition for at least two years. This will limit their financial income for qualification quite dramatically and will, contrary to what you say, hinder their progress as they are not playing against the better players.


1. Winning breeds confidence and also breeds interest within the local public to get behind their team. For most pot 6 teams, their qualification campaign in reality is over after two games of the campaign, where they have been heavily beaten and every game thereafter is really a nothing game for them. The system proposed would ensure that every match they play would have real consequence and the possibility of promotion to the qualification process proper, would give them a great incentive to play for. Also it would give these teams a chance for the first time ever, to compete and realistically stand a chance of winning some silverware. For a team like San Marino who have never won a qualifier, the current system is surely inhibiting their progress as a footballing nation.

It is hard to really buy into that argument. Are competitive qualifiers ever 'nothing' games? Ask Liechtenstein or Luxembourg after their last campaigns, which were never likely to end in qualification, but did not stop them getting some famous results (relatively speaking). (Lux beat the Swiss 2-1). Or ask the Faroes now, or Liechtenstein again after their win against Lithuania the other day (they would have also got a draw in Scotland, but for a goal in the 7th minute of injury time).

I think that smaller teams add a great deal to the qualifiers, and love to see them laim a scalp (even if in this case, with the Faroes, it has been at our expense).


2. I think it would also change the footballing philosophy in these countries. Currently what teams like Andorra and San Marino engage in, is essentially an "anti football" style of play, where they park the team bus in front of the goals and its all about damage limitation. By playing against teams of similar ability, they can attempt to get forward and play attacking football more, which will result in a greater level of goals. Again to use the San Marino example, only one player has ever scored more than one goal for his country. Surely the system proposed would reverse statistics like that.

It might result in more goals being scored by San Marino. Then again, it might not. I can tell you that San Marino at present as much less capable than the better pot 6 teams. That would be the only positive to your plan, but it would not stop defensive football by pot 6 teams in qualification 'proper', as they would inevitably adapt their style to give them a better chance of a result. And why not? It might be defensive, but it's completely fair and no less cynical than what more skilful teams do - look at most continental teams faking injuries, keeping the ball in the corners after 90 minutes and so on. It's the job of the supposedly better team to break these smaller teams down - that's all part of the contest.


3. It would also mean that the two lowest placed pot 5 teams would make the drop at the end of each campaign and as such, would have something to play for right up to the very last game, instead of just playing another meaningless qualifier.

The current system does nothing to advance the development of the game in the weaker countries and an overhaul like I have proposed could only benefit these countries.

No qualifiers are meaningless. If you don't believe me, watch the video of Liechtenstein v Wales on the final day of WC 2010 qualification. Liechtenstein looking for a scalp, John Toshack desperately trying to save his job and shouting at the players like his life depended on it. Totally irreevant t quaification but ere's three points at stake so teams will always play hard.

The current system gives teams like Liechtenstein, Malta, Luxembourg and Wales a nice fat payday with a home tie against a top European side, which helps the development of our game very nicely thankyou. Your proposals would effectively take three-quarters of us out of qualifying every tournament. It's harsh and unnecessary, and I bet if Ireland were a pot 6 team you would not be advocating it.

[Cymro]

Except Wales have been rubbish for decades.


Would you seriously call nearly qualifying for tournaments in 1982, 1986, 1994 and 2004 'rubbish'? We're not going through our best spell at the moment but don't dismiss us so readily.

[French Toasht]

In September of last year Andorra came to Dublin. At 2-1 down in a qualification match, most teams would try and go for an equaliser, as a defeat by one or two or three goals, all amount to the same thing; zero points. But no, after 45 minutes of the game, Andorra had decided at one goal down, they had lost the match and would park the team bus in front of the goal and try to limit the damage. Surely playing games to be beaten by as few goals as possible is not the mantality football teams should be playing with.

You say surely its for these teams to decide themselves, well what do you think SM would decide? A minus 33 goal difference after 7 games or playing games where they have a reasonable chance of winning and may actually achieve some silverware?

[ArdeeBhoy]

OK, let's try that (effectively having the play-offs at the beginning of qualifying, rather than the end). The top 11 get a bye, the other 42 teams are paired in two legged knockout. 21 (probably including quite a few relatively powerful teams, maybe even the Republic of Ireland, get knocked out in September 2012 and don't play another competitive game for two years.

It's not really a runner, is it? I'm assuming that you aren't actually planning two rounds of groups, like the Champions League used to have. Because that would actually increase the amount of low-grade football you dislike so much. Then again, as you keep saying qualifying for the Euro finals isn't a priority, I suppose we should indulge your eccentricities?

Hmm, good to see you addressed the issue of the system used in most of the Rest of the World!

It's tough luck, if anyone, even Ireland get knocked out.
The fact is that only 21 teams will miss out and can no doubt indulge in pointless Celtic Cups and the like amongst themselves. And that most of the games they play aren't in any way 'competitive' even within the structure of the Euros or WC.

Or if you're so desperate for meaningless football;the bottom 21 can fall into a Plate Competition organized by UEFA.

Besides the fact your knowledge of running is pretty limited, don't understand your CL analogy, but anything that reduces the amount of football played is only a good thing. And that includes the Euros, which are far too big. 16 teams in the Finals are more than enough!


Would you seriously call nearly qualifying for tournaments in 1982, 1986, 1994 and 2004 'rubbish'? We're not going through our best spell at the moment but don't dismiss us so readily.

That's fair enough, but most of them were 20-30 years ago. Would have been more than happy if Cymru had qualified but they have been under-achieving for years....

[Gather round]

Hmm, good to see you addressed the issue of the system used in most of the Rest of the World!

Happy to do so now. Europe, Africa, Asia/Oceania and Latin/ North America all have roughly a quarter each of FIFA members, so if World Cup qualification was based purely on that they'd have a quarter each of the finalists. They don't, mainly because despite decades of promise the Africans and Asians remain generally weaker. So reducing 50-odd countries to five or six finalists means at least two qualifying stages. I don't like the system where many can be eliminated after only one tie, with no other competitive games to look forward to for maybe a couple of years. It's not like club football where they can concentrate on the league, is it?


It's tough luck, if anyone, even Ireland get knocked out. The fact is that only 21 teams will miss out

Tsk. I'd have thought you of all people would see the need to keep the 40% fully involved in the er, qualifying process...


Or if you're so desperate for meaningless football;the bottom 21 can fall into a Plate Competition organized by UEFA

The thing is, I don't think the present system is at all meaningless. Two of the current 53 teams lose almost every game, but all the others can reasonably hope to improve within tournaments and from one to the next.

I mean, if international footbal is so crap, why do you spend so much time discussing it here?


don't understand your CL analogy

I was wondering if your 'play off at the start' idea gave everyone a guarantee of say four or six games. You explained that it didn't, fair enough.


anything that reduces the amount of football played is only a good thing. And that includes the Euros, which are far too big. 16 teams in the Finals are more than enough!

The best way to reduce the amount of games played is to look at club football. Teams that don't generally qualify for international finals play about nine or 10 games per year on average; many club sides in England or Scotland can struggle through 15 cup ties a season if they're in the Europa or Champs Leagues. Even in the English lower divisions there are three cups as well as 46 league matches.

As I've said before, I think 16 finalists is the best number for the Euros. I liked it in the World Cup too.

[ArdeeBhoy]

The African and Asian teams don't complain though, do they?
Don't understand the next comment.
As for the teams 'improving', the bottom 10-15 in Europe have been largely rubbish for years, so who will miss them?

Not sure why we shouldn't discuss yet an extension of mediocrity, ie. too much football. Including club games, though the difference is they exist in theory to 'make a profit' or try at least to be economically viable.
That's a luxury largely not required in international football.....

[Spudulika]

The same type of argument has been droning on for years in rugby - with the elite nations and England, trying to close the door on anyone who wants to come to the party. Not unlike the ICC they've been successful in hampering the games development. One excellent proposal that I listened to at the FIRA-AER conference last year (which was on it's 6th outing and 4th make over) was that there would be, for the 6 Nations, a promotion relegation system that would encourage countries to build. Wales were for it, Scotland and Italy were backing a vote, Ireland opened the floor for discussion and thought it deserved a vote, France were open to democratic discussion but didn't favour it. England were against it and held a form of veto with their ex-pat brigade. Now this closed shop scenario was (in this case) purely for European rugby, but would have far reaching consequences.

It would never work in football as it would mean the all powerful continental associations would lose a modicum of power, plus if it meant one of the financially powerful sides missing out on an event - heaven forbid the tv and advertising revenue of France should lose out - then it would be blocked.

There is work to be done to help smaller nations, though giving them an event of their own might be one of the only ways. Winning something (like in the GAA system - Rackard Cup etc) could give impetus to improve, plus a winning side, though money talks and it won't happen.

[geysir]

A 7 team group would be a problem.
A 6 team qualification group doesn't present a great problem. There's even room for one or two new associations, Kosova?
A couple of teams don't hack it but that's about it. Some teams climb out of the bottom pot and others drop in there for a while.

[pineapple stu]

Disagree. Elo is based mainly on predicting what will happen next (or being 'realistic', if you prefer) rather than measuring what happened last. So it will always favor bigger/ stronger countries and disadvantage smaller fry even when they pull off surprise wins.
How do you figure that?

The point of the Elo system is that a set ratings gap translates to a set chance of winning - so if you're 100 points lower than someone else, that by definition means you should win one time in three (or draw twice and lose once). If you do better than expected, your rating goes up (i.e. you're better than was thought) and your opponent's rating goes down (i.e. they're not as good as was thought).

Any ratings system predicts what will happen next - the better team should do better. Elo is a statistical method to use past results to work out the likelihood of future results. It doesn't favour bigger/stronger countries at all.


Liechtenstein managed two in Euro 08.
And just beat Lithuania as well.

[Gather round]

The point of the Elo system is that a set ratings gap translates to a set chance of winning - so if you're 100 points lower than someone else, that by definition means you should win one time in three (or draw twice and lose once). If you do better than expected, your rating goes up (i.e. you're better than was thought) and your opponent's rating goes down (i.e. they're not as good as was thought)

Stu- I've just tried unsuccessfully to find my previous post about the Elo system. IIRC, it was from about December 2009, ie just after all the European qualifiers for the 2010 finals were known. A number of them were ranked lower than other countries who had failed to qualify, with fewer points. That suggests to me that the Elo system, for all its complexity, has a pretty basic flaw. By not simply presenting the ranking based on points at the end of qualifying, or a whole tournament, it ignores reality.


Any ratings system predicts what will happen next - the better team should do better. Elo is a statistical method to use past results to work out the likelihood of future results. It doesn't favour bigger/stronger countries at all

A ratings system based on, effectively, league performance in 10 or 12 matches over 15 months does that only incidentally, in the way that one based on 38 league matches over nine months does.

Elo favors some teams based on critieria other than recent results in the way I describe above. Those criteria are broadly longer term results, which tend to give advantage to 'bigger' teams.

[sullanefc]

Ideal potential group(s) in Bold.

Spain, Netherlands, Germany, England, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Norway, Greece

France, Mont, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Turkey, Serbia, Slovakia

Ireland

Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Georgia, Lithuania, Scotland, North, Austria, Poland

Armenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Faroes,

Wales, Liechtenstein, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra, San Marino

[Gather round]

Ideal[/ avoidable] potential group(s) in bold[/ italic]:

1 Spain 15882, 2 Netherlands 1542, 3 Germany 1305, 4 England 1146, 5 Portugal 1076, 6 Italy 1059, 7 Croatia 1033, 8 Norway 972, 9 Greece 959

Haven't had an Oranje derby in ages, plus ex-Chelsea stalwart Ken Monkou's pancake restaurant is worth a visit. Croatia's Police offer away fans an armed guard, I've heard. We've played Italy/ SMR five times since 2008. Norway expensive but exotic? Portugal for the suntan, hopefully.

Pot 2: France (cheap), Monte (beatable), Russia (exotic), Turkey (suntan). We've played all the others recently.

Pot 3: Anyone in this section has some attractions, although Dublin would likely be riotous, Ukraine or Belarus expensive. Personal preference Hungary, Suisse, Belgium.

Pot 5: Pot luck here. The Mac could be interesting, even Crusaders socred a couple when over...

Pot 6: Eurostar to Lux or L'hospitalet pres l'Andorre, s'il vous plait? Wales are due a finish above us.

[ArdeeBhoy]

One slight problem for you with those scenarios....

[Bungle]

Ideal potential group(s) in Bold.

Spain, Netherlands, Germany, England, Portugal, Italy, Croatia, Norway, Greece

France, Mont, Russia, Sweden, Denmark, Slovenia, Turkey, Serbia, Slovakia

Ireland

Bulgaria, Romania, Albania, Georgia, Lithuania, Scotland, North, Austria, Poland

Armenia, Estonia, Cyprus, Finland, Latvia, Moldova, Macedonia, Azerbaijan, Faroes,

Wales, Liechtenstein, Kazakhstan, Luxembourg, Malta, Andorra, San Marino

This seeding melarchy means that it throws everything up in the air. We're either going to get a brilliant piece of luck, a mixed bag or an absolute stinker of a group. Then again we qualified out of a very tricky group in 2002.

I'd like to avoid the Dutch and the Spanish for obvious reasons in pot 1 as I think we'd be lucky to take a point off them.
The Germans have an outstanding team, but I think we could take 1 if not 2 points off them.
I'd prefer to avoid England, because I don't think I could bear the thought of losing to them and their fans would run amok in Dublin. Having said that, I think we could take anything from 1-4 points off them. Personally I think it's more likely to be 1.
Portugal are an inconsistent bunch. At their best, they could stretch our midfield and boss us around, but then again they can be awful as well. I'd feel that we could beat them in Dublin and maybe get a draw in Lisbon.
With Trap manning the team, I feel that we would take 2 points off Italy, though I do think that Italy will really begin to come good in the next few years, as they have some excellent players coming through to replace the old guard.
Croatia are deserved 1st seeds. They are perenial qualifiers and have quality throughout their team. However, I think we could take anything from 2 to 4 points off them.
Norway are for me a pot 3 team that has benefitted greatly from this ranking system. Good team yes, but I would feel that we could take 4-6 points off them.
Greece probably deserve to be 1st seeds for their qualification pedigree in recent years, but I would be disappointed with anything less than 4 points against them.

In pot 2, the teams to avoid are France, Russia and Serbia. All 3 of these teams are not unbeatable, but with a very good 1st seed, it would be a bit of a horror draw. However, I think that we could take a decent amount of points off all of them.
Turkey would be a team to avoid as well. Decent team and a very tough place to play. They can be inconsistent though and I'd have confidence that we could pip them to 2nd or maybe 1st.
Montenegro deserve so much respect, but over 2 matches I think we'd take anything from 2-4 points off them.
Slovenia are of a similar ilk to Monty, but I don't think they have as much quality and I think we could take 4 points off them and perhaps 6.
Sweden and Denmark are similar in many ways. I'd be confident of taking 4 points off both, but I would be concerned at their ability to amass points in places, where we traditionally slip up.
Slovakia are the poorest pot 2 side and I'd expect nothing less than 4 points off them.

In pot 4, three teams that stand out as ones to avoid are Bulgaria, Romania and Poland. Okay Romania have been awful for the last few years, but they recently walloped Bosnia. All three have a footballing pedigree that makes them very dangerous 4th seeds. I wouldn't be too confident that we could win against any of these 3 away and I wouldn't be too sure of beating them in Dublin either.
Scotland are a poor team, but it would be a derby. i think we'd beat them in Dublin and draw in Glasgow. I'd feel that a game against Northern Ireland would be the same outcome also. I wouldn't be too confident of beating them in Belfast.
Austria are a mediocre team and I'd expect 6 points off them.
Lithuania and Georgia are two must wins also. However, I'd prefer to avoid Georgia if I had a choice of the two.

In pot 5, I'd rather avoid Cyprus. Tricky team that could cause us alot of bother over there like they always do. Armenia would be a similar team to avoid. Decent enough and they have an ability to turn teams over on their place. Macedonia don't seem to be as good as they used to be, but tricky enough all the same. Azerbaijan in Baku could be tricky also. All of the teams in this pot are 6 pointers and nothing else is good enough.

In pot 6, the team that stands out is the Welsh. They have some very very good players and lets not forget it's a derby. I'd predict 4 points, but I'd be hoping for 6.
Kazakhstan would be a tough away trip, but we would just need to get the job done and take 6 points from them.
Anything less than 6 points against any of the other teams would be terrible.

Worst case group
Spain, France, Romania, Armenia and Wales

Dream group
Norway, Slovakia, Lithuania, Faroes and San Marino

My prediction

Greece, France, Poland, Macedonia and Kazakhastan.

[ArdeeBhoy]

With you on the dream group....

So that won't happen.
:(

[pineapple stu]

Stu- I've just tried unsuccessfully to find my previous post about the Elo system. IIRC, it was from about December 2009, ie just after all the European qualifiers for the 2010 finals were known. A number of them were ranked lower than other countries who had failed to qualify, with fewer points. That suggests to me that the Elo system, for all its complexity, has a pretty basic flaw. By not simply presenting the ranking based on points at the end of qualifying, or a whole tournament, it ignores reality.
Without seeing exact examples, it's hard to properly refute your point, but differences in group strength would easily explain this. You wouldn't expect the same points tally from a group containing Montenegro as bottom seed versus one with San Marino as bottom seed. Consequently, fewer points could still indicate a better performance, and a better team. Similarily, coming third - and missing qualification - could easily come down to a freak result, like the group winner slipping up at home to second with the group already won. Does that make the third placed team any weaker?

As a chess player - which uses the same system to rank every player from beginner to World Champion - I can say the Elo system is statistically very fair. You may have to adjust it for football a bit - reduce the importance of friendlies is the obvious one, but that's easily done - but it doesn't have the flaws you suggest.

[Gather round]

Without seeing exact examples, it's hard to properly refute your point

Fair enough. Alas the Elo rankings site doesn't easily enable me to compare the whole table from one year to the next, as FIFA's does. Unless I've musunderstood its structure. Anyway, as far as I remember three of the teams who qualified for 2010 had a lower ranking in the first half of that year (ie after qualifying finished) than three who didn't, and who earned less points.

The current table ranks Wales at 35th in Europe, NI 37th. Respective comparable qualifying record to date? We've got five points from four games, they've chalked up a big fat zero.


but differences in group strength would easily explain this

They don't explain my admittedly less wide-ranging stat above (we're lower because we normally lose friendlies). Wales's group has only two 2010 finalists, ours has three. Differences in group strength are a red herring; even if the seedings were based on only the most recently completed qualifying, as I'd prefer, you'll get some anomalies. Which is why I say the groups are of roughly equivalent standard, not exactly. And the standard varies across even a single tournament. In August 2010, Euro 2012 Group C looked stong; after NI couldn't beat Faeroes, Estonia lost there, Slovenia only managed one point of six against us and Serbia have been a bit of a train wreck off the field as well as on, it doesn't so much.


You wouldn't expect the same points tally from a group containing Montenegro as bottom seed versus one with San Marino as bottom seed

Only if it considered only those two games out of ten in isolation. Remember that in that group's case, it also included the less than World-beating Georgia and Cyprus- they won three matches between them in 30 attempts. So, see above: the overall standard of the groups tends to even out. Even Montenegro's special status (as a 'new' country) is a bit misleading. In WC 2014 qualifying, you might not expect as many points against Wales as someone else could notionally hope for versus San Marino- but you'll still need them to progress from the group, and they'll still be equally discounted when comparing second-place teams. Wales are bottom feeders this time because they are at their weakest for years. They are a bit unlucky (I reckon) because if the draw had been delayed until November I imagine they wouldn't still be in the bottom pool. But they'll just have to tough it out.


As a chess player - which uses the same system to rank every player from beginner to World Champion - I can say the Elo system is statistically very fair. You may have to adjust it for football a bit - reduce the importance of friendlies is the obvious one, but that's easily done - but it doesn't have the flaws you suggest

I don't play chess, but asked a friend (decent standard club player) who agreed with you. Then again, you don't need to compare every football team globally; just the 53 taking part in Euro qualifying, fully seeded into nine groups to provide roughly equivalent standard.

However...saying that you may have to adjust it is a bit odd, when the Elo system's supporters have been publicisng their rankings since 1997. Isn't 14 years long enough for the maths professors to finesse out the crap friendlies?

I've outlined its basic fault- at the end of qualifying and tournament finals (ie the only time when the rankings really count for much; you don't read that much into the English PL table in November or February) it has a number of results that contradict reality. The complexity and the reference to long-past tournament results don't help (the latter shared with FIFA's ranking system).

ELO's own website says, "Ratings tend to converge on a team's true strength relative to its competitors after about 30 matches. Ratings for teams with fewer than 30 matches should be considered provisional". Which rather misses the point that for most European teams, each competition only lasts 10 matches over two seasons.

[pineapple stu]

No offence, but there's a difference between not understanding why things are and that thing being wrong. You haven't outlined any basic fault at all; I just don't think you're looking at the results in enough detail. I don't know the ins and outs of the ratings, but for example, NI's draw against the Faroes possibly cost them as many points as any of Wales' defeats.


saying that you may have to adjust it is a bit odd
You're missing my point - you may have to tweak the system used in chess when comparing football teams. This could easily have been done from the start; just needs a bit of thinking. So you just weight friendlies less than competitive games (there's no comparative weighting in chess, which is why I'm saying you may have to adjust it). So for a game between two teams of the same rating, a competitive game might see the winner jump ten points and the loser drop ten points, while the same result in a friendly might see a jump of +/- 2.5. And the same result in a finals game might see a 15 point swing. (And indeed, just looking on wiki, that is taken into account (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Football_Elo_Ratings))

I don't see what the problem is that a team's rating is really over 30 games. What this means is that say had Montenegro won their first game, they'd have been rated infinity. That's clearly nonsense. Had they won 2 of their first 3, they could have been 1900 (125 points above the average of their opponents). Say they then lost their next game, they might drop to 1800 (the same as the average of their opponents). That's a big drop, and that's why you need a set number of games before these big variations die out (30's a bit high; I've seen 20 or 9 used). And what it also means is that results more than 30 games ago don't really affect the rating - which is what you want. One year - as you suggest - is way too short. Six years - as I think FIFA use - is arguably too long.

On the groups thing, don't forget friendlies are included in the ratings as well, so winning a group isn't the be all and end all. And yes, while group strength will roughly balance out - though it's still a factor to consider - you didn't address my point of a freak result unconnected to your team being the difference between second and third.

Ultimately, the system works, more or less literally by definition. I think arguing against it on vague grounds while not exploring the reasons behind the ratings changes is a bit like arguing against science because it sounds wrong, even though it's been proven.

[Gather round]

[
No offence, but there's a difference between not understanding why things are and that thing being wrong. You haven't outlined any basic fault at all

None taken. Er, I have explained a basic fault- that the rankings don't match performance in competition- and explained why.


but for example, NI's draw against the Faroes possibly cost them as many points as any of Wales' defeats

Indeed, so one point is worth less than none. It's pointless (pardon the pun) complexity. Note that I compared results excluding the Faeroes, as there are only five teams in the Wales group. On 1 July last year, we started level on zilch, now we've five more points than they do. There's no need (other than pandering to its sponsors) to have a ranking system beyond that revealed in qualifying and tournament finals; that can be used to set seedings. Similarly, there's no need to track detailed rankings back to the dawn of FIFA time- tournament performance summarises it quite well.


You're missing my point - you may have to tweak the system used in chess when comparing football teams. This could easily have been done from the start; just needs a bit of thinking. So you just weight friendlies less than competitive games

No, I get your point. Including friendlies in the rankings is genuinely pointless (again, sorry) because they're separate and irrelevant to competition results. I'm assuming they're in the calculations largely to bul k the data and make it more sellable?


I don't see what the problem is that a team's rating is really over 30 games

I explained. For most teams, who don't qualify, a tournament lasts ten games. Then, on 1 July after the finals end, you turn the clock back to zero.


One year - as you suggest - is way too short. Six years - as I think FIFA use - is arguably too long

Strictly, it's about 18 months (July to the following December). Without laboring the point, each tournament could easily be self-contained for ranking purposes. At the end of each qualifying, you have a ready made table to seed the next one.


you didn't address my point of a freak result unconnected to your team being the difference between second and third

I don't think it's significant. Your position depends on aggregated results over 30 games in the group, of which you play in 10. That's more than enough to overcome freak results.


Ultimately, the system works, more or less literally by definition

It wokrs in chess; it's unnecessary in football and contradicts more straightforward, widely accepted results (you know, where one point outranks none).


I think arguing against it on vague grounds while not exploring the reasons behind the ratings changes is a bit like arguing against science because it sounds wrong, even though it's been proven

Straw man alert. I backed my claims with evidence

[pineapple stu]

None taken. Er, I have explained a basic fault- that the rankings don't match performance in competition- and explained why.
And I've said that if you can provide a solid example, I'll have a look at it and refute it.


No, I get your point. Including friendlies in the rankings is genuinely pointless (again, sorry) because they're separate and irrelevant to competition results. I'm assuming they're in the calculations largely to bul k the data and make it more sellable?
Friendlies are in at half the weight of qualifiers; I think they're still a generally good indication of team quality. Remember that the more info you get about the relative quality of teams, the more meaningful the ratings will be. Why leave friendlies out just because they're not qualifiers?


I explained. For most teams, who don't qualify, a tournament lasts ten games. Then, on 1 July after the finals end, you turn the clock back to zero.
I don't what setting the clock back to zero has to do with anything?


Strictly, it's about 18 months (July to the following December).
Nope; FIFA rankings use results going back over the last four years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Rankings).

And again, why restrict info on seeding teams to one campaign? Why not use more info to get better results?


Your position depends on aggregated results over 30 games in the group, of which you play in 10. That's more than enough to overcome freak results.
Again, you've missed my point, which is to say that a third-place finish in a group could be an equal or better achievement than a second-place finish in a similarly strength group if one result, which you have no influence over, goes against you.


It wokrs in chess; it's unnecessary in football and contradicts more straightforward, widely accepted results (you know, where one point outranks none).
There's absolutely no reason why one sport would be different to another. This part of your post - and in particularly, the bit in brackets - shows you don't actually understand the basic premise of Elo ratings. NI outrank the Faroes by 250 points, so they should score 75% over time. So if they draw, they've scored 0.25 less than they should have. Wales are 300 points lower than England, so should score 17% over time. So if they lose, they've scored 0.17 less than they should have. So we can see that the North drawing against the Faroes is a worse result than Wales losing to England (relative to what was expected of them). The point is that the Elo system is far more precise than just "win/lose/draw".


Straw man alert. I backed my claims with evidence
Where?

[ArdeeBhoy]

Stu wins on points I reckon.
And by 'points', mean a unanimous decision....

Actually, make that a country mile.

[Gather round]

Friendlies are in at half the weight of qualifiers; I think they're still a generally good indication of team quality

I disagree, as I've repeated; they're basically irrelevant to the quality shown, and obvious, in competition results.


Remember that the more info you get about the relative quality of teams, the more meaningful the ratings will be. Why leave friendlies out just because they're not qualifiers?

Baloney. You leave them out because they're irrelevant. You might as well include results from U-21, women's matches or Eurovision.


I don't see what setting the clock back to zero has to do with anything?

Er, it would reflect what happens in real life; England and Montenegro start every competition equally, ie on nil points: if the latter team win the group, it makes them automatically better (and thus higher ranked, you'd think) than the former.


Nope; FIFA rankings use results going back over the last four years

I was talking about what I think the rankings for European should be, not what FIFA uses; a simple table of results from one July to the following November.


And again, why restrict info on seeding teams to one campaign? Why not use more info to get better results?

I've explained repeatedly. It disadvantages teams (generally from smaller, weaker countries) who have one good competition amidst others where they do less well. An example between Slovenia in WC 2010- they finished five points ahead of NI in the same group, yet were seeded lower in the next qualifiers.


Again, you've missed my point, which is to say that a third-place finish in a group could be an equal or better achievement than a second-place finish in a similarly strength group if one result, which you have no influence over, goes against you

I haven't. Third place in group X with say, 19 poiints obviously means earlier elimination than runner up with 18; but it still takes credit into the next seedings, in my ideal system. Otherwise, it's just a quirk of the impossibility of every team in the competition playing every other twice.


The point is that the Elo system is far more precise than just "win/lose/draw"

I understood Elo's premise quite well, thanks. Aggregating points in competition over 10 matches is 100% precise, simple to understand and uncluttered by irrelevance like friendly results. Of course I appreciate Elo's worth elsewhere, it simply isn't needed for Euro 2012,

[zero]

apologies if this has been mentioned, but if the info on wikipedia is correct:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UEFA_Euro_2012_qualifying#cite_note-11

' Each nation's coefficient and ranking position for the draw and final Euro 2012 draw will be calculated per results up to and including 11 October 2011'

then should we finish second, we will (almost?) certainly be seeded in the playoffs. finishing as best second place team is now very unlikely given sweden's form, but of the clutch of second place teams our ranking

http://www.world-results.net/uefa/ranking.html#2011

is better than:

in group A: Belgium and Turkey, who are gunning it out for 2nd
in group C: Slovenia and Serbia (ditto)
in group D: Belarus / Bosnia
in group G: Montenegro / Switzerland
and group H: Norway currently second (we're above them in ranking), but could be caught by Denmark (above us).

that leaves 4 or 5 teams below us, meaning we would be seeded, and therefore playing one of the above mentioned teams. serbia and switzerland look the 2 to avoid to me. actually turkey or bosnia would be another grim prospect.

[Stuttgart88]

Sweden still ahve to go to Hungary and Finland, so may well drop more points. Don't they have Holland at home too, or have they played twice?

[ifk101]

Yes Sweden have a fixture against Holland remaining. Don't see them dropping points against Hungary or Finland.

[the bear]

http://www.uefa.com/uefaeuro2012/standings/round=15171/group=700961/index.html

still have hollnd at home on final day, and hungary away in next match who need a win to retain any hope of qualifying. i reckon they will defo drop points. bear in our results against the bottom teams in the group won't be counted in

[ifk101]

Sweden have played Hungary a number of times in recent qualifiers and won all those games. They certainly have the metal edge over the Hungarians who are a pretty average team tbh.

Sweden beat Finland 5-0 in their most recent qualifier. Think our match against NI to get an idea of how one-sided that game was.

Playing Holland at home last suits the Swedes. Holland will be qualified by then and are likely to rest players accordingly. Holland hammered Sweden in the first game so I'd imagine the Swedes will be out to prove they are better than the result in Amsterdam.

I think Sweden have the best second placed team in the bag.

[the bear]

if sweden beat finland, san marino & hungary but lose to the dutch, they will end up on 24 points (-6 from games v san marino = 18)

we would require to win all our games to beat that with 25 points (19), but sure if we win all our games we would win the group anyway so i agree sweden seem to have it in the bag. unless hungary or finland can pull one over them, they could prob afford to draw one of those matches and still get it

[geysir]

Swedes are far from certainties. Hungary are no pushovers, Finland would be up for their game and Holland play a mean dead rubber.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Let's worry about coming second ourselves before we worry about anyone else...

[the bear]

lets worry about coming first before we worry about coming second

[AlaskaFox]

31st: http://greenscene.me/2011/06/ireland-up-to-31st-in-fifa-world-rankings/

England 4th? Italy 6th? Mexico 9th?

[Crosby87]

So England are better than Brazil now?

[cornflakes]

The North went up 3 places? Here (http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html#confederation=0&rank=205) is the full rankings

[ArdeeBhoy]

It's not April 1st is it??
:confused:

[geysir]

The North went up 3 places? Here (http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ranking/lastranking/gender=m/fullranking.html#confederation=0&rank=205) is the full rankings
Save some of my browsing time, which page are they on?

[Metrostars]

Must be that some old good results dropped off. e.g. US beat Jamaica last week but the US went down and Jamaica went up...

[swinfordfc]

So we are 31st placed .... will we changed at all at the end of july?

[swinfordfc]

Would beating Croatia do our rankings any good as they placed 9th ... even though its only a friendly?

[Charlie Darwin]

Beating a team ranked about you always boosts your points total, but I think it's only worth half (or less) of a competitive fixture.

[Closed Account]

Maximum points we can get is 31 points to 783(a draw is worth two points to 754, a loss is -13).
That would land us somewhere between 28-30.

http://www.football-rankings.info/

[Closed Account]

Ireland will improve to 31st in the rankings in August. (a win would of seen us in 30th)

Thanks to Edgar (http://foot.ie/members/12168-Edgar) and the excellent http://www.football-rankings.info/

http://www.football-rankings.info/2011/08/fifa-ranking-august-2011-final-preview.html

The Netherlands will take over the World no.1 spot thanks to a combination of London Riots and Italy
http://www.football-rankings.info/2011/08/fifa-ranking-netherlands-dethrone-spain.html

[Gather round]

Euro 2012 qualifying ranking table to 10.8.2011. For each team, results against the four other best placed teams are counted to allow for groups of only five teams:

1, Germany 5-15
1, Netherlands 5-15
1, Spain 5-15
4, Italy 5-13
5, Sweden 5-12
6, England 5-11
6, Montenegro 5-11
8, R Ireland 5-10
8, Russia 5-10
8, Portugal 5-10
8, Norway 5-10
8, Denmark 5-10
8, Croatia 5-10
8, Israel 6-10
8, Turkey 6-10
16, Czechia 5-9
17, Greece 4-8
17, Belarus 5-8
17, Belgium 6-8
20, Bosnia 5-7
20, France 4-7
20, Slovakia 4-7
23, Georgia 6-6
23, Hungary 5-6
25, N Ireland 4-5
25, Switzerland 5-5
25, Bulgaria 5-5
25, Armenia 5-5
25, Slovenia 5-5
25, Serbia 5-5
25, Romania 5-5
25, Albania 5-5
33, Scotland 4-4
33, Lithuania 5-4
33, Austria 5-4
33, Estonia 5-4
37, Azerbaijan 5-3
37, Moldova 5-3
37, Liechtenstein 5-3
40, Cyprus 4-2
41, Macedonia 5-1
41, Latvia 5-1
41, Iceland 5-1
41, Faeroes 6-1
41, Luxembourg 6-1
46, Finland 4-0
46, Wales 4-0
46, San Marino 5-0
46, Andorra 5-0
46, Kazakhstan 5-0
46, Malta 5-0

Guaranteed at least play off
Eliminated

[ArdeeBhoy]

You are confusing us.

We already have enough other measures of relative status. So what?