World Ranking

[Gather round]

While it doesn't relate directly to Ireland, this article does a nice job of summarising the ranking situation


the easiest way for the Football Association to have made sure their team got seeded wasn't by getting them to actually play well – which is an awfully complicated business – but by occasionally making sure they didn't play at all

The EFA- like the FAI- can't really afford to pass up friendly dates. They need the income to repay the costs of stadium redevelopment.

[Stuttgart88]

...or to support Enda Kenny's favourite charities.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Ha ha.

[swinfordfc]

It's predicted we'll fall ever so slightly further in the next update: http://www.football-rankings.info/2013/10/fifa-ranking-november-2013-probable_25.html

That does not take into account of Ireland v Latvia game at all ..... and has us down to draw against Poland .... what would it be if we were to beat Poland?

[DannyInvincible]

That does not take into account of Ireland v Latvia game at all ..... and has us down to draw against Poland .... what would it be if we were to beat Poland?

Hmm, that's odd. It does indeed seem the site has overlooked it at least in the list of games that took place on Friday: http://www.football-rankings.info/2013/10/fifa-ranking-november-2013-probable.html

It was a recognised friendly, right?...

Am I correct in thinking that our away friendly against Hungary before the Euros didn't actually count in terms of ranking points as it hadn't been recorded by FIFA as a full international? I recall there was confusion as to whether Duff's 100th cap would actually be recognised. I think the cap was officially recognised by the FAI but I'm not sure FIFA ever formally acknowledged that the game took place.

Whether the prediction site did actually take the Latvia game on Friday night into consideration for November's predicted rankings, I can't be sure. Nor can I be sure where we might be if we beat Poland, sorry. Someone else can do those maths. :)

Doesn't the guy who operates that site post here occasionally as Edgar?

Edit: Aye, seems Duff's cap was recognised by the FAI, as the power to award full international caps is left to the discretion of the associations. The Hungary game itself, however, was not logged by FIFA as a full international, so presumably didn't count in terms of ranking points: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/19662125


Damien Duff's achievement of having reached 100 Republic of Ireland caps will be recognised by the FAI despite an apparent administrative blunder.

Doubts were raised over the legitimacy of Duff's century haul when it emerged a friendly against Hungary has not been logged by Fifa as a full international.

However the FAI has stated it will be awarding caps for the June fixture.

Fifa and Uefa confirmed on Thursday the decision to award a cap is at the discretion of the national association.

Fifa confirmed to the FAI that one of the assistant referees who officiated in the 0-0 draw in Budapest on June 4, Mr David Vang Andersen, was not on the current Fifa list of referees.

An FAI statement explained: "this is the reason why they (Fifa) are not recognising the match for their international coefficient".

The Hungarians, who were not aware of the discrepancy until it surfaced in the Irish media, have assured the FAI they intend to record the fixture as an international match.

The FAI has decided that the players who participated in the Hungary game deserve caps, stating: "particularly Damien Duff for the service that he gave to his country" .

The FAI have informed the retired winger that it will recognise his status as having earned 100 caps for the Republic of Ireland.

[swinfordfc]

67th in the world - our worst ever!

[back of the net]

67th in the world - our worst ever!



actual or predictive? i still see us ranked as 60th on fifa.com

[davidatrb]

I've just been going through the FIFA rankings a bit today and started thinking of the good old days when Ireland were really up there.

We were ranked 6 in Aug 1993, but this doesn’t seem deserved (we had a run of easy games Albania (92), Lithuania (84) and Latvia (82) in 1993). Neither does it seem realistic with that ranking placing us above Brazil who were soon to be 1994 World Champions! In the following months we quickly fell outside the top 10.

Then we were ranked 8 in November 1994 which is a little more realistic on the foot of a successful world cup campaign (beating Italy and progressing past the groups) and a scorching start to the euro 96 qualifying campaign 11 goals in 3 matches culminating in a 4-0 away win against N. Ireland (ranked 44 at the time so they were not tough opposition but at the same time by no means pushovers). We then slipped a little but still the squad of players were the ones that beat Portugal 1-0 in early 1995. So was this the best Irish Team ever?

I dug out a match report for the game against northern ireland, this is the one that seems to have pushed us up into 8th in the world. http://northernirelandmatchreports.wordpress.com/2012/11/06/436/

Anyway the point of the post was this - to put it into context how good they would be today? Below I compare the Irish stars of Nov 94 with current day stars to give a perspective on how good we actually were.








Irish v NI 1994
Club (Club position in 1994/95)
Comparable Current Player



Alan Kelly
Sheffield Utd (Relegated from Prem in 94)
Adam Federici



Gary Kelly
Leeds Utd (5th prem)
Ashley Cole



Phil Babb
Liverpool (4th prem)
David Luiz
(Babb was most expensive defender in Britain at the time, Luiz is pretty expensive too)


Paul McGrath
Aston Villa (18th prem)
Vincent Kompany



Denis Irwin
Man Utd (2nd prem)
Patrice Evra



Staunton
Aston Villa (18th prem)
James McClean



Townsend
Aston Villa (18th prem)
James McCarthy



Sheridan
Sheffield Wednesday (13th prem)
Wes Hoolahan



Keane
Man Utd (2nd prem)
Mesut Ozil
(Keane was most expensive midfield in Britain, I think Ozil is now or must be close)

Shane Long



Quinn
Man City (17th prem)
Shane Long
(top striker at top flight mid table club)


Aldridge
Tranmere (Made promotion playoffs)
Robbie Keane
(Legend still successful at a slightly lower level)




Obviously most of these players I picked for comparison are in the current set up but the difference is that we are now missing some super stars like the stature of Keane, McGrath and Irwin. I think that that is the key - you dont need a team of super stars but if Ireland could unearth two or three more then we could be qualifying and competing at the highest level again soon.

Here is somewhat an explanation of how I picked the comparable players

Adam Federici:
Similar age to Alan Kelly at the time. Keeper recently relegated to 2nd tier. Fedirici has a decent record, international keeper for Australia and already has already played at the highest level in international football.

Ashley Cole:
Recent top flight champion, playing at top 5 team as was Gary Kelly.

David Luiz:
Luiz is one of most expensive defenders in Britain, playing at top 5 team. This may be too generous to Phill Babb, who only seems to have won a League Cup with Liverpool, but the truth is that he was the most expensive defender when Liverpool bought him in 1994 for 3.6million and this fee was a reward particularly for his fantastic performances at International level.

Vincent Kompany:
McGrath was PFA player of the year previous year and a long long successful career with Man Utd. Terry seems to be the only defender with PFA player of the year in recent times - if you think John Terry (honours list including multiple league titles and european honours compared to a few runners-up medals and domestic cup wins for McGrath) is a stretch then Vincent Kompany - recently won player of the year more recent than Terry's PFA player award. Man City are a slipping team similar to Villa were in 94.

Patrice Evra:
He holds down Irwin's position in the current utd squad. Utd have remained consistent since the beginning of the 90's.

James McClean
James McCarthy
Wes Hoolahan:
Staunton, Townsend and Sheridan all playing at lower table teams, to make it easy ill compare these three to three current Irish internationals at lower table teams. On the face of it the midfield was not as impressive as the rest of the team apart from Keane. All the Villa boys would have been competing in Europe in 94/95 (won the League Cup in 94) so I could have put in McGeady there to even out the european calibre of my imaginary current players team! But I dont think I need to. The Villa boys and the Utd boys makes 5 on the European stage back in 94 and that equals the number from my imaginary Comparable Current Players team. Leeds and Liverpool seem to have missed out on European qualification in 1994.

Mesut Ozil:
Roy Keane was on the cusp of captaining one of the greatest team in the world ever in their most successful era in history. He had become the most expensive player in Britain when he transferred to Utd. It is hard to think of anyone currently playing that deserves to be compared to Keane. Ozil became one of the most expensive midfielders recently when he transferred to Arsenal. So this is somewhat similar to Keane's stature at the time.

Shane Long:
Fairly apt comparison with Quinn I think. Solid player at a mid table team, although Quinn did spend a few years with Arsenal. Long hasn’t played at that level ie one of the big 4 teams.

Robbie Keane:
Playing history at some of the top teams in the league and now playing in a lesser league but scoring a lot of goals there, as Aldridge was with Tranmere and top scorer in Division that year. LA Galaxy enjoyng a level of success as Tranmere did back then (gunning for promotion and missing off in play offs three years in a row).

Anyway, just posting this for fun and in case anyone else finds it interesting (hopefully I've put it on the right thread).

[swinfordfc]

actual or predictive? i still see us ranked as 60th on fifa.com

Active now :)

[DeLorean]

Bit of a psychological blow having to scroll to page 3 to find our position!

[DeLorean]

Jaysus, Scotland in 33rd really shows how little we have to do to storm back up the table. I suppose their wins against Croatia were worth huge points.

[DannyInvincible]

Bit of a psychological blow having to scroll to page 3 to find our position!

It's all gone tits up!

[DannyInvincible]

Some more interesting reading on how the seedings were decided for the World Cup draw and how playing certain friendly fixtures in the year running up to the draw can prove detrimental, even if it does describe us as an "average European team like Finland": http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25134584


Eduard Ranghiuc, who runs a football rankings website (http://www.football-rankings.info/), has taken a keen interest in the subject. In April, the Romanian computer programmer wrote to the English FA and advised them to cancel their upcoming friendly games - or try to make these matches "unofficial" by making too many substitutes.

"It was on April 26th, I still have the email. I saw the fixtures they [the English FA] announced against Brazil and the Republic of Ireland and I realised that they were making a mistake with regards to the seeding for the World Cup. I wrote to the FA and I told them that they needed to do something about it. I said treat the friendlies very, very seriously or consider breaching one of the rules… basically making more than six substitutions."

[geysir]

That sounds simple enough, Roy just keeps losing the counting board. Are there any repercussions for a team who keep on making too many substitions?
Is that easier than putting poison into 2 of the assistant refs' cuppa or the mousse, not a fatal dose of course and have a replacement assistant ready to substitute, who was not on FIFA's approved list.

[Gather round]

Of course I realise Eduard wants to publicise his website, but there's a possibly more straightforward way for the Netherlands to improve their World ranking. Just ignore it, and concentrate on getting out of their finals group in the first two.

If they're really that bothered, they could always get together with other big countries and suggest to FIFA, Coca Cola etc. that friendlies simply be discounted in the calculations.

Belgium and Switzerland are ranked and seeded above England and Italy not least because on current competitive form- ten matches over two seasons- they're better.

A small illustration of England's real long-term place in European football is that they've departed at an earlier stage than Germany in 21 of the 22 major tournaments since 1968. Euro 2004 the single exception.

[davidatrb]

Of course I realise Eduard wants to publicise his website, but there's a possibly more straightforward way for the Netherlands to improve their World ranking. Just ignore it, and concentrate on getting out of their finals group in the first two.


But they want to give themselves the fairest chance possible. Much more likely to advance from a group of say Netherlands, Greece, S. Korea, Algeria. Than say Brazil, Netherlands, Italy, Ivory Coast which is now possible for them since they are not seeded. I do feel that they should pay attention to ranking points.

The system is far from perfect and FIFA have tried to change it around a couple of times, but it's fighting a losing battle trying to rank teams when teams play so infrequently. I dont think any of the Nations would be in favour of removing friendlies from the rankings because then the rankings are based on even fewer matches and so more volatile to one off results and banana skins.

There are definitely loopholes in the rankings that should be taken advantage of to give whatever competitive edge possible when it comes to seeding and competitions.



Belgium and Switzerland are ranked and seeded above England and Italy not least because on current competitive form- ten matches over two seasons- they're better.

A small illustration of England's real long-term place in European football is that they've departed at an earlier stage than Germany in 21 of the 22 major tournaments since 1968. Euro 2004 the single exception.


I disagree that Belgium and Switzerland are better than England, Switzerland in particular. They're position seems to be just an aberation of the rankings and heavily influenced by one friendly result against Brazil.

In the past four years England have played all of Belgium Switzerland and Italy in a total of 5 matches - and won 3 and drew 2 of those matches (so unbeaten).

This year both England and Switzerland have had 6 competitive games in total, and both won 4, drew 2. England failed to beat Ukraine (ranked 18) and Montegro (53) while Swiss failed to beat Iceland (50) and Cyprus (127).

So not sure how Switzerland are a better team on current competitive form.

Yes, sure England are not as good as Germany but that's not the issue here.

[DannyInvincible]

Does Eduard (or someone affiliated with the site) post here as Edgar? Why was he, a Romanian, e-mailing the FA in particular anyway? Does he often e-mail numerous associations or does he just have a soft spot for England? Not that I'm belittling what is his very impressive dedication and invaluable work, but it just seemed somewhat unusual. Maybe the majority of the site's audience are drawn from England or something.


The system is far from perfect and FIFA have tried to change it around a couple of times, but it's fighting a losing battle trying to rank teams when teams play so infrequently. I dont think any of the Nations would be in favour of removing friendlies from the rankings because then the rankings are based on even fewer matches and so more volatile to one off results and banana skins.

The UEFA rankings discount friendlies, don't they? If I'm not mistaken, they're calculated by combining teams' performances over the previous three competitive campaigns (including qualification group and finals games whilst excluding non-competitive fixtures) with a weighting of 40 per cent allotted to the two most recent campaigns and a weighting of 20 per cent allotted to the foremost.

[Gather round]

But they want to give themselves the fairest chance possible...I do feel that they should pay attention to ranking points

Of course, but maybe they thought that being the best team (with the most points, just to be clear) in European qualifying would be enough. Or maybe they're confident of seeing off two other teams in Brazil. There are also perfectly straightforward reasons why they might choose to play a friendly against Indonesia (cultural links,marketing opportunities) or even NI (er, cultural links, predictably poor opposition to thrash ;) )...


The system is far from perfect and FIFA have tried to change it around a couple of times, but it's fighting a losing battle trying to rank teams when teams play so infrequently. I dont think any of the Nations would be in favour of removing friendlies from the rankings because then the rankings are based on even fewer matches and so more volatile to one off results and banana skins

Variously,

- most teams play 10 qualifying games in groups of roughly equal standard in a tournament, that's enough to rank them

- one freak result of those 10 shouldn't distort the standings too much

- three or four wins by a lower seed against those higher means that, almost by definition, the wins aren't freakish


There are definitely loopholes in the rankings that should be taken advantage of to give whatever competitive edge possible when it comes to seeding and competitions

OK, but it isn't clear to me that the effort is always worthwhile. Norway, for example, have been high in the rankings and thus seedings recently- presumably by fixture management in part- but haven't qualified for anything this century.


I disagree that Belgium and Switzerland are better than England, Switzerland in particular. They're position seems to be just an aberation of the rankings and heavily influenced by one friendly result against Brazil

No, all their rankings are quite significantly affected by the 10 qualifying games they've all played. Of course, this isn't the only factor, otherwise Bosnia would also (deservedly, I think) be seeded in Brazil.


In the past four years England have played all of Belgium Switzerland and Italy in a total of 5 matches - and won 3 and drew 2 of those matches (so unbeaten).

This year both England and Switzerland have had 6 competitive games in total, and both won 4, drew 2. England failed to beat Ukraine (ranked 18) and Montegro (53) while Swiss failed to beat Iceland (50) and Cyprus (127).

So not sure how Switzerland are a better team on current competitive form

Variously,

- England playing Belgium in a friendly is irrelevant to either of their competitive records

- I judge teams on their record over a whole tournament lasting two seasons. Not aggregating two separate series,or looking at half of one

- in the most recent qualifying series Switzerland got more points than England, so they're better while discounting both the ancient (games four or five years ago), the irrelevant (non-competitive friendlies) and the unnecessarily convoluted (agonising whether Crnagora are a bit worse than Iceland) .


Yes, sure England are not as good as Germany but that's not the issue here

I mention it simply because the writer of the BBC article Danny linked to above seemed to think tradition (ie England winning the World Cup 50 years ago, or Uruguay 60) is or at least should be a material factor in seeding for 2014. I disagree on both counts.

[Gather round]

The UEFA rankings discount friendlies, don't they? If I'm not mistaken, they're calculated by combining teams' performances over the previous three competitive campaigns (including qualification group and finals games whilst excluding non-competitive fixtures) with a weighting of 40 per cent allotted to the two most recent campaigns and a weighting of 20 per cent allotted to the foremost

Yes, as you suggest. Unlike David, I think FIFA are probably quite happy with the current system. Sponsors shell out plenty of cash, most 'big' teams are protected against dips in form, and thousands of us keep interested via discussion sites ;)

UEFA's system is more honest by ignoring friendlies and giving all points gained in the same qualifying competition the same value, but only 40% of the 'credit' coming from the current competition is far too low. It leads to the unfairness,or absurdity even of a team finishing second in one tournament and being seeded only fifth in the next.

I'm guessing E & E are interested in England as a market for their product, given that it's a large country with a big budget and (possibly undeserved*) reputation for scientifcally planning their sporting teams' schedule.

* changing sports to cricket, the England side currently in Australia included for their match in Brisbane last week one guy who hadn't played in a serious game for weeks due to injury and another revealed to have been suffering from a serious illness for the last year or more. The reserves (and possible replacements) include another long-term injury lay off and a bloke who missed half last season due to public problems with alcohol. Given all that their thrashing looks less surprising.

All this with a non-playing entourage that increasingly resembles Hannibal's baggage train across the Alps;)

[geysir]

Does Eduard (or someone affiliated with the site) post here as Edgar? Why was he, a Romanian, e-mailing the FA in particular anyway? Does he often e-mail numerous associations or does he just have a soft spot for England? Not that I'm belittling what is his very impressive dedication and invaluable work, but it just seemed somewhat unusual. Maybe the majority of the site's audience are drawn from England or something.
He's the same guy, Edgar. He's pro active on that site and very helpful in explaining matters to random questioners on the blogs.
Probably likely that someone asked him to inform the FA after a discussion on his site about the permutations.
He was spot on with that advice he gave to the FA and explaining how the Netherlands should not have played those 2 friendlies.
The Netherlands got more points in the WC Qualifiers, more than Switz and Belgium.

Belgium scored high when they won those qualifiers when they were ranked close to 60th in the table.
Italy as Euro 2012 finalists should have been in an unassailable seeded position, but failed to secure it with that home draw against Armenia in the last game.

[davidatrb]

Variously,

- most teams play 10 qualifying games in groups of roughly equal standard in a tournament, that's enough to rank them



But this isnt really true. We are talking about FIFA World Rankings. The structure of the qualifying differs hugely from Europe to South America to Asia, and the standard of teams differ just as much.

Sure you could rank the European teams based on WCQ results or based on the formula that UEFA use but then how do you place the S. American teams along side them. I agree that the FIFA Rankings are flawed, but it is impossible to come up with a simple and fair system. Should they include friendlies? I dont know and I won't argue for or against - but my instinct is yes, use as much info as possible.






OK, but it isn't clear to me that the effort is always worthwhile. Norway, for example, have been high in the rankings and thus seedings recently- presumably by fixture management in part- but haven't qualified for anything this century.



No, all their rankings are quite significantly affected by the 10 qualifying games they've all played. Of course, this isn't the only factor, otherwise Bosnia would also (deservedly, I think) be seeded in Brazil.



Variously,

- England playing Belgium in a friendly is irrelevant to either of their competitive records

- I judge teams on their record over a whole tournament lasting two seasons. Not aggregating two separate series,or looking at half of one

- in the most recent qualifying series Switzerland got more points than England, so they're better while discounting both the ancient (games four or five years ago), the irrelevant (non-competitive friendlies) and the unnecessarily convoluted (agonising whether Crnagora are a bit worse than Iceland) .




Ranking points that the seedings are based on:

7 Switzerland 1138 7 Up
8 Netherlands 1136 1 Up
8 Italy 1136 -4 Down
10 England 1080 7 Up
11 Brazil 1078 -3 Down

Swiss made 3 * 191 * 1 * 1 = 573 points on one friendly versus Brazil, this is averaged over 8 games they played to Oct which I guess divide that by 8 and it boosted their ranking by 70 points which made the difference to push them ahead of Italy, England and Netherland with one single game.

So my point is that Swiss are lucky (or clever) to have made the seedings - but that England are still better and still more likely to do well in the finals.

On one hand you say Swiss deserve to be seeded and are better than England but then on the other hand that they should remove friendlys from the ranking. By removing friendlies then you defeat your own point.

England are better than Swiss on evidence of:
1. recent head to heads (4 yrs ago is not ancient)
2. current form (based on this year which carries most weight)
3. Bookies odds to win (lets face it bookies are rarely wrong).

Swiss are better than England on evidence of:
1. FIFA Rankings.
2. Overall points in WCQ Campagin.

When I judge a team I put more weight on the evidence for England.

[Gather round]

But this isnt really true. We are talking about FIFA World Rankings. The structure of the qualifying differs hugely from Europe to South America to Asia, and the standard of teams differ just as much

I've acknowledged that FIFA's rankings are valuable to FIFA (because they can sell them to commercial sponsors, basically).

Countries from the same continent (the European or South Americans, at least) can be easily compared with each other in the way I described. I don't see much point in comparing countries from different continents at any point other than the end of a World Cup every four years. For teams that don't qualify, why is it a big deal? In 60 years, Northern Ireland have never played an Asian team in competition, the Republic never one from South America. It doesn't really matter how an arbitrary system compares them.


I agree that the FIFA Rankings are flawed, but it is impossible to come up with a simple and fair system. Should they include friendlies? I dont know and I won't argue for or against - but my instinct is yes, use as much info as possible

Aye, that's basically where we differ. I suggest that the more data you use the less likely it is to be relevant, given that it's from long-finished competitions, half-paced friendlies and arcane calculations.


Swiss made 3 * 191 * 1 * 1 = 573 points on one friendly versus Brazil, this is averaged over 8 games they played to Oct which I guess divide that by 8 and it boosted their ranking by 70 points which made the difference to push them ahead of Italy, England and Netherland with one single game

You're reading far too much into that one game. As a comparison, Northern Ireland got 3 * 184 * 2.5 * 1 = 1,405 points for beating Russia in August. Nearly two and a half times more significant ;)


So my point is that Swiss are lucky (or clever) to have made the seedings

They well be both, but your worked example is hardly evidence of it.


but that England are still better and still more likely to do well in the finals

England may well do better in the Finals, but that doesn't mean they were better in the qualifiers. Actually that's a common fault of all the mainstream ranking systems: they record predicted future as opposed to recent past performance, and thus disadvantage smaller teams who enjoy only occasional success.


On one hand you say Swiss deserve to be seeded and are better than England but then on the other hand that they should remove friendlys from the ranking. By removing friendlies then you defeat your own point

Er, no. I suggest that they use ONLY the most recent set of qualifiers in the ranking. In which case Switzerland with 24 points outrank England with 22, it's quite simple.


England are better than Swiss on evidence of:
1. recent head to heads (4 yrs ago is not ancient)
2. current form (based on this year which carries most weight)
3. Bookies odds to win (lets face it bookies are rarely wrong).


1 Qualifying is a mini-league, not a cup-tie. You need to count all the results in the group, not just between two teams. Actually four years ago might as well be ancient, as it was in a different competition and everyone started the next competition with zero points ;)

2 It's a roundabout argument to say that current form ie since January 2013 carries most weight, as there were qualifiers in 2012, each offering three points to the winners. Current form only carries most weight if you accept the FIFA rankings as a self-evident authority, which I don't

3 See above, rankings reflect future prediction rather than recent past achievement. In any case, the bookies' odds reflect money invested, not just who they think will win. In major events like the World Cup there are a lot more occasional punters who just back teams patriotically, sentimentally or at random.


Swiss are better than England on evidence of...
4. Overall points in WCQ Campaign

When I judge a team I put more weight on the evidence for England

Fine, we'll agree to differ ;)

[davidatrb]

I've acknowledged that FIFA's rankings are valuable to FIFA (because they can sell them to commercial sponsors, basically).

Countries from the same continent (the European or South Americans, at least) can be easily compared with each other in the way I described. I don't see much point in comparing countries from different continents at any point other than the end of a World Cup every four years. For teams that don't qualify, why is it a big deal?

Aye, that's basically where we differ. I suggest that the more data you use the less likely it is to be relevant, given that it's from long-finished competitions, half-paced friendlies and arcane calculations.


England may well do better in the Finals, but that doesn't mean they were better in the qualifiers. Actually that's a common fault of all the mainstream ranking systems: they record predicted future as opposed to recent past performance, and thus disadvantage smaller teams who enjoy only occasional success.


3 See above, rankings reflect future prediction rather than recent past achievement. In any case, the bookies' odds reflect money invested, not just who they think will win. In major events like the World Cup there are a lot more occasional punters who just back teams patriotically, sentimentally or at random.



Fine, we'll agree to differ ;)

Yes let's agree to differ for now and bring on June to see who is finally right!

But... (Last word I promise)

Rankings are not future predictions they are all based on past events.

Seeding teams is important so that the best teams all have a chance to progress to the final rounds. So ranking is important especially at the top end and especially between S. Am and Euro but need to be fair to the other confeds and give them a chance for seeding too. We do need an all encompassing process.

Bookies odds from my experience are only slightly influenced by money placed. They seem to very much predict reality.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Apart from affecting tournament draws, why would anyone care...FIFA/UEFA would do better limiting some of the mickey mouse teams now entering their competitions...

[DannyInvincible]

Bookies odds from my experience are only slightly influenced by money placed. They seem to very much predict reality.

Bookies profit from uncertainty. If there was certainty in their predictions, they'd be easily exploited. The nature of betting on any event means that there are potentially so many more possibilities for them (and those who bet with them) to predict incorrectly than there are for them to predict correctly.

If I'm reading you correctly, you're arguing that England are a better side than Switzerland partly because the bookies are favouring the former. I've just had a quick look for what were the odds on teams to win the 2010 World Cup and came across this list supplied by Paddy Power in December of 2009: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/worldcup2010/article-1233276/WORLD-CUP-2010-Bookies-England-second-favourites-win-South-Africa-dream-Group-C-draw.html


9/2 Spain
9/2 Brazil
11/2 England (from 6/1)
10/1 Argentina
12/1 Italy (from 14/1)
12/1 France (from 16/1)
14/1 Germany (from 12/1)
14/1 Holland
18/1 Portugal
22/1 Ivory Coast (from 25/1)
40/1 Paraguay
45/1 Chile
50/1 Mexico
50/1 Serbia
60/1 USA
75/1 Ghana
80/1 South Africa
80/1 Nigeria
80/1 Denmark
80/1 Uruguay
100/1 Cameroon
100/1 Australia
100/1 Japan
125/1 Switzerland
125/1 Greece
175/1 Slovenia
200/1 South Korea
200/1 Slovakia
300/1 Honduras
500/1 North Korea
500/1 Algeria
750/1 New Zealand

I'd be confident you could pull up a bookies list of odds for any event and analyse it in similar fashion, but this'll do to demonstrate my point as a ranking of expectation is apparent. Can we really say they predicted reality or were accurate in terms of how those teams ranked by the end of the competition? Sure, Spain went on to win it, but Brazil, who were joint-favourites with Spain at the time, went out in the quarter-finals. England went out in the second round after finishing second in their "EASY" group. Argentina went out in the quarters. Both Italy and France finished bottom of their respective groups. Germany finished third, whilst Holland finished second. Meanwhile, Uruguay, at 80/1, managed an impressive fourth.

[peadar1987]

Perhaps a way to mitigate the problem would be to discard the best and the 2 worst results from the calculation of the average points per game. It means that teams get punished and rewarded more for consistent performances than for one-off aberrations, and lets teams like Indonesia have their glamour friendlies against the Netherlands without mucking up seedings for the World Cup.

[Gather round]

Last word I promise

Possibly not mine though ;)


Rankings are not future predictions they are all based on past events

They're both. As I mentioned, all the mainstream ranking systems (FIFA, UEFA, Elo) use data not just from the current or just finished competitions, but from two or three going back four or five years. Partly, that's to allow for different timescales of continental competitions, but mainly it's to increase the likelihood of 'bigger' teams being seeded next time. To reflect their perceived longer-term strength, and indirectly to maximise commercial income largely earned by those teams.


Seeding teams is important so that the best teams all have a chance to progress to the final rounds. So ranking is important especially at the top end and especially between S. Am and Euro

Broadly agreed about seeding. I think most fans would accept there being four European seeds this time, given that three of the four semi-finalists were from there last time. Similarly, that none of them are from Africa or Asia, given their consistently mediocre record. And the four Europeans do include the three of the four best records in qualifying (Spain, Germany and Belgium).


but need to be fair to the other confeds and give them a chance for seeding too. We do need an all encompassing process

Less so on ranking. FIFA is already 'fair' to Africa and Asia by giving both of them more finals places than their results warrant (only one African team has reached the last 16 in each of the last four tournaments). Of course that reflects broadly political reasons, the need to develop the game, attract votes and so on ;)

In the same spirit, I'd be quite happy to reserve a seeding for the best-qualifying team from both continents in each tournament. Europe and the Americas can share the other six between them.

The thing is, that as long as teams from any continent only tend to play each other competitively for one month in each four year cycle, and while friendly results are worth only 25- 40% of the competitive equivalent, ANY comparison between Belgium, Brazil, Burkinafaso and Bhutan is bound to be boll...er arbitrary ;)


Bookies odds from my experience are only slightly influenced by money placed. They seem to very much predict reality

As Danny suggests above, often they don't. Their priority is to maximise income from mug punters, not to exactly predict outcomes.

[osarusan]

Bookies odds are basically the price they think they have to offer in order to get people to bet. When a price gets shorter, it's them realising that they didn't need to offer that big a price, and when a price gets longer, it's them reacting to not enough people betting with them.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Possibly not mine though.

If only...
:rolleyes:

[geysir]

Is this discussion about Switzerland being a better team than England? maybe they are, maybe they aren't.
I would hazard a guess that not many have seen Switzerland over the past 2 years.

My opinion is that they are a very exciting team who play good football but are not the whole package, not yet. If England were playing them in a play off, I'd imagine it would be a very close tie with England coming out on top, just about. Switzerland have yet to prove they are worthy of their WC seeded position.
Just saying they are better than England because of their WC qual results and some stats, is pure fancy.

[Gather round]

My opinion is...

...based on a mix of results, stats and fancy, then?

[ArdeeBhoy]

But it's no less interesting or relevant an opinion...

Especially when FIFA/UEFA have no interest in the likes of us and what we have to say...

[geysir]

...based on a mix of results, stats and fancy, then?
At least you have admitted that you haven't seen them play a full qualifier game,

I have just watched a modest 4 full games from their last 10 qualifiers and ... taken notes, only highlights from their other qual games.
But probably Benno has a more rounded appraisal of them as a serious intl team, than me.
To their favour, when the pressure was on in the group, they delivered 2 away wins against teams who were up for the contest.
They have to justify their seeding by performing at the WC and get to the 1/4 finals, that's no small ask.
England getting to the 1/4 finals would be no big shock, getting further would.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Thing is even most Eng.fans would say Switzerland now are a better team...

[geysir]

Thing is even most Eng.fans would say Switzerland now are a better team...
Most England fans have probably not seen Switzerland play in the WC qualifiers, I doubt your suggestion has much value.
The last time they met in Euro 2012 qualifiers, England were the better team.
I wasn't impressed with what Capello achieved with the England team, I think Hodgson is doing a better job.
Both teams are in a better place than the Eur 2012 qualifiers, but as it stands now England have the baton.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Going on their general attitude and demeanour, the ones I've talked to think they would. Been really talking them down, most would consider the Quarters now as par.
Even their media has piped down, though they could get an 'easy' draw in the Finals which could change their mood...

[Gather round]

At least you have admitted that you haven't seen them play a full qualifier game...
I have just watched a modest 4 full games from their last 10 qualifiers and ... taken notes, only highlights from their other qual games

I've never pretended otherwise, nor felt the need to take any notes, other than those which help to summarise the results of a modest 260 games in the European qualifiers ;)

I did watch the Croatia- Iceland playoff though, as NI had no game. Shame your boys had an off-night but that doesn't detract from their achievement in previous games.


But probably Benno has a more rounded appraisal of them as a serious intl team, than me

Indeed. Of course I'm not trying to analyse them game by game. You, Benno and others probably didn't sit through 16 hours of NI's qualifiers but won't have any difficulty appraising how rubbish we were.


[Switzerland] have to justify their seeding by performing at the WC and get to the 1/4 finals, that's no small ask...England getting to the 1/4 finals would be no big shock, getting further would

Points taken, but in a way the Swiss don't have to justify anything. Their status is as much a reward that reduces the pressure on them, as an onerous addition to it. A reward for two seasons of achievement, not just a random snapshot. After all, much/most of the media, fans etc. in Italy, England and Netherlands won't expect the Swiss to outlast their own teams in the tournament.

As you suggest, England clearly have some sort of block about quarter finals.They've reached 18 in 30 attempts since 1960- more than every other European team bar Germany- yet have progressed further only four times.

[swinfordfc]

On 13th December, Ireland will be 68th in the world rankings!

[bennocelt]

.
But probably Benno has a more rounded appraisal of them as a serious intl team, than me.
To their favour, when the pressure was on in the group, they delivered 2 away wins against teams who were up for the contest.
They have to justify their seeding by performing at the WC and get to the 1/4 finals, that's no small ask.
England getting to the 1/4 finals would be no big shock, getting further would.

Ha not really, mostly into the club game here, but have seen them once or twice. Play well as a team, some decent players, good on the ball but i dont think they would beat an england team. England have the individual players (Rooney, Townsend, etc), game changers.
Like the last time they played England -played them off the park IMHO, but still didnt win.

[Charlie Darwin]

Going on their general attitude and demeanour, the ones I've talked to think they would. Been really talking them down, most would consider the Quarters now as par.
Even their media has piped down, though they could get an 'easy' draw in the Finals which could change their mood...
There's still 8 months for them to lose all sense of rhyme and reason. Luckily there is still an England Algeria Switzerland Yanks draw available for them.

[geysir]

Indeed. Of course I'm not trying to analyse them game by game. You, Benno and others probably didn't sit through 16 hours of NI's qualifiers but won't have any difficulty appraising how rubbish we were.
We would not have to have seen NI play to judge them rubbish but we probably would have had to see them and (for example) Luxembourg play to have a more valued opinion on which was the better of the two teams in the last campaign.
Same goes for opinions on what Switzerland and England deserve from their last campaign when it comes to making comparisons between the two.

[Gather round]

We would not have to have seen NI play to judge them rubbish but we probably would have had to see them and (for different example) Russia play to have a more valued opinion on which was the better of the two teams in the last campaign

Or you could have just looked at a league table of six teams playing 10 matches each, rather than jumping to crazily wrong conclusions from having watched one or two games out of those 30.


Same goes for opinions on what Switzerland and England deserve from their last campaign when it comes to making comparisons between the two

Whatever, dude. Enjoy the games.

[ArdeeBhoy]

We have a new broken record...
:rolleyes:

[geysir]

Or just the old broken record that just goes around in circles of wooly-minded arguments.

[ArdeeBhoy]

Somewhat aptly, he does seem to enjoy a rather circular argument...
:rolleyes:

[davidatrb]

Bookies odds are basically the price they think they have to offer in order to get people to bet. When a price gets shorter, it's them realising that they didn't need to offer that big a price, and when a price gets longer, it's them reacting to not enough people betting with them.

In my opinion bookies odds need to be firmly based on reality first and foremost and then with some wriggle room built in in order to mitigate against how much money is invested in a certain outcome etc.

For example on a coin toss there is a 50/50 chance. If everyone bets on heads I'm not going to change my odds to say for example 2/1 to entice some money on tails- because then the real punters in the know will put a hoard of cash on that immediately and I'll be broke. Interested in anyone that knows a lot about how bookies really put their odds together.

Anyway I just happen to have the odds that Bet365 offered going back 10 years in the Premiership.

For example Bet 365 has offered 9/4 on a result 958 different times over the period that I have found odds for. 9/4 basically means 9 non-favourable outcomes for every 4 favourable or in other words 4 "wins" out of 13 = 4 / 13 = 0.308. So when bookie gives 9/4 it implies a probability of 0.308 (30.8%). But to build in a profit margin the actual probabily would be a little less (so the bookie is paying out a little less often than he should be if he was being fair).

Now the actual probability is impossible to know but can estimate how accurate the bookies odds were based on reality, by looking at the actual results of those 958 games. And when I do that the actual percent of favourable outcomes were 30%.

Table below shows Bookies implied probability against the actual calculated for the most common odds offered and comes pretty close to reality. Most of the time bookies implied probability are a little higher as you would expect since they want to make a profit. This table is based off the data that I found for Premiership going back to 2002.


oddsimplied probactualtimes seen
9/40.3080.30958
12/50.2940.28714
11/50.3120.28589
23/100.3030.28470
5/20.2860.27460
13/50.2780.28457
3/10.2500.26388
7/20.2220.19351
4/10.2000.13345
11/40.2670.24327


Anyway, apologies for being so inane!

So, just to be fair - here is the same analysis but only looking at games where Man Utd are involved, which you would consider would attract more casual punters and more uninformed bets! A little more variation from the bookies implied probability and the estimated probability. But they are still close and the difference could be explained because there is maybe not enough data to get a good long run average for the estimated probability.


oddsimplied probactualtimes seen
7/20.2220.2153
4/10.2000.1153
9/20.1820.1052
3/10.2500.3351
13/50.2780.2344
11/20.1540.0840
5/10.1670.1040
9/40.3080.2634
5/20.2860.3333
12/50.2940.1631

[DannyInvincible]

We've risen three places to 65th in the latest rankings.

[tricky_colour]

We've risen three places to 65th in the latest rankings.

Is that because we have not played? :p

[CraftyToePoke]

Scotland are up 15 places to 22nd.

[BonnieShels]

We've risen three places to 65th in the latest rankings.


Scotland are up 15 places to 22nd.

I think this proves finally that the rankings make perfect sense.

What are the UEFA coefficients for us and thon Scotch?

EDIT:

19th in UEFA v 31st in UEFA for themmuns.

Seems about right.

http://www.footballseeding.com/national-ranking-uefa/