A strongly worded complaint needs to be lodged post haste!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoss
Printable View
A strongly worded complaint needs to be lodged post haste!Quote:
Originally Posted by TheBoss
Congratulations all on yr surge up the rankings. The Great Powers that are Bosnia and Netherlands well in the sights now.
Baby steps - we only ever target our next nearest rival. So we have our sights firmly set on the Ivory Coast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
Remember Linfield FC had to put a sign in their store window on the Shankill Road during the run-up to the 2014 World Cup so as to reassure potential irate customers the display didn't feature an Irish tricolour (despite us not having qualified and, well, the one on display obviously not being our flag)?:Quote:
Originally Posted by tricky_colour
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaYuncIWQAQ7Egj.png
Best laugh of the day, Danny.
http://www.rte.ie/sport/soccer/2016/...orld-rankings/
29th, one place behind the North.
Looks like we'll drop a couple of places. A win would have had us in 25th
Rank Old Team Total Points Previous Points 1 2 ARGArgentina 1532 1457(1456.62) 2 1 BELBelgium 1352 1506(1505.58) 3 5 CHIChile 1348 1307(1307.49) 4 8 COLColombia 1337 1215(1215.28) 5 4 GERGermany 1309 1355(1355.48) 6 3 ESPSpain 1277 1374(1373.71) 7 6 BRABrazil 1251 1254(1254.25) 8 7 PORPortugal 1184 1234(1233.94) 9 11 URUUruguay 1158 1082(1082.47) 10 9 ENGEngland 1069 1112(1111.63) 11 10 AUTAustria 1067 1095(1095.41) 12 13 ECUEcuador 1019 1039(1038.9) 13 20 TURTurkey 983 943(942.97) 14 12 SUISwitzerland 974 1070(1070.02) 15 14 ITAItaly 959 999(999.39) 16 22 MEXMexico 933 902(902.48) 17 15 NEDNetherlands 931 997(997.45) 18 19 HUNHungary 925 951(950.9) 19 16 ROURomania 922 990(990.42) 20 21 BIHBosnia and Herzegovina 913 917(917.4) 21 24 FRAFrance 907 871(871.12) 22 27 UKRUkraine 880 845(844.79) 23 18 CROCroatia 856 965(965.08) 24 17 WALWales 839 984(983.8) 25 33 CRCCosta Rica 826 784(784.47) 26 28 NIRNorthern Ireland 825 833(833.49) 27 31 POLPoland 822 789(789.26) 28 23 RUSRussia 821 892(891.57) 29 25 CZECzech Republic 810 861(861.02) 30 30 USAUSA 810 792(791.89) 31 29 IRLRepublic of Ireland 792 809(809.47) 32 26 SVKSlovakia 784 858(857.52) 33 37 ALGAlgeria 771 743(742.56) 34 36 CIVCôte d'Ivoire 738 744(743.83) 35 38 ISLIceland 724 741(741.41) 36 34 SWESweden 713 769(769.03) 37 39 GREGreece 695 718(718.47) 38 41 GHAGhana 693 656(655.91) 39 43 PARParaguay 690 642(641.93) 40 45 SCOScotland 687 617(617.23) 41 40 DENDenmark 686 706(705.75) 42 44 IRNIran 672 627(626.53) 43 48 SENSenegal 652 603(603.48) 44 35 ALBAlbania 632 754(753.58) 45 42 PERPeru 625 646(646.04) 46 31 CPVCape Verde Islands 620 789(789.38) 47 47 TUNTunisia 620 609(609.22) 48 49 TRITrinidad and Tobago 592 598(598.46) 49 50 SRBSerbia 581 596(595.57) 50 46 FINFinland 558 615(615.27)
any early word on how the tournament will affect our ranking?
Would the Italy win be cancelled out by the two losses and draw? Should be jumping over Russia at any rate.
The other good thing is that our dire results of 4 years ago will now drop off from the calculations too.
Use the Prognosis tool on the FIFA website..
We should move ahead of Bosnia, Czech, Russia, Costa Rica. So maybe about 29.Quote:
Republic of Ireland
REPUBLIC OF IRELAND
Current Rank33
P
=
M
*
I
*
T
*
C
FRA2- 1IRL26 JUN 2016
0 0 3 183 0.99
ITA0- 1IRL22 JUN 2016
1675 3 3 188 0.99
BEL3- 0IRL18 JUN 2016
0 0 3 198 0.99
IRL1- 1SWE13 JUN 2016
490 1 3 165 0.99
CURRENT POINTS 768
POSSIBLE RANKING POINTS 843
Just short of Romania and USA. Will have to watch our backs for Iceland, think we are okay for the moment but they could get a whole lot more points if they beat England.
Probably.
It doesn't really matter though. It's too difficult to keep a valid rankings of teams that only play a dozen times per year and hardly ever play each other competitively (For example how on earth are you supposed to rank Ireland against USA, Costa Rica when the last time Ireland played a competitive game against a non-UEFA team was Saudi Arabia in 2002!?). The FIFA rankings are too sensitive at the moment.
The next time it will matter will be for the drawing of the Pots for the 2018 World Cup - so about Oct 2017 rankings will matter. But only to assign the top seeds the rest of the pots are usually determined geographically ....
Up to 26th possibly but Iceland could pass us with a win.
Rank Team New 1 ARGArgentina 1585 2
BELBelgium 1455 3
GERGermany 1342 4 COLColombia 1298 5 CHIChile 1276 6
ESPSpain 1205 7 BRABrazil 1156 8
ENGEngland 1140 9
FRAFrance 1138 10 URUUruguay 1130 11
PORPortugal 1124 12
WALWales 1087 13
ITAItaly 1080 14 MEXMexico 1044 15 CROCroatia 1022 16 ECUEcuador 1002 17
POLPoland 974 18 SUISwitzerland 958 19 HUNHungary 915 20 TURTurkey 915 21 AUTAustria 894 22 SVKSlovakia 867 23 ROURomania 856 24 USAUSA 855 25 NEDNetherlands 848 26 IRLRepublic of Ireland 843 27 CRCCosta Rica 840 28
ISLIceland 829 29 NIRNorthern Ireland 822 30 UKRUkraine 801 31 BIHBosnia and Herzegovina 799 32 ALGAlgeria 781 33 PERPeru 765 34 CZECzech Republic 756 35 CIVCôte d'Ivoire 751 36 GHAGhana 749 37 ALBAlbania 739 38 RUSRussia 728 39 IRNIran 674 40 SWESweden 669 41 SENSenegal 651 42 PARParaguay 636 43 EGYEgypt 632 44 DENDenmark 630 45 TUNTunisia 627 46 KORKorea Republic 592 47 SCOScotland 584 48 GREGreece 579 49 JAMJamaica 573 50 CPVCape Verde Islands 545
Thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by davidatrb
Didn't realise that we would move ahead of Ukraine and N. Ireland too. That's a big drop for Ukraine. Surprised about N. Ireland as they got a win in the tournament too and were already a good 90-ish pts clear of us in the current rankings. Also missed that we jump ahead of Algeria. Algeria had no opportunity for big ranking points scoring like EURO 2016 or Copa America.
How many more wins do Belgium or Germany need to knock Argentina off the top? Or if England win the Euro will they clinch top spot in the FIFA rankings?
Also increasing the size of the Euro competition helps the UEFA teams in general clock up more points, more games, more opportunities.
Think we be actually 31st in my calculations on 800pts on July 14?
New Rank Team New 1 ARGArgentina 1585 2 BELBelgium 1401 3
GERGermany 1330 4 COLColombia 1298 5 CHIChile 1276 6
WALWales 1182 7 ESPSpain 1165 8 BRABrazil 1156 9
ITAItaly 1155 10 URUUruguay 1130 11
FRAFrance 1124 12
PORPortugal 1121 13 ENGEngland 1107 14 MEXMexico 1044 15 CROCroatia 1022 16 ECUEcuador 1002 17 POLPoland 972 18 SUISwitzerland 958 19 HUNHungary 915 20 TURTurkey 915 21
ISLIceland 901 22 AUTAustria 894 23 SVKSlovakia 867 24 ROURomania 856 25 USAUSA 855 26 NEDNetherlands 848 27 IRLRepublic of Ireland 843 28 CRCCosta Rica 840 29 NIRNorthern Ireland 822 30 UKRUkraine 801 31 BIHBosnia and Herzegovina 799 32 ALGAlgeria 781 33 PERPeru 765 34 CZECzech Republic 756 35 CIVCôte d'Ivoire 751 36 GHAGhana 749 37 ALBAlbania 739 38 RUSRussia 728 39 IRNIran 674 40 SWESweden 669 41 SENSenegal 651 42 PARParaguay 636 43 EGYEgypt 632 44 DENDenmark 630 45 TUNTunisia 627 46 KORKorea Republic 592 47 SCOScotland 584 48 GREGreece 579 49 JAMJamaica 573 50 CPVCape Verde Islands 545
July FIFA Ranking Top 20
1. Argentina
2. Belgium
3. Colombia
4. Germany
5. Chile
6. Portugal
7. France
8. Spain
9. Brazil
10. Italy
11. Wales
12. Uruguay
13. England
14. Mexico
15. Croatia
16. Ecuador
17. Poland
18. Switzerland
19= Hungary
19= Turkey
http://www.espnfc.us/blog/fifa/243/p...na-stay-on-top
Will be published Thursday.
correct, 31st in the rankings released today: http://www.fifa.com/fifa-world-ranki...men/index.htmlQuote:
Originally Posted by swinfordfc
Wales 11th
Austria 21st
Serbia 47th
Georgia 118th
Moldova 166th
I don't think Moldova are that bad, nor Georgia nor Serbia. Certainly Moldova have appeared better than 166th in the world.
They seem consistently competitive but usually lose so difficult for them to work up ranking points I suppose, the weaker UEFA sides are probably at a big disadvantage here?
They haven't conceded more than two goals in 29 games I make it! That's remarkable really for a team ranked 166th.
Lost all but two of their qualifiers for Euro 2016, drew away to Liechtenstein and (bizarrely) got a point away to Russia, equalising immediately after conceding a penalty in a 1-1 draw.Quote:
Originally Posted by paul_oshea
A nice mixture of Russian, Italian, and Romanian names there :)
Ya i've noticed in qualifying before they are always only a goal or so away from a great result.
That's a lovely looking small compact stadium. If a LOI club had that now it would provide for a great atmosphere. Looking forward to seeing it now.
Well last night would have not helped us in any way moving upwards!
And so it shouldn't! In fact we should be penalised for arranging such a nonsense fixture. :p
Money makes the world go round....Quote:
Originally Posted by DeLorean
Still 31st in the next one .... but have drop points ... into the 700's
26th, up ten places year on year in the elo ratings: http://www.eloratings.net/ (I buy these statistically generated rankings way over FIFA's skewed system)
Think we are down to around 34th later this month when they come out!
Both systems are statistically generated and both are skewed. Elo ranks a team that managed a win and a draw in the Euros higher than one which won four games in reaching the semis. It's also fairly pointless including North Cyprus, Greenland etc who don't play in FIFA/ UEFA competitions.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Broadly, FIFA 'rewards' recent good performance, Elo predicts future scores based on every past result ever.
As we've just finished the Euros and the WC qualifiers have just started, the UEFA prize money table is as good as any guide. You're joint 14th in Europe, Wales are 4th.
Elo doesn't base on every past result ever. In an Elo rating, typically only the last 100 results are included; any older results are completely out of the system by then.
I don't know the background behind Portugal and Wales' respective ratings, but it's very trite to suggest that they're wrong purely because of the euros (in which Wales lost two games and Portugal lost none, incidentally). Portugal did better in qualifying than Wales, for example (7-0-1 v 6-3-1). And Portugal reached the 2014 World Cup, whereas Wales were second last in their qualifying group.
This information certainly comes out of the blue. Time for us to face the music and ditch this system.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
*grabs coat*
Their website suggests otherwise:Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elo website
I didn't mention Portugal, the comparison was Wales and Ireland (in direct response to you talking up your own team's rating). Elo slightly overrates you based on recent form (ie the current and most recent tournament) and underrates Wales to a much larger extent. Which doesn't actually give it much credibility as a barometer of recent achievement.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple Stu
I quoted evidence of Elo's triteness above.
The ratings go back to the start of time, but Elo ratings by their very nature will only reflect the most recent 100 or so matches. That's just how they work. So while the guys have gone back to the start of time, effectively, a 1910 win by Ireland v England will not be reflected in the 2016 rating. It's simply too far back in time to have an effect any more. The two teams' ratings would today be the exact same regardless of that 1910 result. (In fact, the link you quoted says that ratings will converge on a figure after 30 matches. So you yourself quoted a refutation of your own "all matches" point. I think once you go to 100 matches, there's literally no impact on a rating (to all intents and purposes anyway - to a number of decimal points)
I didn't talk about Ireland's rating? But let's also bear in mind that Ireland also had a better qualifying campaign than Wales in 2014 and qualified for 2012. These results do still count towards both an Elo rating and a FIFA rating - and rightly so. You can't just rate countries based on one summer. However, if Wales continue playing better than Ireland, our rating will fall, and theirs will rise. And this, in fact, is exactly what is happening - Ireland have gained 36 points in the past year, while Wales have gained 88 points in the same time.
I don't think you understand how Elo ratings work.
In fact, you can compare the two countries' ratings over time -
So you can see Wales have been catching us in recent years, exactly as I suggested. Indeed, Wales had passed us out before we beat Moldova and they drew with Georgia at the weekend. If Wales can keep up their Euro 2016 form, they will pass us out again quite soon - possibly even by beating us in Cardiff next March (if they do beat us)Code:Date Ireland Wales
13/10/2016 1757 1745
30/06/2016 1737 1728
31/12/2015 1748 1650
30/06/2015 1696 1676
31/12/2014 1711 1597
30/06/2014 1665 1569
31/12/2013 1689 1562
30/06/2013 1726 1582
31/12/2012 1704 1555
30/06/2012 1712 1604
You don't pay absolute heed to exact rankings as with any ranking system - Ireland aren't suddenly a better team than Wales because they drew with Georgia on Sunday for example - but Elo ratings are based in statistical mathematics, they do work, and they are used in other areas (e.g. chess and Go world rankings)
Not that it's relevant to what you're discussing but Wales come to Dublin in March and we visit Cardiff in the final game.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Whoops! You're right.
It's actually slightly relevant as Wales would get more Elo points by beating us away than by beating us at home I think.
They don't work very well as an effective measure of recent achievement in football tournaments, as I demonstrated. Basically because they aren't based on the two-year tournament cycle after which every team starts again on zero points. FIFA's system has many faults, but it does reflect this to some extent (by weighting results two or three years ago in a previous tournament at only 20% or 30% of those this season).Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
Given the above, I see little point in familiarising myself with the details (although I readily accept their application elsewhere, eg in chess). Which needs some way of comparing a huge number of players and tournaments. International football, with only 200-odd teams and a simple tournament structure doesn't. So the system is unlikely to be adopted by FIFA, a good thing in my opinion. If it were, one of the likely effects would be usually unsuccessful teams (Wales, Iceland, NI) not getting appropriate reward (ie high seeding) following a one-off success.
I suspect you don't understand that just because something is a) professionally interesting to you and b) of nominal benefit to your team doesn't make it universally beneficial ;)
I may be going slightly out on a limb here, but I'd hazard a guess the reason for this is the fact it's not supposed to measure recent achievement in football tournaments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gather round
It's a great discovery to find a fellow enthusiast. It's not before time (though it was, of course...)Quote:
Originally Posted by SkStu
That was my point. Instead, it acts effectively as a predictor of future results. I prefer to use a bookie for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlie Darwin
FIFA rankings include data on games over the past four years.
The Elo ratings site says its ratings include data on the past 30 games - which is actually a shorter timeframe. So the Elo system actually goes the way you want it to - it includes fewer results. (30 games ago for Ireland brings you back to Costa Rica 1-1 Ireland in June 2014)
In both cases, older games are weighted much less. It is not the case, as you suggest, that the FIFA system is the only one that weights older games less; Elo does this too. If you go back to that Costa Rica friendly and say we won, we would have gained an extra 20 points. But if you keep all other results since then the same - so the only difference is now that we beat rather than drew with Costa Rica 30 games ago - Ireland's rating today might be 1 or 2 points higher.
In both cases, there will be a bit of a lag when a team improves quite quickly (like Wales have done). In neither case will a team shoot to fourth in the rankings purely by cirtue of reaching a semi-finals, as you seem to be suggesting should happen. This would be daft as you'd then have huge swings, which would kind of go towards invalidating the entire point of rankings. A similar argument would say that it would be daft to have Wales ranked ahead of Ireland when we're ahead of Wales in the qualifying group at the moment.
The only real difference is that FIFA rankings are based on a makey-uppey formula used only by FIFA, while Elo ratings are based on statistical mathematics and are used in many other sports. I know which I'd prefer.
For the record, I have no professional interest in Elo statistics, and I couldn't give a flying ****e where Ireland are ranked in the world.
Seriously, your argument doesn't stack up here, not helped by the fact that you admit you don't understand how Elo works. I'm not sure how that makes you qualified to dismiss it.
Er, I didn't suggest that (FIFA's system was unique in that respect). Incidentally aside from Elo, UEFA's does as well.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pineapple Stu
Yes, I think the potential for 'huge swings' as you call them is a good thing. I explained why above: teams who are normally mediocre can get a tangible credit for improvement in the next tournament (ie immediate higher seeding); teams who stiff and fail to qualify from first seeding get a tougher group next time.Quote:
a team shoot to fourth in the rankings purely by cirtue of reaching a semi-finals, as you seem to be suggesting should happen. This would be daft as you'd then have huge swings, which would kind of go towards invalidating the entire point of rankings
The immediately above doesn't invalidate the entire point of rankings, of course. It just makes your preferred system to calculate them less applicable.
I don't make that argument. My preferred system for ranking would be toQuote:
*A similar argument would say that it would be daft to have Wales ranked ahead of Ireland when we're ahead of Wales in the qualifying group at the moment
a) publish them only once each year (ie immediately after a tournament and at the end of qualifying for the also rans
b) use that from the end of qualifying to seed the next qualifying tournament starting the following year
I've made these points consistently above on this and similar threads.
Fine. We're agreed that FIFA's system is flawed.Quote:
The only real difference is that FIFA rankings are based on a makey-uppey formula used only by FIFA
I didn't dismiss it (specifically accepting its application elsewhere eg in chess). Again, you've ignored or misunderstood what I actually wrote. My argument is quite simple- a ranking system should quickly reward recent past achievement. We're agreed that Elo often doesn't and can't do that. Obviously you think the ranking system should do something else. Fine, I disagree. You haven't put a convincing argument that Elo is self-evidently better suited to football ranking.Quote:
Seriously, your argument doesn't stack up here, not helped by the fact that you admit you don't understand how Elo works. I'm not sure how that makes you qualified to dismiss it
I think I mistakenly quoted you when it should have been John 83 above. Apologies.Quote:
For the record, I have no professional interest in Elo statistics, and I couldn't give a flying ****e where Ireland are ranked in the world