FIFA rankings thread

**tetsujin1979** · 21/09/2011, 10:40 AM

Ireland climb to 28th in latest rankings: http://www.fifa.com/worldfootball/ra...llranking.html
Russia remain in 13th, but Slovakia tumble 13 places to 39th
Armenia jump 27 places to 44th

**shakermaker1982** · 21/09/2011, 11:33 AM

Spain back where they belong.

**BonnieShels** · 21/09/2011, 11:36 AM

Boooooooooo!

**EastTerracer** · 21/09/2011, 12:23 PM

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

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

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

If only I could be this productive at work.....

**Serb** · 21/09/2011, 1:16 PM

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

**French Toasht** · 22/09/2011, 9:57 AM

Originally Posted by EastTerracer

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

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

Great chart by the way!

**swinfordfc** · 22/09/2011, 7:06 PM

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

**EastTerracer** · 22/09/2011, 7:35 PM

Originally Posted by French Toasht

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

Great chart by the way!

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

**ArdeeBhoy** · 23/09/2011, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by swinfordfc

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

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

**Closed Account** · 23/09/2011, 12:47 AM

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

**geysir** · 23/09/2011, 9:17 AM

Originally Posted by joe_denilson

As I understand it, all your results over a calendar year are averaged together, so your end of year results 'appear' to have less of an effect

Calendar year means Jan -Dec?
The 12 months averaging and 4 year adjustment on the FIFA ranking table is calculated every month for each team.

**Closed Account** · 23/09/2011, 9:24 AM

Originally Posted by geysir

Calendar year means Jan -Dec?
The 12 months averaging and 4 year adjustment on the FIFA ranking table is calculated every month for each team.

Yes Calendar year Jan-Dec. Thats just my interpretation from this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_Wo...ulation_method

Teams' actual scores are a result of the average points gained over each calendar year; matches from the previous four years are considered, with more weight being given to recent ones.

I might look into it further, or else just wait around until someone corrects me. (The latter sounds more likely)

Scratch that:
http://www.fifa.com/mm/document/fifa...e_wrpoints.pdf

A team�s total number of points over a four-year period is determined by adding:

the average number of points gained from matches during the past 12 months; and
the average number of points gained from matches older than 12 months (depreciates yearly).