QuoteIt's all gone tits up!Originally Posted by 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.
It's all gone tits up!
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
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.
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.
Last edited by Gather round; 29/11/2013 at 2:53 PM.
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.
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.
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 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.
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)...
Variously,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
- 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
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.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
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.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
Variously,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
- 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) .
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.Yes, sure England are not as good as Germany but that's not the issue here
Last edited by Gather round; 29/11/2013 at 7:58 PM.
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
Last edited by Gather round; 29/11/2013 at 8:18 PM.
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by davidatrb; 30/11/2013 at 8:44 AM.
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.
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.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
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 significantSwiss 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
They well be both, but your worked example is hardly evidence of it.So my point is that Swiss are lucky (or clever) to have made the seedings
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.but that England are still better and still more likely to do well in the finals
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.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
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 pointsEngland 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).
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.
Fine, we'll agree to differSwiss 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
Last edited by Gather round; 30/11/2013 at 11:13 AM.
Yes let's agree to differ for now and bring on June to see who is finally right!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
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.
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...
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/wor...up-C-draw.html
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.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
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.
Possibly not mine though
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.Rankings are not future predictions they are all based on past events
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).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
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 onbut need to be fair to the other confeds and give them a chance for seeding too. We do need an all encompassing process
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
As Danny suggests above, often they don't. Their priority is to maximise income from mug punters, not to exactly predict outcomes.Bookies odds from my experience are only slightly influenced by money placed. They seem to very much predict reality
Last edited by Gather round; 01/12/2013 at 1:51 PM.
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.
If only...
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.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks