FIFA world ranking

[URZZZZZ]

1 - Spain

2 - Germany

3 - Colombia

4 - Argentina

5 - Netherlands

6 - Italy

7 - Portugal

8 - Croatia

9 - Brazil

10 - Belgium

While we sit down in 14th, how Columbia are up there I don't know

[SPARTA]

While we sit down in 14th, how Columbia are up there I don't know

Clearly they're performing a lot better than we are.

[URZZZZZ]

Surely they have not been performing better than others such as Italy, Brazil and Portugal

[SPARTA]

Surely they have not been performing better than others such as Italy, Brazil and Portugal

Why don't you check? How have they been performing in their own tournaments and friendlies?

[Silver Fox]

I'm amazed there isn't someone who doesn't understand the FIFA rankings every time they're announced

[genome]

FIFA rankings are ridiculous?

[stealthpapes]

I'm amazed there isn't someone who doesn't understand the FIFA rankings every time they're announced

Every. Fucking. Month.

[Sanguine]

I'm amazed there isn't someone who doesn't understand the FIFA rankings every time they're announced

Every. Fucking. Month.

This. How many facking times.

[Sanguine]

FIFA rankings are ridiculous?

For a rankings system they are about as accurate as they can be. More points for winning, more points for beating better teams, more points for winning more important games.

[stealthpapes]

The reasons why they 'fail' and, frankly, I'm not entirely sure they really do are:

1) limited data set to base them on - only a handful of games every few months

2) arbitary weightings for conferences and, imo, African teams get overrated compared to European

3) inherent randomness of football - a 'better' side does not always defeat a team below it. Of all the major team sports, football is defiantly the most random on this basis.

[Sanguine]

3) inherent randomness of football - a 'better' side does not always defeat a team below it. Of all the major team sports, football is defiantly the most random on this basis.

Agree on football in general, but actually notice the opposite with competitive internationals, there seem to be very few genuine shocks.

[stealthpapes]

I'd want to see the stats. I think the gaps in quality are much bigger, you'd need to turn predicted odds into a goal difference or probability and compare from that.

[PieEater]

They may be stupid but they are the reason we are in a group with Poland and Ukraine, their ranking dropped because they hosted the last tournament so didn't play qualifying games.

[Barry the bird boggler]

They may be stupid but they are the reason we are in a group with Poland and Ukraine, their ranking dropped because they hosted the last tournament so didn't play qualifying games.

Exactly. Plus the last ranking I saw, a few months back, had England as high as 4th so the whole thing is just ridiculous rubbish.

[Sanguine]

They may be stupid but they are the reason we are in a group with Poland and Ukraine, their ranking dropped because they hosted the last tournament so didn't play qualifying games.

Exactly. Plus the last ranking I saw, a few months back, had England as high as 4th so the whole thing is just ridiculous rubbish.

Fcuk. Me.

The rankings make total sense based on the results of football matches actually played.

[Ian Royal]

I get the feeling people think the rankings would be better if they were just arbitrarily assigned to whoever they thought was good rather than on any sort of meaningful (if perhaps a little flawed) formula.

[Sanguine]

I think the only real improvement that could be made to the rankings would be to extend the time period over which they are judged - lessens the impact of hosting a major tournament on your ranking, for one.

But other than that - should you get more points for winning more important matches? Yes. Should you get more points for beating teams ranked higher than you? Yes. Should you get more points for winning an away game than a home game? Yes. The formula seems pretty logical.

[LUX]

Make it totty based

1: Czech Republic
2: Italy
3: France
.
.
.
.
92 Ingerland

[Brum Royal]

I think the only real improvement that could be made to the rankings would be to extend the time period over which they are judged - lessens the impact of hosting a major tournament on your ranking, for one.

But other than that - should you get more points for winning more important matches? Yes. Should you get more points for beating teams ranked higher than you? Yes. Should you get more points for winning an away game than a home game? Yes. The formula seems pretty logical.

'Greed. Two years of playing friendlies with a much lower multiplier does seem to have far too much of a bearing on your ranking position - for instance Brazil dropped down to about 17th I think as they were only playing friendlies, but they have then risen to 9th on the back of the Confederations Cup and some competitive matches.

Not that it really matters too much in South America, as their qualifying group for the World Cups just comprises all the nations anyway, it's not like their system is the ranking and pots for groups system that we have to use due to the number of European nations.

[Libertine]

While we sit down in 14th, how Columbia are up there I don't know

Clearly they're performing a lot better than we are.

The Sept. 12th rankings have the US at 13th and England at 17th. Same logic apply?

Tbh that is why I at the FIFA rankings. Going into the 2006 WC they had the US ranked 5th in the world...