NationStates Jolt Archive

Rankings, July 2006 (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,All-Jul-2006,00.html)

After seven years under the old system, following the 1999 revision, FIFA has introduced a new system of ranking designed to give a more accurate reflection of world football. Some of the changes from May 2006 (no ranking was published in June because of the World Cup) can be explained by a country's performance in the World Cup, but others can't - notably England (up 5 places), USA (down 11) and Mexico (down 14).

This (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,3,00.html) is an explanation of the differences between the old system and the new system. The new one is very much like the unofficial world ranking done using the ELO system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_football_rating)

bout time, the last rankings were pointless

Northern Ireland up 21 places? Wooo!

Wow o_O US ranks #16... I thought we would've been a lot lower, considering we can't even grasp that the bloody sport is football and instead give the name to something where it flat out does not make sense to give that name to.

We are behind Lithuania...
and CONGO DR!!!
They have a team?

Go Finland! :D

Eh, I say go Italy! :D

I didn't even know the US had a soccer team until not too long ago, and Italy's the coolest country that I have any ancestry from, so it became the team I cheer for xp

Rankings, July 2006 (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,All-Jul-2006,00.html)

After seven years under the old system, following the 1999 revision, FIFA has introduced a new system of ranking designed to give a more accurate reflection of world football. Some of the changes from May 2006 (no ranking was published in June because of the World Cup) can be explained by a country's performance in the World Cup, but others can't - notably England (up 5 places), USA (down 11) and Mexico (down 14).

This (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,3,00.html) is an explanation of the differences between the old system and the new system. The new one is very much like the unofficial world ranking done using the ELO system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_football_rating)
Much better.

e.g.
Importance of match
revised: 1 (friendly match) to 4 (FIFA World Cup™)
Existing: 1 (friendly match) to 2 (FIFA World Cup™)

Number of goals
revised: --
existing: Points value from the difference between goals for and goals against

Home and away matches
revised: --
existing: 3-point bonus for away team

Finally

having people like the USA in 5th place was jsut ridiculous

Wow o_O US ranks #16... I thought we would've been a lot lower, considering we can't even grasp that the bloody sport is football and instead give the name to something where it flat out does not make sense to give that name to.

Actually, that ranking reflects where I thought we were. Wait awhile...we'll be in the top 10 again :D

and CONGO DR!!!
They have a team?


There's no such thing as a country without a national football team.

Actually, that ranking reflects where I thought we were. Wait awhile...we'll be in the top 10 again :D
USA in the top 10!

*points an laughs*

in all seriousness, I still dont see how the USA is in the top 30. They were slaughtred in the World Cup, and they have a bad team. Meh, at least theyre not number 5

There's no such thing as a country without a national football team.

The Vatican?

The Vatican?

It has an official national football team. But it's not a member of FIFA.

To my knowledge, it's only ever played two matches, one of them a 0-0 draw against Monaco.

The new one is very much like the unofficial world ranking done using the ELO system.[/QUOTE]

God I hope world rankings aren't going to be decided by facial hair and ability to play the chello on bad pop songs

Actually, that ranking reflects where I thought we were. Wait awhile...we'll be in the top 10 again :D
No, you won't. European and South American countries have the advantage now because their matches are worth more. The coefficients are something like:

UEFA: 1
CONMEBOL: 0.98
All the rest: 0.85

So USA, being the top ranked CONCACAF team, will have to work very hard indeed to score enough points to break into the top 10. Especially as it's only chance to play competitively against teams from other federations is at the World Cup.

Rankings, July 2006 (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/index/0,2548,All-Jul-2006,00.html)

After seven years under the old system, following the 1999 revision, FIFA has introduced a new system of ranking designed to give a more accurate reflection of world football. Some of the changes from May 2006 (no ranking was published in June because of the World Cup) can be explained by a country's performance in the World Cup, but others can't - notably England (up 5 places), USA (down 11) and Mexico (down 14).

This (http://www.fifa.com/en/mens/statistics/rank/procedures/0,2540,3,00.html) is an explanation of the differences between the old system and the new system. The new one is very much like the unofficial world ranking done using the ELO system. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_football_rating)
I was going to do this but pretty much forgot.
Now i just hav to wait for the other 2 World Cup threads i have in mind to be done.
*waits...*
I think it is good, as the old one was bs.

I was going to do this but pretty much forgot.
Now i just hav to wait for the other 2 World Cup threads i have in mind to be done.
*waits...*
I think it is good, as the old one was bs.
Was one of the others an uber-stat thread? I'll get round to it, don't worry.

Was one of the others an uber-stat thread? I'll get round to it, don't worry.
No, but i'll do one of them now...

Actually the rankings are still flawed.
Scotland at 40 and Serbia went up after being handed their arse?
In fact Serbia should be2nd to last and Montenegro last...

No, but i'll do one of them now...

Actually the rankings are still flawed.
Scotland at 40 and Serbia went up after being handed their arse?
In fact Serbia should be2nd to last and Montenegro last...
This system favours non-European/South American teams less than the old system, so most European and S. American teams have benefitted a fair bit from the change.

This system favours non-European/South American teams less than the old system, so most European and S. American teams have benefitted a fair bit from the change.
I see Nigeria is at 11 and Cameroon at 12 Uruguay at 14 and Australia at 33, i was shocked whe those two African teams didn't qualify and to see Australia at 33 is bizarre, they were the better team when they had the playoff for the last World Cup spot.

I'll list my opinion of how the rankings should be.

Side note:
Tiger Woods took about a year off from playing golf andstill managed to retain enough points to stay #1, that is just wrong.

I see Nigeria is at 11 and Cameroon at 12 Uruguay at 14 and Australia at 33, i was shocked whe those two African teams didn't qualify and to see Australia at 33 is bizarre, they were the better team when they had the playoff for the last World Cup spot.

I'll list my opinion of how the rankings should be.

Nigeria and Cameroon are that good...well, maybe they should be a bit lower, but they should definitely be top 20 and probably top 15. Uruguay is a bit anomalous, but the CONMEBOL coefficient is higher than all others except UEFA, so they benefit from that, as do Ecuador and Paraguay (up 11 and 14 respectively on May '06). Australia suffered because the only match they won at the World Cup was against Japan - a match that had a coefficient of 0.85 - and the 1-0 victory over Uruguay was matched by the 1-0 defeat to them. Plus, they lost two matches at the World Cup. All the matches they played in qualifying for the WC, except against Uruguay, only had coefficients of 0.85.

The coefficient thing is where the rankings fall down - it's fair enough for friendlies to be worth less than World Cup matches, but otherwise a coefficient should just be worked out by the comparative rankings of the teams.

In fact Serbia should be2nd to last and Montenegro last...

Right... Because we all know Montenegro would lose in a match against Montserrat...

196 Turks and Caicos Islands 0 8 -21
196 Guam 0 7 -22
196 American Samoa 0 9 -14
196 Montserrat 0 6 -29

Ah can't be bothered to reformat it. But how the hell did the bottom placed team go up 6 places?! And Mexico deserve to be higher than they are! Cameroon, Nigeria, and USA should all be much lower.

Northern Ireland up 21 places? Wooo!

..which leads me to a question I've always wanted to ask:

Why does the UK get 4 teams while the rest of the planet only gets 1 per country?

..which leads me to a question I've always wanted to ask:

Why does the UK get 4 teams while the rest of the planet only gets 1 per country?
Because there are 4 constituent countries comprising the United Kingdom.

As for me, goddamn it. Guinea and Honduras are ahead of us.
39th? Shit.

There's no such thing as a country without a national football team.

True, but Malawi is close!!:D
I mean c'mon, they lost 0-12 vs Ghana!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malawi_national_football_team

World Cup record
1930 to 1974 - Did not enter
1978 to 1990 - Did not qualify
1994 - Withdrew
1998 to 2006 - Did not qualify

African Nations Cup record
1957 to 1974 - Did not enter
1976 - Did not qualify
1978 - Did not qualify
1980 - Did not enter
1982 - Did not qualify
1984 - Round 1
1986 - Did not qualify
1988 - Did not enter
1990 - Did not qualify
1992 - Did not enter
1994 to 2006 - Did not qualify

Because there are 4 constituent countries comprising the United Kingdom.

As for me, goddamn it. Guinea and Honduras are ahead of us.
39th? Shit.

So why didn't the USSR get 3 (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus)? They were all in the UN, unlike Wales or Scotland or N. Ireland...

How about Czechoslovakia? Shouldn't the Czech Republic and Slovakia have had 2 teams?

So why didn't the USSR get 3 (Ukraine, Russia, Belarus)? They were all in the UN, unlike Wales or Scotland or N. Ireland...

How about Czechoslovakia? Shouldn't the Czech Republic and Slovakia have had 2 teams?
If you ask the Queen nicely she might tell you :p

I think the USSR amalgamation was due to Brezhnev. Something about 'one culture' kinda thing. Everyone was Soviet- not Ukrainian, not Polish, not Uzbek etc etc.

Russification in the Soviet style.

If you ask the Queen nicely she might tell you :p

I think the USSR amalgamation was due to Brezhnev. Something about 'one culture' kinda thing. Everyone was Soviet- not Ukrainian, not Polish, not Uzbek etc etc.

Russification in the Soviet style.

Man, I'm sorry you guys still have to support that bitch! We threw away the Monarchy's yoke 230 years ago! :D

I'd buy that except that even in the 30s there was only 1 Czechoslovak and 1 Soviet team. And at that point, the Czechoslovaks were still a democracy.

About three separate points to make:

1. Why do we need a ranking list at all? What purpose does it serve? If you want to know if team A is better than team B then play a match. The winner is the better team at that moment. It will never eliminate the disputes between supporters about which team is better, they will just say that the ranking system is biased or wrong or whatever. So why bother?

2. The Britrish nations. Each nation has a separate and independent football association, league, and national cup competition. The SPL is not administered by the FA, but by the SFA for example. When Checkoslovakia was one nation, it had one football association, one league etc. The same applies to the USSR and to the former Yugoslavia etc. To have a GB team would mean integrating the SPL and the EPL with the Welsh and Irish leagues. That is simply not going to happen any more than the Yankees and the Red Sox merging.

3. Re Tiger Woods, so - Brazil have taken about a year off and they still lead the rankings too. :p

About three separate points to make:
2. The Britrish nations. Each nation has a separate and independent football association, league, and national cup competition. The SPL is not administered by the FA, but by the SFA for example.
When Checkoslovakia was one nation, it had one football association, one league etc. The same applies to the USSR and to the former Yugoslavia etc. To have a GB team would mean integrating the SPL and the EPL with the Welsh and Irish leagues. That is simply not going to happen any more than the Yankees and the Red Sox merging.


Thanks. That's a bit clearer. However, leagues merge all the time. And your example is a bit off: it's like the National and American leagues merging, as they did in 1892.

There is no reason I can see why there shouldn't be a UK league.

Thanks. That's a bit clearer. However, leagues merge all the time. And your example is a bit off: it's like the National and American leagues merging, as they did in 1892.

There is no reason I can see why there shouldn't be a UK league.

No, my example is spot on, in terms of the possibility of such a merger being accepted by the fans. The English fans and the Scottish fans view each other in exactly the same light as Yankee and Red Sox fans view each other - Spawn of the devil himself, never to be tolerated within 50 miles.

The reason that you can not see why there should not be a UK league is that you do not see Scotland as an territory occupied by a hostile force (the English) which is how many scots do see it.

Those rankings still seem a bit out of whack.

No, my example is spot on, in terms of the possibility of such a merger being accepted by the fans. The English fans and the Scottish fans view each other in exactly the same light as Yankee and Red Sox fans view each other - Spawn of the devil himself, never to be tolerated within 50 miles.

The reason that you can not see why there should not be a UK league is that you do not see Scotland as an territory occupied by a hostile force (the English) which is how many scots do see it.

Um... you're still comparing two leagues to two teams.

That's absurd. All I'm getting out of this so far is that the UK gets 4 teams "just because".
...either the UK is one country or it isn't. What passports do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish hold? Whom do they pay taxes to? QED.

Um... you're still comparing two leagues to two teams.

That's absurd. All I'm getting out of this so far is that the UK gets 4 teams "just because".
...either the UK is one country or it isn't. What passports do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish hold? Whom do they pay taxes to? QED.

The reason I heard was that Football in its modern form was invented by the British so they get 4 teams out of respect for that. But that might just be a story my father made up

Right... Because we all know Montenegro would lose in a match against Montserrat...
I don't think they have played any matches seeng as they are what 1 month old?:rolleyes:

Nigeria and Cameroon are that good...well, maybe they should be a bit lower, but they should definitely be top 20 and probably top 15. Uruguay is a bit anomalous, but the CONMEBOL coefficient is higher than all others except UEFA, so they benefit from that, as do Ecuador and Paraguay (up 11 and 14 respectively on May '06). Australia suffered because the only match they won at the World Cup was against Japan - a match that had a coefficient of 0.85 - and the 1-0 victory over Uruguay was matched by the 1-0 defeat to them. Plus, they lost two matches at the World Cup. All the matches they played in qualifying for the WC, except against Uruguay, only had coefficients of 0.85.

The coefficient thing is where the rankings fall down - it's fair enough for friendlies to be worth less than World Cup matches, but otherwise a coefficient should just be worked out by the comparative rankings of the teams.
I'd put those two African teams in the top 15-25, the fact that none of the African nations(Outside of Tunisia) managed to qualify from the previous cup was astounding.

It's still not very good. Germany is too low, Ukraine too high.

I prefer the Unofficial Football World Championship system anyway.

Um... you're still comparing two leagues to two teams.

That's absurd. All I'm getting out of this so far is that the UK gets 4 teams "just because".
...either the UK is one country or it isn't. What passports do the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish hold? Whom do they pay taxes to? QED.

Their own goverments? Scotland is a sepreate country and quite frankly, forcing one league on four nations would cuase a lot of hassle and the travel time for a highland side against Swansea or Cardiff?

1 Argentina
2 Italy
3 Brazil
4 France
5 Germany
6 England
7 Portugal
8 Spain
9 Netherlands
10 Czech Republic
11 Nigeria
12 Cameroon
13 Sweden
14 Mexico
15 Switzerland
16 USA
17 Australia
18 Ghana
19 Ukraine
20 Côte d'Ivoire
21 Korea Republic
22 Paraguay
23 Colombia
24 Croatia
25 Japan
26 Republic of Ireland
27 Ecuador
28 Romania
29 Turkey
30 Tunisia
31 Denmark
32 Uruguay
33 Greece
34 Chile
35 Bulgaria
36 Iran
37 Costa Rica
38 Norway
39 Egypt
40 Morocco

Thanks. That's a bit clearer. However, leagues merge all the time. And your example is a bit off: it's like the National and American leagues merging, as they did in 1892.

There is no reason I can see why there shouldn't be a UK league.
It's called tradition. It's always been like that, and it always will be like that.

If the English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish leagues merged, then the divisions would look something like this:
Premiership - as it is now, but with three English team removed and Celtic, Rangers and Hearts in it.
Division 1 - Aberdeen, Inverness Cally Thistle, Hibernian and Kilmarnock, plus current English teams.
Division 2 - Remaining Scottish teams, plus existing English teams.
Division 3 - Scottish Division One, plus English Division Three.

All the teams from the Welsh and Northern Irish leagues would struggle in the bottom division of the English league. That's why there's no merger.

-snip-

I think you're being too generous to Argentina, South Korea, Japan and Iran, and too harsh on Serbia, Uruguay, Poland, and probably some other teams you've not put in the top 40.

Australia only 33rd despite being in the top 16 of the World Cup finals?
And what's the go with Uruguay going up? They didn't make the finals, we did.

A bit rough on poor old Mexico.

Their own goverments? Scotland is a sepreate country and quite frankly, forcing one league on four nations would cuase a lot of hassle and the travel time for a highland side against Swansea or Cardiff?

Please give me a link to a picture of a Scottish passport or Embassy.

Hassle? How? By having a big league with competition?

Travel time? Are you shitting me? The entire UK is the size of OREGON. The US and Canada have had travelling baseball and hockey for the past century, and both coutries have had travelling football (their own variants) for about as long.

It's called tradition. It's always been like that, and it always will be like that.

If the English, Welsh, Northern Irish and Scottish leagues merged, then the divisions would look something like this:
Premiership - as it is now, but with three English team removed and Celtic, Rangers and Hearts in it.
Division 1 - Aberdeen, Inverness Cally Thistle, Hibernian and Kilmarnock, plus current English teams.
Division 2 - Remaining Scottish teams, plus existing English teams.
Division 3 - Scottish Division One, plus English Division Three.

All the teams from the Welsh and Northern Irish leagues would struggle in the bottom division of the English league. That's why there's no merger.

AHA! Now there is a sensible answer!

Australia only 33rd despite being in the top 16 of the World Cup finals?
And what's the go with Uruguay going up? They didn't make the finals, we did.

A bit rough on poor old Mexico.
You seem to be forgetting that Australia qualified from a zone where the second best team is New Zealand, and that you both lost and won against Uruguay. Also, the Aussies only won one match at the World Cup, against Japan, and they lost to Brazil and Italy. Their ranking reflects the results quite accurately.

AHA! Now there is a sensible answer!
Thank you. :)

Whoa Lithuania 24 spaces up. Nice:p

You seem to be forgetting that Australia qualified from a zone where the second best team is New Zealand, and that you both lost and won against Uruguay. Also, the Aussies only won one match at the World Cup, against Japan, and they lost to Brazil and Italy. Their ranking reflects the results quite accurately.

OK, good point about Uruguay but we didn't get up too high despite making the 2nd round.

Slovakia is down 3 to 44th place.

Ah well. That's what happens when you take the game off of ice, double the number of players, take away the stick and change the puck to a ball. :D

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/Slovakia_fa.png/100px-Slovakia_fa.png

You seem to be forgetting that Australia qualified from a zone where the second best team is New Zealand, and that you both lost and won against Uruguay. Also, the Aussies only won one match at the World Cup, against Japan, and they lost to Brazil and Italy. Their ranking reflects the results quite accurately.
I prefer the Harlesburg accredited system.;)
It uses a touch of Logic and isn't dictated by BS Sepp 'Dietrich' Blatter cronyisims

I think you're being too generous to Argentina, South Korea, Japan and Iran, and too harsh on Serbia, Uruguay, Poland, and probably some other teams you've not put in the top 40.
Japan maybe but Korea although playing below the standards set in '02 are better than Serbia who i don't believe have played a match since Montenegro left so as far as i am concerned they are 2nd to last.
Uruguay are not better than Australia and i reckon Chile is.
Poland nearly lost to NZ a few years back and the only good thing to come out of the Worl Cup was not losing to Germany by more than 1.