Official Football Thread

FIFA ranking 17 July:

RnkTeamPts+/- Pos
1 Germany17241
arrow_Up_Green.gif

2 Argentina16063
arrow_Up_Green.gif

3 Netherlands149612
arrow_Up_Green.gif

4 Colombia14924
arrow_Up_Green.gif

5 Belgium14016
arrow_Up_Green.gif

6 Uruguay13301
arrow_Up_Green.gif

7 Brazil1241-4
arrow_Down_Red.gif

8 Spain1229-7
arrow_Down_Red.gif

9 Switzerland1216-3
arrow_Down_Red.gif

10 France12027
arrow_Up_Green.gif

11 Portugal1148-7
arrow_Down_Red.gif

12 Chile10982
arrow_Up_Green.gif

13 Greece1091-1
arrow_Down_Red.gif

14 Italy1056-5
arrow_Down_Red.gif

15 USA989-2
arrow_Down_Red.gif

16 Costa Rica98612
arrow_Up_Green.gif

17 Croatia9551
arrow_Up_Green.gif

18 Mexico9302
arrow_Up_Green.gif

19 Bosnia and Herzegovina9172
arrow_Up_Green.gif

20 England911-10
arrow_Down_Red.gif
 
Ecuador aren't a bad side, and Switzerland had Ricardo Rodriguez (I keep thinking Alberto Del Rio's manager) and Xherdan Shaqiri as stand-out players. The only thing Uruguay did to stand out was Suarez's bite, otherwise they were just as poor as England and Italy.
 
FIFA World Rankings have nothing to do with displays. They have to do with results. It's not a subjective list. England and Italy were ranked very highly before the tournament. So was Switzerland but Ecuador wasn't. Also, Switzerland conceded 5 goals against France. The opponent's FIFA ranking, the goals scored all play a factor in FIFA World Rankings.
 
Ehh. FIFA rankings are subjective because the rankings are based on a numbers system that adds extra or less value based on certain imaginary factors, like how good a team is. That's something that can never really be qualified. I mean, we know that Germany is better than, say, Tonga, but there's no math to really express that. That's what the rankings attempt to do, but as any maths person will tell you, these sorts of things are highly based on the ratios used to say who is better than who, and that is made up by subjective humans.
 
Imaginary factors? That's ridiculous. FIFA World Rankings takes factors like success in past tournaments and recent matches into account. Recent matches have a higher value to reflect the current state of the team but past tournaments also play a role. Continents also have their coeffiicents depending on the overall success of the countries of that continent.

I'm afraid you're misinformed about the ratios used in official rankings. There's no basis on "how good a team is" in FIFA World Rankings. For example Italy has a higher coefficient than Switzerland despite being ranked lower because they were finalists in Euro 2012. If Italy and Switzerland played the same teams, scored the same amount of goals, conceded the same amount of goals and ended with the same result, Italy would receive a bigger boost to their points in the rankings.

UEFA uses the same system for their rankings and they look at the past 5 seasons to set up the coefficients. For example, Barcelona's 2008-09 Champions League victory had an effect on Spain's coefficient this season but will no longer have that effect starting with the 2014-15 season.
 
Last edited:
Imaginary factors? That's ridiculous. FIFA World Rankings takes factors like success in past tournaments and recent matches into account. Recent matches have a higher value to reflect the current state of the team but past tournaments also play a role. Continents also have their coeffiicents depending on the overall success of the countries of that continent.

FIFA World Rankings takes no factors like success in past tournaments into account on a team basis. They take collective account of success at World Cups for the Confederation coefficient that is used, but other tournaments like Euro Cup are not calculated except for how their individual games went in the tournament. These games are weighted at a factor of 3x.

I'm afraid you're misinformed about the ratios used in official rankings. There's no basis on "how good a team is" in FIFA World Rankings. For example Italy has a higher coefficient than Switzerland despite being ranked lower because they were finalists in Euro 2012. If Italy and Switzerland played the same teams, scored the same amount of goals, conceded the same amount of goals and ended with the same result, Italy would receive a bigger boost to their points in the rankings.

No, you're misinformed here. Teams no longer have individual coefficients. They now use their most-recent FIFA rankings for this, by using the formula 200-current ranking. IE, in the current system, England would have a ranking-based coefficient of 180. The exception is the top team (Germany is assigned 200) and teams 150th and lower, which receive a bare minimum of 50 points. This is then divided by 100 to determine what it would be on a scale of 0.5-2. So England would have a team coefficient of 1.8, which does not look at all at Euro Cup results. If Italy and Switzerland played the same teams and the games ended with the same results (because goals are irrelevant to FIFA, and you should stop mentioning them), they would receive the exact same amount of points, assuming they were playing during the same FIFA Rankings period.

UEFA uses the same system for their rankings and they look at the past 5 seasons to set up the coefficients. For example, Barcelona's 2008-09 Champions League victory had an effect on Spain's coefficient this season but will no longer have that effect starting with the 2014-15 season.

UEFA and FIFA use wildly different methods for calculating national coefficients these days. They used to use a similar method, but UEFA uses goals now, and FIFA doesn't. They also hand out set amount of points, and FIFA doesn't. Your information is woefully out of date, and it's really negating your understanding of how FIFA works.

Here's the actual math for FIFA:
P = (M x I x T x C)x100
Points = Match won or drawn X match Importance X opposing Team value X opposing Confederation coefficient.

M= 3 for a win, 2 for an penalty kicks win, 1 for a tie or penalty kick loss, and 0 for a loss (meaning the end result is 0).

I= match importance as decided by FIFA. As decided by humans, and humans alone. 1 for a friendly, 2.5 for a World Cup or Confederation Cup qualifier, 3 for a Confederation final or Confederations Cup match, 4 for a World Cup Finals match. This number is not changing nor is it determined by anything other than FIFA assigning a weighting to the competition. It is the #1 spot humans weigh in directly.

T= opposing team value, as described above. For England, currently 1.8.

C= Confederation coefficient. This is based entirely on the Confederation results for the last 3 World Cups. The top conferences are assigned 1, and it decreases from there. Currently, both UEFA and CONMEBOL have a coefficient of 1.

The entire list is set up to run on values that humans assign and decide. It's very subjective. It doesn't change, because the methodology is consistent, but the methodology is very subjective. It's set up to emphasize certain tournaments over others, and to allow 12 years of results to influence one aspect where only 4 years of results are used for the points.

For reference, regardless of who beats England in a friendly today, they would get the following:
100x3x1x1.8x1=540

All points in a year's period are then averaged out, and a percentage of that awarded to the final total.

http://www.fifa.com/worldranking/procedureandschedule/menprocedure/
 
My misinformedness is true, fair enough (I was following the model before 2006). However, none of these points support the argument of the rankings being subjective. Including the "match importance" one. It's quite clear in world football which competitions are the more important ones. I still don't see the subjectiveness here. The methodology doesn't have any effect on how teams are ranked, there's no bias. If the perceived strength of a team, the importance of a game all sit on consistent methods, it has no effect whatsoever on my original point. The reason why Uruguay had the upper hand against Switzerland is the fact that England and Italy had much bigger combined strength than Ecuador and Honduras and there's nothing unfair about it.

And actually, I think the fact that methodology depends on human judgement is BETTER for the rankings. FIFA Rankings are significantly better now than they were before 2006. Teams like United States and Mexico saw absurdly high rankings because of their weak competition. IIRC, both teams saw the 4th place in 2006 and it drew huge criticism which led to the system change. Granted I didn't go into depths of that.
 
Last edited:
Triple post but all posts are unrelated so I'm going for it.

6 Shakhtar Donetsk players, Alex Teixeira, Douglas Costa, Fred, Dentinho, Facundo Ferreyra and one unknown, declined to board the plane to Donetsk after their friendly match against Olympique Lyonnais. Obviously because of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 incident.
 
Back
Top